Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 358: Is Hall of Fame Balloting Really Broken?

Episode Date: January 6, 2014

Ben and Sam discuss what the early results of the Hall of Fame voting say about the induction process.

There's one thing, you know, baseball to me has never lost its feeling for me. I love it now as I did when I first started. Yeah, they're going to erect a statue of you. Have you seen the statue? No. Do you know if it looks enough like you? It does. Have you seen it?

I don't know. I haven't seen it. Well, I hope it's in a bathing suit, you know, to show my massive strength. I don't know. To me, it's probably one of the greatest honors I've ever received. Absolutely. And I just don't know what to say except, God, thanks. That's all I can say.

Good morning, and welcome to episode 358 of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from BaseballPerspectives.com. I am Ben Lindberg, joined by Sam Miller, who sounds like he's having some nuts. M&Ms? Almonds. Almonds, okay. First guess was right. I like an almond. Sometimes two. What are we talking about today? Well, Ben, the topic that's on everybody's mind our favorite thing to talk about uh-oh the hall of fame oh you're kidding me i thought we were going to get through this whole hall of fame season having talked about it for about two minutes once well ben let me ask you

something this weekend did you find yourself checking any of the Hall of Fame ballot pulling sites, the collectors, the Baseball Think Factory thing, and I saw something on Tango's site comparing what the gizmo was saying about how people are voting to how the guy who has predicted Hall of Fame results for the last 30 years or whatever it is predicted. But no, I did not spend a lot of time on it this weekend. but no, I did not spend a lot of time on it this weekend. Well, as much as I like to play it cool with regards to the Hall of Fame, one thing I do like is polling, so I have been checking it. They're up to 131 ballots, which is about a quarter of the vote. This seems fairly statistically reliable at this point, although last year, you know, the average player missed by, you know, there were a number of players who missed by five or so percent, which would be enough to sway

a couple of results. But the point is that I feel like this is a pretty good, they'll announce on Wednesday who made the Hall of Fame. But I feel like this is a pretty good – they'll announce on Wednesday who made the Hall of Fame. But I feel like basically looking at this, we pretty much know who's going to make it. And just in case, for your sake and for everybody's sake. Yes. The Gizmo basically has four people making it. Maddox currently is at 100%. Nobody has left him off yet. Glavin is just slightly behind him at 98%. Frank Thomas is at 100%. Nobody has left him off yet. Glavin is just slightly behind him at 98%.

Frank Thomas is at 92%. Craig Biggio is at 81%. Three of those guys seem to be locks. Biggio seems almost certain. Piazza is in the running at 73%. And then Bagwell is 64%, so we'll make it. And Jack Morris is at 60%, so he's not going to make it. Tim Raines, 58, etc. The point, though, is that in anticipation of this, my tea is ready,

hang on. In anticipation of this, this season of Hall of Fame voting, there was a lot of talk about how the system is broken. There was a lot of concern that nobody would ever be elected again, that the ballot would get so crowded that there would be 30 people who were qualified and they couldn't all make it, and that the Hall of Fame itself would go out of business, or not that, but would struggle business-wise because nobody would be being elected and therefore nobody would be going to the annual enshrinement ceremonies. The Baseball Writers Association of America's message boards had threads about whether things needed to be done and what could be done to fix this. It seemed like it was widely accepted and agreed

that the system was broken and we had reached the time to act. I'm looking at this and I've been looking at it for the last two weeks or so since they started collecting this and this is almost the perfect result. There's nothing remotely broken about this in my opinion. You have four people are going to get elected. You might have five. Piazza might get in there, too. You have Jack Morris, who's going to get kicked off the list, having not made it, which most people who we talk to would consider that a sign of a system working.

