Loading ...
This is a complete disgrace. I’m not sure why anyone would take the Hall of Fame voting process seriously when clowns like Barry Stanton — who clearly do not take the process seriously — have a vote.
This guy voted for Tino Martinez and B.J. Surhoff, yet didn’t vote for Roberto Alomar or Bert Blyleven or Barry Larkin or Jeff Bagwell or Tim Raines or Mark McGwire or Alan Trammell. This has to be a joke, right?
I agree with Craig’s take over at Hardball Talk:
That said, a lot of people marvel at the breadth of the BBWAA’s Hall of Fame electorate. There are guys voting there who haven’t covered baseball for years. One is a political cartoonist in Montreal. Another is a college football writer. This one was found to have committed journalism’s greatest sin. In light of all of that, is it crazy to ask whether it’s worth the BBWAA’s time to reconsider who gets a vote and who doesn’t?
The BBWAA is hyper-selective at who gets to vote for awards: only 28 or 30 guys each, all actively baseball writers. They get it right for the most part too. The Hall of Fame has hundreds of voters from all over the place, and they’re increasingly screwing the pooch. Isn’t there a happy medium to be found? Is it time to look for one?
Indeed. And until there are reforms, I’ll never take the Hall of Fame seriously again.
As posted on the other thread, by Wickerpark75:
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/3295/journal-news-sports-columnist-quits-over-plagiarism-charges/
Barry Stanton resigned after being caught plagiarizing Joe Posnanski !? The most surprising thing there is that Stanton was smart enough to plagiarize such a good writer.
Anyway at least Stanton doesn’t get to vote next year.
Well…In Stanton atleast the Nation has found a scape goat for their dissapointment over Larkin not getting in….Calm down people. Larkin was never a ‘First Ballot HOF’er”, and he was a borderline 2nd ballot guy…Getting in on his third year of eligibility sounds about right when you look at his career…
…Oh, and for the record(and before Chad jumps all over me) Stanton is clearly a Douche and Larkin is clearly a HOF’er…I just think his lack of durability has rightfully kept him from getting in on the 1st or 2nd ballot…(Chad’s probably gonna still yell at me:o )
@Furniture City Red: You are banned, FCR!!!
I disagree with you, obviously, but your position is not unreasonable. I think Larkin is one of the best shortstops in history, and I think the numbers bear that out. Perhaps I need to put together a post comparing Larkin to the greatest shortstops in baseball history.
@Furniture City Red: Well, if you ranked the top players in history and let’s assume that the top 200 make the HOF, then how many of those should be first ballot, how many second ballot, …, how many 15th ballot?
If the top 100 players in history should be first ballot, then Larkin should be first ballot. If you restrict it to 50, then maybe not.
And, FCR, you’re not just pissing off Chad, you’re starting to rile me up.
@Furniture City Red:
They can yell at me too. I happen to agree with your post. Larkin had a hard time staying on the field for even close to a full season in a lot of years. I also have to take into account that it seemed, late in his career, any time the Reds experienced some discord, Barry was somewhere and somehow in the middle of it all. He had the captain’s C on his jersey and – in my opinion – didn’t always act like the team captain. If I remember right, he and Junior helped get Trader Jack dispatched from Cincinnati and the bargain-bin hiring of Bob “Bafoon” Boone started the decade-long slide.
Larkin is my favorite player of all time, was the reason I started played baseball and why I have been rooting for the Reds since I was 7. That being said, his durability cost has cost him the hall thus far. It gives backwards, irrational thinking people the opportunity to cross him off.
Larkin compiled more wins above replacement, more superlatives, and more counting stats than nearly any other shortstop while playing in less games. That should speak for his ability as a player as opposed to against it. But it goes against our favorite old-time view of “an everyday gamer and contributor.”
