HOF Early Baseball Era Ballots are out

[scotgreb]

Dahlen M116.jpg

[mrreality68]

Love the cards everyone


Thanks for sharing

[triwak]

Pulling for these two guys (for obvious reasons)!

[scotgreb]

As a HOF collector, I probably scrutinize the process more than most but it certainly seems flawed.

I went back and reviewed the pre-integration ballot from 2016 (the closest comparison to this year's "Early Baseball" vote) and the only holdover from that ballot is Dahlen. He received a 50% (8 of 16) vote. Doc Adams received the highest percentage at 62.5% (10 of 16). Somehow he didn't make this ballot.

Regarding the Era Committees in general -- because of the screening process, it would seem that all nominees are somewhat worthy -- or, at least, relatively worthy. Layering the 4-vote limit over the screening process forces the voting members to collude (my conjecture).

Of course, it should be difficult to get elected but great screening / strong fields can lead to no one getting elected (without collusion). Further, poor screening / weak fields can lead to sub-standard inductees (with collusion; see Harold Baines). Heck, Lou Piniella almost made it in that same vote -- one vote short.

[shagrotn77]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

As a HOF collector, I probably scrutinize the process more than most but it certainly seems flawed.

I went back and reviewed the pre-integration ballot from 2016 (the closest comparison to this year's "Early Baseball" vote) and the only holdover from that ballot is Dahlen. He received a 50% (8 of 16) vote. Doc Adams received the highest percentage at 62.5% (10 of 16). Somehow he didn't make this ballot.

Regarding the Era Committees in general -- because of the screening process, it would seem that all nominees are somewhat worthy -- or, at least, relatively worthy. Layering the 4-vote limit over the screening process forces the voting members to collude (my conjecture).

Of course, it should be difficult to get elected but great screening / strong fields can lead to no one getting elected (without collusion). Further, poor screening / weak fields can lead to sub-standard inductees (with collusion; see Harold Baines). Heck, Lou Piniella almost made it in that same vote -- one vote short.

Yep. I totally agree that it's a flawed process and one that changes too often. I remember going into that 2016 vote thinking that Bill Dahlen was practically a shoo in. His career numbers are much more impressive when viewed through a sabermetrics lens, and sabermetrics were the new shiny toy at the time. Needless to say, I was surprised that he didn't get in. If he doesn't make it this time around, they may as well remove him from the ballot.

One other player on that ballot that stood out was Harry Stovey. He also garnered 50% of the votes, but was surprisingly left off of this year's ballot. Unlike Dahlen, Stovey had numbers that are impressive from a traditional sense (he led the league in HRs 5 times, runs scored 4 times, triples 4 times and SB twice). He would have been a top roto pick with those numbers! It almost makes me think that the voters were split between traditional and more modern ways of judging a player's HOF worthiness.

All of that said, hopefully Dahlen gets the 75% this time around.

[JollyElm]

This thread is sort of a mirror of the grading process. You send in a beautiful card to PSA, wait forever, and it eventually comes back way lower than what it 'should have' been. And there's no explanation as to why the grade was 'lowered' to the number on the slab. You are left cluelessly holding a plastic slab.

With HOF candidates, you present statistical (and anecdotal) analysis showing they 'should be' voted in, but they fall short of the required vote totals and some are dropped off the ballot entirely. And again, there are no explanations proffered and you are left dumbfounded.

It would be nice if both processes had some specific transparency to show us why a card got the grade it received, and why the HOF voters voted the way they did, instead of it all being cloaked in a cloud of mystery.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

This thread is sort of a mirror of the grading process. You send in a beautiful card to PSA, wait forever, and it eventually comes back way lower than what it 'should have' been. And there's no explanation as to why the grade was 'lowered' to the number on the slab. You are left cluelessly holding a plastic slab.

With HOF candidates, you present statistical (and anecdotal) analysis showing they 'should be' voted in, but they fall short of the required vote totals and some are dropped off the ballot entirely. And again, there are no explanations proffered and you are left dumbfounded.

It would be nice if both processes had some specific transparency to show us why a card got the grade it received, and why the HOF voters voted the way they did, instead of it all being cloaked in a cloud of mystery.

Gods do not answer letters.