He will actually probably drop from last year. system working. He will actually probably drop from last year. Next year, with at least four and maybe five guys making it and with Jack Morris being booted off the list, you'll have a lot of space opened up on next year's ballot, even with Randy Johnson and whoever else, John Smoltz I think, or Pedro Martinez or someone, I can't remember, another few people coming in. And then meanwhile, every person with anything like a plausible case for Hall of Fame votes is going to get at least 5% this year and stay on the ballot. And so there isn't this, I mean, I think there was a fear that qualified guys wouldn't even get the 5% and they wouldn't have their chance because the ballots were so crowded.

And how do you get Larry Walker on your ballot if you only have 10 spots? But that's not happening. And so I challenge you to convince me that there's anything remotely broken about this. This seems like an almost perfect result to me. I'm completely heartened by this. There are things that I disagree with, for sure, but Bobby Grich was kicked off the ballot with, I think, four total votes or something like that, and Bobby Grich is better than almost everybody on here. So there's always been cases where you

disagree with the outcome. Overall, though, there's nothing, I can't find the problem. So convince me there's a problem. Well, I think it's a stretch to say it's perfect when you and I summarized our ballots a couple weeks ago, and we had 14 guys on them who we thought were deserving of induction, and you're saying it's looking like four people are going to get in, which means that— Yeah, but this was always the case. This isn't a systemic problem. I mean that would have been the case probably in a lot of years. I mean in 19 – in 2001, we would have had Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker on our ballots, and they didn't make it either.

I mean you accept that you're not going to get all of your guys on there and that you will have to see some guys that you didn't support get on there. You don't get – it's not your – go ahead. So you're saying it's not worse than it's been. It's not – it's – well, I mean from the Hall of Fame's perspective as a museum and as a business, they wouldn't want 14 people going in in one year. That would be a tremendous waste. You'd want to spread those people out a bit. So from the Halls perspective, I'm sure they'd be perfectly happy having four mega superstar,

like at least one inner circle guy going in this year and then a few more next year and then a few more the year after that. And that seems sort of like an ideal arrangement for them. If your perspective is that all the people who you think are deserving of induction should be inducted, then I guess that is not going to be the case. But you're right, that has never been the case. And that shouldn't be. I mean, you shouldn't think that you're 100% correct about things and expect the world to vote for you every time. I mean, you should lose roughly half the elections that you enter. I mean, that's sort of how democracy works, right? You get one vote, or in our case, you get zero votes. But, I mean, you don't, it, you can't really say, oh, well, a large group of people voting credibly with, you know, good information and rational approach disagreed with me about something and say that that's a broken system.

And to me, well, when, I mean, when there's good information and a rational approach, which is not always the case, and I am trying to be open-minded, but there are many times when the person releasing their ballot will pretty much explicitly say that they didn't consult good information and don't really have a rational approach. Well, it depends on what they consider good information. Everybody has different good information. I mean, the rules for voting are somewhat vague, I would say intentionally, and the information that we have is somewhat incomplete because of our limitations. I mean, it's changing all the time. I mean, we have talked before about how, you know, 10 years ago, Jason Giambi was projected to be a 14-win player one season. I mean, we're not getting it right necessarily

100% of the time all the time right now. But I think we're getting it more right than, you know, I mean, you and I write about baseball using certain stats because we believe that they're more predictive or they convey more information or, you know, they're better correlated with winning or performance or whatever it is. I mean, we are pretty tolerant of other viewpoints, but at some point, I mean, if it's like a, you know, a wins in ERA argument or, you know, ERA is fine

for Hall of Fame voting, but if it's a, you know, most wins in the 80s argument. I'm comfortable calling that a less good argument than other arguments I've heard. Yeah, and nobody's going to make it this year on a wins in ERA argument. You might argue that some people will fail to make it for wins in ERA arguments, but they'll continue to have chances. I think there are some good things about the full ballot too,

this very crowded ballot. One is that you do see, I think you see a lot less support for marginal candidates. Lee Smith's, for instance, Lee Smith's support is half of what it was last year. I mean, Lee Smith was getting, in my opinion, dangerously close to having a shot. I mean, basically, it's been noted that everybody who's ever had 50% in any year, besides Gil Hodges, has ended up making it. And Lee Smith was at 48% last year, so he was getting very close to that. He's dropped in half this year. Jack Morris, it seems, instead of getting the 15th year bump, is going to