It would have been nice (and proper) to see Larkin go in on the second or third ballot, but going in at all is a huge honor. Regretably, Larking does not fit the rather murky “standard” of first or second ballot Hall of Fame inductee. When he gets in next year or the next, he will still be in the Hall where he belongs. Hopefully some sort of reform will be implemented to stop further nincompoopery in the future.
Also, some writers vote to keep players they feel deserve further credit and consideration on the ballot. Players have to get 5% or more of the vote to stay on. Surhoff and Martinez probably don’t deserve the Hall, but they were good players. Martinez was a good hitter. He played in a lot of games. He was a very good fielder (and likely the reason Jeter’s fielding was “underrated” in the 90′s). He played for THE YANKEES (or “God’s team”). Was he an HOF’er? Probably, if Jim Rice is.
BJ? Well……..he was super versatile early in his career….and he was a first round draft pick? He was a gamer I’ll bet. Okay that vote is stupid. At least he looks up to Poz.
Craig’s last two paragraphs are spot on. The “breadth” of the HOF electorate is only something to marvel at because of its lunacy. Guys *don’t* take their votes seriously, and they use it as a forum to make statements, such as who shouldn’t be a “first ballot HOFer”, or who isn’t a HOFer but should stay on the ballot for a few years just for appearances. It’s turning the whole thing into a side show.
I’m not ready to write of the HOF or anything, and, like FCR, I don’t plan on getting TOO worked up because I think we all recognize that Larkin will be deservedly enshrined in the not too distant future (though I do not agree that Larkin shouldn’t have gone in on the first ballot). It was no surprise that Larkin didn’t get in this time. I’m just looking forward to the day he does get in, and I will plan my trip to the Coop accordingly.
I’m also looking forward to the day when logic is used to determine who gets to vote for the highest possible honor in baseball. I’m not gonna hold my breath though.
The more that I’m seeing and learning about this process, the more I’m coming to realize just how badly the HOF has screwed things up.
Honestly, if one insists on saving first ballot HOF status for those who were deemed the greatest of the great, the guys that seemed to walk on water, then so be it, I can tolerate a little pretention and gatekeeping. After that… hands off. To me, the notion that anybody deserves on their 7th try instead of their 2nd or 3rd is in all ways asinine.
You either did or you didn’t make the criteria. 10 players seems plenty enough opportunity to get it mostly right (I understand that correctly right? If Barry had been on 75% of the ballots in any ranking of 1-10, he would have made it right?) If someone like Larkin had five or six guys ahead of him that were truly leaps and bounds ahead of him, then I would get it. Frankly, in this year’s vote alone I’m not sure he wasn’t the best, albeit that’s a biased opinion.
Truly, I feel as though it waters down the HOF vote to consider that Larkin can make it next year b/c only by comparision to a perceived lesser ballot does he look “good enough” now. Ten names people. Ten! Ten! (doing my Grossepoint Blank).
That he gets in sometime isn’t the point. Just because a system kind of works doesn’t mean it can’t work better.
@Matt WI: I agree. Not coming close to filling out all 10 spots on your ballot this time around is inexcusable.
Like Craig says, a much smaller number of voters is used to determine awards (and it changes every time), why can’t the same be said for the HOF. There’s got to be some way to decide who should and shouldn’t have a HOF vote. I mean, the veterans committee has 16 guys on it (and I don’t remember how they are selected but I doubt it took less work that we’d think, and probably less work than it should have). If the HOF is ok with letting a group of 12 people on the vet committee decide who a HOFer is, than a think some number wayyyyy less than 500+ should do for the regular vote as well.
Sorry, that statement should have said “…I bet it took less work…”
From those of you who think Larkin did not deserve to get in this year or last, I would be interested in seeing a list of shortstops you would prefer to have on your team over Larkin.
