Baseball writers do all the voting in baseball. I think they suck at it. You?

Question

No hall of fame for Ron Santo, Bert Blyleven, Gil Hodges, Roger Maris, Thurmon Munson, Tommy John -- need I go on? MVP voting based on who they like (as if they're girls or something) and usually there is a racial bias (as in Rickey Henderson, Bill Matlock, the Indian with 50 Ds and 50 HRs). The same with all the awards. They are the only ones who think they do well. Any alternative solutions?

Answer 1

No, there isn't going to be an alternative as baseball is famous for keeping its head stuck in the ground and will always stay with the BB Writers Assoc. regarding HOF voting. The writers are very biased and base a lot of their voting on how the player(s) dealt with them personally which is total horses---t! And the magical 3000 hits, 500 HR, or 300 wins milestones pretty much gives players (Until McGwiroid this year) and automatic invitation. So guys like Early Wynn, Don Sutton, Paul Molitor (a DH w/ drug problems early in his career) and others get in, while much better all around players like Blyleven, Hodges, Santo, Dawson, Murphy, Jack Morris and Tim Raines never get a sniff. Morris was infamous for being a jerk to the writers and will never get in, but he was the ace on three different WS winners (Det, Minn., Tor.) was regarded as the most dominant pitcher during the 80s (the whole decade), and pitched one of the greatest WS games of all time--the 1-0 10 inning performance in Game 7 against Smoltz and the Braves in 1991. Hodges might be the biggest travesty of all, but I could go on forever. Don't even get me started on the football HOF voting, which is even worse than baseball!

Answer 2

I think for the most part the writers do a good job with the voting. Historically it's been the Veteren's Committee which has littered the HOF with poor choices.

That being said, the original intent of the HOF voting system was to have the media, the people who follow the game, do the voting. Back in the 30's that basically meant the writers. To live up to the original idea the voting should be expanded to allow people from throughout the baseball media to vote. This includes newspaper writers, authors, TV and radio announcers and commentators, internet reporters...you get the idea.

I completely disagree with your comment about the existence of a racial bias. Rickey Henderson isn't in yet because the man refuses to announce his retirement. Heck, last year he was still playing professional baseball. As you may know, you need to be retired for 5 years before becoming eligible for induction. Let Rickey retire and he'll go in the first ballot he's eligible. Bill Matlock simply isn't a Hall of Famer. I'm not sure who the Indian with 50 doubles and 50 HR's is (it isn't Matlock.) The fact you don't seem to know either says a lot about the player's impact and his HOF credentials.

Santo should be in, I agree. Blyleven is a tough case, as is Tommy John, and the induction of either man certainly wouldn't be a mistake. Hodges was a terrific player and had one magical season as a manager, but he's not a Hall of Famer. Maris had two MVP seasons, but his career numbers simply aren't there. Munson is not a Hall of Famer. Dying young doesn't give him extra points.

When anyone votes on anything, there will inevitably be controversy. But taken as a body of work, the writers generally do the right thing 90% of the time. If only we could all say that about what we choose to do...

Answer 3

I disagree. All the guys you named were either good or very good baseball players. Maris, while having one legendary season, was really a one trick pony with only one year he pulled that trick. Henderson isn't eligible yet because he keeps coming back and every time he does, the 5 year clock starts again. Other than Santo, I don't necessarily believe any of them should be in the Hall. It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Pretty Good Ballplayers.

The writers see more baseball than anyone. They know the game. They should be a big part of it. However, adding a voting body would be a good idea. I think giving the living members of the Hall a vote....not just the Veterans' Committee....would make sense.

However, I do not believe fans should get a vote. If you feel the writers' ballots are a popularity contest, can you imagine what would happen if the fans voted? Think about all-star games with guys who made you scratch your head. The writers do a pretty good job for the most part.

You can disagree with them...but think about this. Have they ever admitted anyone who made you ask why? Has anyone ever gotten in ona flimsy resume? I can't think of anyone. And that says a lot about how good a job they do. If a guy is a border-line hall of famer, I don't think he should get in.

Answer 4

Well, youre way off on the racial bias statement. All those you sighted in your opening are white btw. There is definitely a regional bias though.
Does Gil Hodges really deserve to be in the Hall? Then again, do Gary Carter and Carlton Fisk deserve to be there? Hell no! Check their numbers against Ted Simmons who is not.
What would you have them do, though, leave it up to the fans? Give them 25 votes on line? Have Gillette and Coke sponsor an ad campaign to get your punchcard ballott in?
I think over the years the Hall has become illegitimate and pointless. It is not connected to MLB (they say) but man, they got some great stuff. I have seen much more intelligent and non-biased selections on several internet Halls of Fame. Hopefully some billionaire like Bill Gates or someone will donate millions for a rival Hall with names like Pete Rose, Joe Jackson, Ricky Henderson and Ted Simmons. (o.k., maybe not Simmons but certainly not Carter.)

As for the Veterens Committee or current or retired plans, which have since been mentioned......The VC is notorious for being cliquesh and jealous. Why doesnt the VC start their own HOF?

The criticism of Paul Molitor by one respondant is absolutely false and libelous.

Answer 5

The baseball writers are considered the "experts" even though most of them have their own agendas and are biased in that they have their favorite teams and players. How it came about that they should be the ones to determine who gets into the Baseball Hall of Fame is beyond me. As you have suggested, there are many who have been left out because these so-called experts refuse to vote for them. No greater disservice has been the exclusion of Buck O'Neil from the HOF. Until baseball comes up with a fair and adequate system that ensures enshrinement in the hall to all that deserve to be in it (which will probably be never), we must endure these writers' selections. It's a sad/unfair system, but unfortunately it is all they have.