have a decline as the crowded ballot probably kept him out, which is not bad. If you believe in something like a small hall, that seems like a good thing that you would have um you know not enough spots for people to put jack morris on um and uh you know you have there is not one if i'm reading if the gizmo is collecting these i believe it is you don't have one throwaway vote that has yet been report recorded there's not one vote for a person who doesn't have a plausible case other than jack morris pete rose write-in vote there is a there are there are uh there is yeah it looks like there's one niche it looks like one pete rose write-in vote but you know that's not that's not a throwaway vote exactly but yeah you do have a pete rose write-in mention there was someone wrote an article i saw a link somewhere about players who have historically over or underperformed the

gizmo. And Louis Paulus wrote for Beyond the Box score the last couple of years about the different voting patterns, the difference between people who did release their ballots publicly and those who voted anonymously. And it is a pretty significant difference. And he's going to be doing that, I think, again for Baseball Perspectives later this week. would be, whether that's whether that's because the people who release their ballots tend to be internet people and more philosophically aligned with us or or because the people who are voting anonymously are not accountable. So they aren't going to get a bunch of angry emails so they can vote for whomever they want. So there is a difference. Like last year, the public support for Jack Morris was 58.9%. And the private voters who were more numerous were 68.5%, which is a pretty

big difference. So if he's at 60% on the public ballots so far, well, he still won't get in. But it might be closer than it looks. I don't know. I think just, I mean, in the principle of the thing, I don't like the 10-player limit. There just doesn't really seem to be any point to limiting it. If someone is worthy of being in the Hall of Fame, then you should be able to vote for him. There shouldn't be a strategic element to it. You shouldn't have to vote for one person because you're afraid he's going to fall off the ballot and not vote for someone else who you think is deserving of being in there.

who you think is deserving of being in there. If you trust the writers to know who's a Hall of Famer, then just sort of take the reins off and let them vote for as many people as they think are deserving. So it might be the case that in this year in particular, it sort of serves the sabermetric agenda better for there to be a 10-player limit. Because I was worried about like, you know, Mike Messina falling off or something or like Walker. I'm not as staunch a Walker supporter

as I am a Messina supporter, but you know, like those sort of, uh, guys who were borderline when there's a 10 player limit. Um, but you're right. At least based on the public ballots, it doesn't look like anyone is in danger of falling off. And it might cost Morris getting in. So I suppose in a way it might work out well this year. Yeah. And I mean, as you noted, I mean, this is not my ballot that's being elected. Clearly, I don't think that it's a perfect outcome in terms of who's going to be elected. There are guys I'd like to see elected who won't be and who

I think are, you know, I think they're arguably Schilling and maybe Mussina are both more deserving than Glavin, who's going to get 90-some percent, which is sort of an odd situation. 300 wins. which is sort of an odd situation. 300 wins. But, I mean, basically my point is it doesn't seem like there's anything systemically... There's no real systemic seams showing in this ballot, in this vote. It seems like more or less the voters have found that they are still able to elect people, which wasn't a certainty.

the voters have found that they are still able to elect people, which wasn't a certainty. They have found that they are able to clear the ballot and make space for other people, which seemed like it might be a, you know, sort of a weird feedback loop where it would just get more and more crowded until nobody ever got elected. That's not happening. And, you know, I feel like, I mean, guys like Mussina and Schilling I would like to see get elected. That's not happening. Um, and you know, I, I feel like, I mean, guys like Mussina and Schilling, I would like to see get elected. Um, but they're still going to get their shot. There's it's nobody's gotten kicked off. Um, nobody's getting kicked off. Um, they're going to have, you know, 14 years to have their chance. I would say, I would guess that based on this,

I would guess that both will get in, uh, only halfway there, I would guess that they'll still get there. If it's something like 30% for a first time, that's a fairly strong showing. You can find various posts about the trajectories of the typical Hall of Fame candidate, but I would think that a 30% on a first ballot appearance would be a pretty strong one historically speaking um yeah um and then and then the last i mean you know then then the obvious the the one obvious thing is you know the best hitter in history yes and the best maybe the best pitcher in history are not and you know that continues to be, I think, a worthwhile debate. It both feels weird that they wouldn't be there, and yet you don't get all 500 votes.