Interesting list of the top 50 SS of all time at TheBaseballPage.com…
1. Honus Wagner
2. Ernie Banks
3. Arky Vaughan
4. Derek Jeter
5. Cal Ripken Jr.
6. Alex Rodriguez
7. Barry Larkin
http://www.thebaseballpage.com/positions/rankings/SS.php
@Chad Dotson: Larkin ranks as the 13th best SS in history using WAR, and granted there are such players as George Davis and Bill Dahlen ranked ahead of him that were born in the 19th century. There are also such players as Alex Rodriguez, Ernie Banks and Robin Yount who only spent half of their careers at SS. If you go to FanGraphs, take a look at each infield position and look around the 13th best player at each position according to WAR. It starts to get into that borderline territory where you have players like Scott Rolen, who I’m not certain would get in on the first two ballots.
Interesting list. Unless they are only counting actual time spent at SS, I don’t see how ARod is only #6. And if that is the case, how is Banks #2.
Regardless, the all time 7th best SS should go in on the first ballot.
@Furniture City Red:
Exactly my point. If you take out Jeter and A-Rod (who are active) and Banks (who played over half his career at a different position) Larkin is #4. Is there any other position in baseball (2b maybe?) where a player does not get in on the first ballot when there are only 3 HOFers ahead of him?
I do agree that Larkin’s case is hurt by the fact that he missed so many games from injury. Larkin played in 19 seasons, and 19 seasons add up to 3078 possible games. Larkin played in only 2180 games, which was 70.8%. If Larkin had played 155 games every year, his WAR would sit around 94.3, which would place him 4th all-time behind Ripken, Rodriguez and Wagner.
I guess it’s weird, but the votes for people like Surhoff don’t really bother me, so long as they aren’t taking a vote away from a deserving candidate. They’re nice gestures, I suppose. And no one will remember it later.
Larkin’s going to be a HoF’er as he gets more and more scrutiny. The problem for a guy like Larkin is that, while we’re pretty good at evaluating players (especially hitters) who were exceptionally good at one or two thing, we have a harder time evaluating players who were merely good-to-very good at everything. Plus there’s the pundit factor.
@Aaron Lehr:
Interestingly, I think it would be better to have MORE (and better) voters by taking the process away from the BBWAA and lowering the threshold to 60-65%.
@Brien Jackson: That’s the problem, a vote for Surhoff IS taking a vote away from a deserving candidate! All of the best writers and analysts agreed that there were more than 10 deserving candidates this time around. By definition, any vote for a player who is not deserving is taking one away from someone who is.
How does someone earn the right to be a voter? Is it like a supreme court justice in that they are a voter for life and only lose the right if they give it away?
@dn4192: I think it’s just being a BBWAA member for 10 years. And you have to apply to be a part of the BBWAA. That’s a good question though on the other end… do any voters ever lose their right unvoluntarily?
@Aaron Lehr:
But Stanton didn’t vote for 10, so it follows that he wasn’t voting for those people anyway. Voting for Surhoff didn’t prevent him from voting for someone else, his stupidity did.
@dn4192:
You have to be blessed by the BBWAA, then you have to be a member for 10 years consecutively, and then God only knows how you go about losing it. It’s a joke.
Yep, the BJ Surhoff vote was either a sign that the dude knows nothing or that he was exhibiting common arrogant journalist traits. Either way, he should be stripped of the opportunity to vote – and anyone who ever pulls something like that again should get the same treatment.
@tguthrie:
Somebody pulls it every year though, and with almost every candidate. On some level I think some people just feel bad that someone isn’t going to get any votes and toss them a token as a nice gesture, or because they liked them when they played. Ultimately that doesn’t make any difference though. Of all the problems with the process, that one barely warrants mention.
Plus, remember, some voters will vote for some guys they’re not sure about to help them clear the 5% mark so they can stay around for future consideration rather than falling off like kevin Brown did this year.
Sorry, accidentally posted this in the other Barry Larkin thread…
Question: Does citing WAR across players in different decades do anything clear up the old “can you compare different times” argument?