Answer 6

The problem I have with the writers when they vote is that they will vote based on how that player treats them. I think that is wrong. Kind of like McGwire not getting in.
Now I know he was basically a nice personality but very private. He took Andro and today that is wrong but when he did it there were no rules on it. And if I remember correctly when there was a little outcry about it he stopped because his image was important to him. Why make him an example for not breaking the rules during his playing days.
Well this is what bothers me about the writers voting habits.

Answer 7

You've got a point with Santo and Blyleven, but the writers got it correct with Hodges, Maris, Munson, and John -- they were good players but not Hall measure. So, no, you need not go on, because you've already jumped the velvet rope and are rattling off more not-quite-worthies than those that are. Really, there are not that many supportable injustices left buried in baseball history as far as Hall induction goes.

MVP voting has recently, and quite sadly, become prone to the misguided notion that the MVP MUST come from a postseason (or at least contending) team because, heck, any team can lose, so players from a losing team must not be valuable. I loathe this argument; it is stupid.

Nevertheless, recent MVP Award winners with darker skin include Howard, Bonds (four consecutive), Guerrero, Tejada, Sosa, Griffey, Larkin, Mo Vaughn, Thomas (twice), Bonds (three more), Pendleton, Henderson, Mitchell, Dawson, and Bell -- and that's only going back to 1987, 20 years' worth. I count 21 of 40 MVPs. That doesn't support a racial-bias claim. Add in Latino-descent players -- Pujols, Alex Rodriguez (twice), (Guerrero I already named), Ivan Rodriguez, Juan Gonzalez (twice), and Canseco -- and we have seven more, 28 of 40. And there's been one Japanese winner, Suzuki, so that's 29 of 40. David Ortiz has finished no lower than fifth for the past four seasons. I'm not seeing the bias. ("The Indian" you refer to was Albert Belle in 1995, when Vaughn won it. Me, I'd have voted for Edgar Martinez. All three count, I suppose, as minority candidates.)

The writers tend to end up choosing a defensible winner for the MVPs even if they don't always come up with the best one (recent screwups: Gonzo over ARod in 1996, Sosa over McGwire in 1998, Pendleton over Bonds in 1991, Vaughn as mentioned), and this tends to be for the reason I noted -- many voters subscribe to the "gotta be from a playoff team" nonsense.

The writers do a far worse job on the CYAs, as they cannot resist a 20+ game winner no matter how bad his other stats may be (like Colon in 2005). Usually they get it right, but when they don't, it's usually because the beneficiary of massive run support got to 20 wins.

The ROYs are not subject to any bias, racial, winning, or otherwise. The interested reader can review the results for himself.

As for the Hall, the writers -- a much larger group than those selected for receiving the annual awards ballots -- do a very good job of gatekeeping. The last BBWAA inductee I disagreed with was Puckett (2001), but I completely understand why they voted him in -- he was exciting, gave good quote, was so darn cute. Most of the "what the?" honorees got in through various incarnations of the old Veterans Committee, particularly when Frisch was chair (he couldn't bring in enough of his old teammates), which is part of the reason that version of the VC was abolished. The new VC has elected no one in three voting cycles, so we cannot blame it for watering down the Hall any.

Fan voting would be a bad option; people get upset over as simple a thing as the All-Star starting lineups. (I don't, but I stopped caring about the ASG years ago. I simply enjoy it and don't much care who plays in it.)

Anyone can participate in the annual Internet Baseball Awards, conducted by the good people at Baseball Prospectus, as the season concludes. It's the most democratic method there is. If you prefer this, jump in later this year.

IBAs 1991-93, '95-05: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/iba/index.php?mode=history
2006: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5675

-----
PS. Ah, I wasn't interpreting you quite right. Henderson, Madlock, and Belle for the Hall?

Rickey isn't eligible until 2009, later if he comes back yet again (which I doubt he will). I'm pretty sure he won't be on the ballot in 2010, being taken off the good way.

Madlock -- he was good, but I'm not seeing the greatness that the Hall typically wants. Four great seasons, and the four batting titles are sweet, and third base is one of the more underrepresented positions in Cooperstown (relievers and DHs the worst). Madlock got swept away after one ballot (1993, 4.5%), which possibly was unfair. I'd have to study him more, but I don't see a HOFer in his career performance.

Belle barely scraped by the 5% retention cutoff on his first ballot, 2006, and didn't make the cut this year. He had a short career -- ten full seasons and two partials -- and in those ten full, had three genuine monster seasons and two other Hall-worthy ones. Five great seasons doesn't make my personal view of Hall worthiness; Belle's career puts up a good argument but not enough. Be that as it may, I do think there was a writers' bias against him, but it had nothing to do with his skin. He was, from most reports, an extremely abrasive individual who didn't even try to be likeable. The writers, despite their reputations, are human, and don't like being treated badly. More than his Hall voting, I think back to when he had to retire during 2001 spring training because his hip had degenerated. Wire reports had no sympathy for him at all; the prevailing attitude was one of "well, too bad, but if this had to happen to someone, it might as well be Belle." Reports were thisclose to outright declaring that he deserved it. It was sad and pathetic, but Belle probably earned that consensus disdain, and it wasn't because of his color. He clearly had anger management issues.

Answer 8

You are 100 percent on target.
They stink and think they carry personal grudges.
Do what football does let the players have a say in the voting.

Answer 9

YES THEY DO SUCK!! It should be a committee of retired baseball players who have been re-tiered for over 15 years.