These people get to decide, and the rules do give them the leeway to leave them out. do give them the leeway to leave them out. And to me, actually, I sent in my BP ballot, and I considered, you know, if you believe there are more than 10 relevant, 10 deserving people to vote for this year, then it actually seems like you might consider this the year to not include Bonds and Clemens at the expense of another deserving hall of famer so i can totally understand leaving them off assuming that you pick other good you know good people and um i don't know i mean i feel less and less aggrieved for them uh as as this goes on so um i don't know i don't know how i feel about bonds and clemons i still don't know i don't actually mind that they're not going in right away i would like to see them go in right

right away but uh i can't i mean i would like them in but i don't know whether i'm mad that they're not in or not i i think right now i'm not tomorrow i might be uh yeah did you see what what lou whittaker said i I did. Well, maybe. What about Morris and Trammell? Yeah, he's taken some shots, saying Jack Morris was no better than Alan Trammell, Lou Whittaker. If we didn't make the plays and we didn't come up with the big hits, Jack Morris wouldn't be where he was or where he is,

which is, I suppose, a good point. And I guess Alan Trammell is another one who is going to, I mean, not that he really had a shot anyway, but because of the ballot limit, it looks like he is going to decrease as well, because he was at over 35% last year. Yeah, okay. And he's just at 24 24 in the public ballot so far

yeah so that's sort of a shame but uh i guess he didn't really have a chance anyway which so i don't know we're we're talking about people we believe are deserving candidates who just don't have a chance um which you know you'd like like to think that there would be a way for, because we're right about them. Yeah, but who cares? Your opinion does, the thing is that, okay, so people will talk about the museum aspect of it and how can you have a museum

of the best baseball players in the, you know, the best baseball players in the world and not have the best baseball players in the world there. But it really isn't a museum. I mean, the Hall of Fame that we're talking about, the voting, is not a museum. It's an honor. It's a recognition. I mean, the players who don't make it can still be represented in the museum aspect of it. And even if, you know, even if it was just the Hall of Fame wing, it's not like anybody would go in there and not see Barry Bonds and forget he existed. I mean, his not being there arguably does more to commemorate his career than his being there in a lot of ways. And so you're only talking about an honor. And yes, we would like the people that we want honored honored.

But the sport and the players and the world have decided they don't care about our honoring. Like that's the point is like nobody asked us. Nobody has chosen us to do this. It's our opinion doesn't actually have any value, you know. doesn't actually have any value. Why would you even want to enforce your will on people who don't care about your opinion? Brian Kenney would be deeply disappointed in you. I know, but the thing is they don't care about it. You have no currency.

You have nothing to offer them. Why force your opinion? I can see wanting other people to have your opinion and wanting other people to validate your opinion. It's reassuring and all of that. But that's a separate thing. It's wanting to see the player recognized in some way. I don't know. It would be nice, I guess, if you watched a player and you thought he was a Hall of Famer,

which is, I guess, what all the people who are voting for Jack Morris think. But, yeah, it's not a purely like we want everyone to agree with us. It's also somewhat, I guess, there's a selfless component to it in that you you know you want tim raines to have his day on the podium or whatever why though i mean tim is no better of a person than jack morris and really that from space they look exactly the same like there's there's nothing actually like all that much more deserving about tim raines he was a better ball player than jack morris but it's not like his family wants it any more than Jack Morris's does. And it's not like he worked any harder than Jack Morris did. And, you know, it's not like he was paid any less over his, you know,