Admission: I may not have this right, I’m just thinking out loud…
Isn’t WAR calculated to the average of that particular year (and position and AL/NL)? So what’s league average in 2010 may be different from what was league average in 1908? I don’t know, maybe there’s no statistical signficance there.
Would an exceptional player(s) in certain time periods have WAR’s that are pronounced due to a lull at that time in the league average? Or maybe the other way around? Maybe Ty Cobb would have a WAR of 8 today but only 6 in his time period (or whatever it was, you understand the point).
Or… has someone calculated WAR across baseball in a cumulative fashion? Of course, I can still see some benefit in saying “Joe Morgan was X Wins Above Replacement” against his peers versus “Barry Larkin was X WAR above his peers.” I think WAR is especially valuable to consider as players are inducted to the HOF amongst peers, but perhaps a little less useful to start using it otherwise.
@Brien Jackson: Yeah, I don’t really care about those kinda votes, in a vacuum. Who cares if Surhoff gets a vote? If a guy believes there are six qualified candidates and wants to burn his final four spots on Lenny Harris types*, more power to him.
It’s voting for those people and explicitly refusing to vote for clearly qualified candidates that bothers me.
*Alas, Lenny Harris will fall off the ballot after this year. Sigh….
@Matt WI: Answer: One of the best characteristics of WAR is that it allows you to compare players from different eras. The value of a replacement player is a constant in the formula and does not fluctuate year by year.
@TheNatural: So fill me in a bit more… how does the formula compensate for any changes over time. How is it that what is considered “replacement level” can be deemed constant?
Is there really just so little variation in baseball performance that it doesn’t matter?
To illustrate: Wouldn’t an all-glove, no-hit SS be able to be a run of the mill, league average player 30 years ago not compare well to the run of the mill, generally stronger, better hitting, possible better range athletes at SS today?
To change sports, perhaps a league average running back in the NFL got 13 carries a game and ran a 4.5. Today they get X carries and run an average of 4.3? Doesn’t that skew what an acceptable replacement level player is given the times? Nobody wants the first guy anymore. A high school diploma used to get you a job, now it takes a college diploma. I know I’m skewing off baseball a bit… just trying to understand better. If league average is aggregate over all baseball for all time, then I get how the comparison works.
@Brien Jackson: I generally agree, but this yahoo not only voted for Surhoff, but at the same time he didn’t vote for Larkin, Blylevin or Alomar. That’s just crazy.
@Matt WI: I’m in Contracts class figuring out how to be the next Scott Boras, so I can’t look it up at the moment to re-post here. Just google sabermetric WAR, and you should be able to find your answer.
Bottom line is that the Hall of Fame has been a joke for well over a decade. One need only to look at the Pete Rose and Dave Concepcion situations to realize that HOF voting is entirely subjective and usually hinges on each individual voter’s bias with no basis whatsoever on substantial data criteria. There’s a hundred contradictory cases. It’s a joke. Voters aren’t held accountable for their votes, no review process, on and on and on. I don’t think anyone really takes it seriously anymore.
@TheNatural: Oh I have… been at Fangraphs and it’s statements like this that led to my question in the first place The leagues are not necessarily even in talent level in every year.
For recent years, there’s a good bit of evidence that the AL has been better than the NL. It may even be slightly more accurate to use league specific replacement level adjustments, especially for the ’05-’07 time period. We’ll work on trying to quantify the differences in leagues going all the way back to ’02 so that we could potentially include the league differences later on.
So if there is an across league difference to compensate for, I’m just looking for how an across time difference is compensated for.
@TheNatural: And don’t be s Scott Boras.
Leatherpants says that Barry is sure to get in next year ! I’m not going to cuss about his getting in the 3rd year. If it drags on longer than that, it becomes a clear injustice.
@Matt WI: Ever since the advent of the DH, there’s been a major adjustment needed to compare pitchers’ stats in the NL vs. the AL. The ERA adjustment is at least 0.5.
As for interleague adjustment for hitters, I don’t buy that.