they're both living in mansions. So, I mean, basically what we're talking about is we're not talking about validating these careers. We're talking about validating our own validations of them. And it quits being about the player and it quits being and it starts being about us. And that's sort of like, OK, we bear no ill will toward any candidate. We don't take pleasure in doesn't make it. We're happy that, I guess that like the voter that we don't like because of his convoluted argument didn't get his guy in, I guess. We're not happy that a certain person

doesn't get to sign Hall of Fame at the end of his name. But it's, I don't know, it's like, I feel like it's sort of just the few voters who release their ballots and take shots at new stats or bloggers or whatever and have some very contrarian argument that's just illogical sort season and the whole debate really. Um, to the extent that I don't want someone to get in, it's not so much for the museum aspect. I haven't been to Cooperstown in, I don't know, 15 years and have no plans to go back in any point in the near future. But, um, it's just those, those arguments that bother you that you don't want to see win kind of uh yeah no you are the guy in that cartoon you you are the guy in the there's

something wrong on the internet yeah right can't go to bed. Yeah, exactly. I have changed my mind. I am officially mad that Bonds and Clemens – it now actually seems ridiculous. How can they not be in? I'm not mad at anybody for not voting. That's the point of voting. They get to vote their conscience. I guess what I'm mad at – I'm mad they took steroids.

That's what I'm mad at. They shouldn't have done that. I'm mad they took steroids. That's what I'm mad at. They shouldn't have done that. Now I don't get to celebrate their careers as joyfully as I might have otherwise. You do get to look at his baseball reference page and write articles about how many times he was intentionally walked, which you might not have been able to do otherwise. That's true. I love that quote from 1997.

I'm so happy I ran across that. Who was it? His manager saying no one should ever walk him? Yeah, Dusty Baker saying, well, like they just intentionally walked him like 27 times the year before, and Dusty Baker had a quote like, well, I don't think they could possibly intentionally walk him any more than they did this year.

Yeah. Yep. Wow. All right. All right. Five times a week, Ben. Back to this. So I'm sure we'll spend at least 30 seconds on the Hall of Fame voting results later this week. I do think – I don't have a big problem with the 10.

I do think I don't have a big problem with the 10 I guess it's somewhat arbitrary but I don't have a big problem with having 10 on your ballot I actually wouldn't be totally upset if it was 5 on your ballot for the most part

I think if you if they're a Hall of Famer one year on your ballot what am I saying I guess I just I feel like 15, I think if they're a Hall of Famer one year on your ballot, I mean, what am I saying? I guess I just, I feel like 15, I don't know. Anyway, the 10 years doesn't really bother me. You're patient. You're more patient than most people. The 10 spots doesn't really bother me. The 5% and you're off bothers me. It seems like if you're retired, you should be able to be put up on there anytime.

So you think you should just be able to be put up on there anytime so you think you should just be able to vote for anyone there shouldn't be any selection process yeah just anyone who's been retired for five years is eligible anybody yeah like bobby gritch if you want to vote for bobby gritch and kevin brown this year i don't see why you can't that seems weird to me and then we could just do away with the veterans committee and not have to bother with all that i guess it'd be okay yeah i don't know the the 10 player limit is historically has not been an issue most years you know and probably in the future will not be an issue most years because there are not usually 10 qualified candidates. It just so happens that there are more than that right now. So it's temporarily a problem and just in principle, I don't think it

makes much sense. And I wouldn't be surprised to see it go next year because there's been a lot of internal BBWA discussion about getting rid of that. And there's a committee and lots of people making arguments in favor of getting rid of that so I don't think How many ballots will How many ballots will leave Greg Maddox off this year? How many are there in total?

500-ish I'm impressed that it's How many are there in total? 500-ish. Yeah. I'm impressed that it's 100% so far through a quarter of the vote. I'm surprised. I don't know. I guess 20. Oh, my goodness. That's a lot.

Yeah. I'm banking on the anonymous people making the statement. I'll go four. Yeah, it's crazy. I can't think of an argument that makes sense to do something like that, but someone will do it. All right, that's all. Okay, back tomorrow. Send us emails at podcast at baseballperspectives.com.