Changes to Hall of Fame Eras Committees eligibility

[Mike D.]

I like the whole "don't get 5 votes, can't get on the next ballot" part a lot. Should keep some of the same guys appearing every 3 year cycle.

I'm not so sure about the "two ballots w/ less than 5 votes and you're done forever". In an era like the "post 1980", the chance of a very stacked ballot is very real. Some good candidates could get dropped off the ballot without a real fair shake.

I'm really interested to see who is on the ballot this year for post 1980. Whitaker? Evans? Lofton? Schilling? Or do they trot the PED guys out again to get their first "less than 5 votes" appearance over with?

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I like the whole "don't get 5 votes, can't get on the next ballot" part a lot. Should keep some of the same guys appearing every 3 year cycle.

I'm not so sure about the "two ballots w/ less than 5 votes and you're done forever". In an era like the "post 1980", the chance of a very stacked ballot is very real. Some good candidates could get dropped off the ballot without a real fair shake.

I'm really interested to see who is on the ballot this year for post 1980. Whitaker? Evans? Lofton? Schilling? Or do they trot the PED guys out again to get their first "less than 5 votes" appearance over with?

It wasn't clear if the rule is being applied retroactively or not. If so, then Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro and Belle already have their first less than 5 vote ballot so wouldn't be eligible for the next one. I guess we'll find out later this year.

[G1911]

At least some of the names cycling through will end up getting removed. In the system before this change, basically anyone on the ballot would eventually have to be elected.

However, a guy who vets 4 votes twice in a row and removed from the ballot may well be replaced with players worse than him, and so in a few cycles they'll be electing people worse than those banned from the ballot.

Really, the entire system should be redesigned. We have like 50-60 years of these veterans/experts committees making consistently bad selections. A closed room with a very small number of insiders, many of whom have/had personal relationships with those on the ballot is very unlikely to produce consistently good or fair results.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

At least some of the names cycling through will end up getting removed. In the system before this change, basically anyone on the ballot would eventually have to be elected.

However, a guy who vets 4 votes twice in a row and removed from the ballot may well be replaced with players worse than him, and so in a few cycles they'll be electing people worse than those banned from the ballot.

Really, the entire system should be redesigned. We have like 50-60 years of these veterans/experts committees making consistently bad selections. A closed room with a very small number of insiders, many of whom have/had personal relationships with those on the ballot is very unlikely to produce consistently good or fair results.

Agreed. The committees should be larger in size and drawn from different constituencies.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Agreed. The committees should be larger in size and drawn from different constituencies.

The larger the committees, the less likely that they select anyone. Some people would consider that good news, but it's bad news for others. I think the Hall of Fame probably wants more inductees because it brings people to the induction weekend and to the museum so I would be surprised if they made any changes that would make it less likely that new inductees are selected.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by jayshum

The larger the committees, the less likely that they select anyone. Some people would consider that good news, but it's bad news for others. I think the Hall of Fame probably wants more inductees because it brings people to the induction weekend and to the museum so I would be surprised if they made any changes that would make it less likely that new inductees are selected.

You'd THINK the Hall of Fame would be in favor of more inductees, but everything they do seems to be working towards the opposite. I can't comment on whether that is by design or incompetence.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

You'd THINK the Hall of Fame would be in favor of more inductees, but everything they do seems to be working towards the opposite. I can't comment on whether that is by design or incompetence.

I think they're trying to limit how often and how long the PED guys can appear and stay on the ballot with the hope being that once none of them are eligible to be on any more ballots, the focus can turn to other players who should be considered. Whether or not it ultimately works out that way remains to be seen.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

The larger the committees, the less likely that they select anyone. Some people would consider that good news, but it's bad news for others. I think the Hall of Fame probably wants more inductees because it brings people to the induction weekend and to the museum so I would be surprised if they made any changes that would make it less likely that new inductees are selected.

If what you say is true, that suggests people are getting in who maybe shouldn't be in. "I can only get in if a small group of my friends vote" isn't exactly an impressive credential. Those groups also make Type 2 errors (keeping deserving players out). The system sucks IMO.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If what you say is true, that suggests people are getting in who maybe shouldn't be in. "I can only get in if a small group of my friends vote" isn't exactly an impressive credential. Those groups also make Type 2 errors (keeping deserving players out). The system sucks IMO.

Harold Baines seems to be the most recent example of the former. As for the latter, I think there may be more worthy candidates who aren't even getting on the ballots than people on the ballots who are deserving but not being voted in. I think the changes made to ballot eligibility are trying to address that issue.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by jayshum

The larger the committees, the less likely that they select anyone.

I came up with what I thought was a beautiful solution to this problem as well as the unanimity issue as well as the roid guys.

Instead of binary votes, yes or no. Every eligible elector (committee or for the hall in general) scores each candidate on a scale from 1 - 10. Anyone receiving 75% of the possible points gets in. That way it's still the same threshold of 75% as the current system but allows for more nuance.

I can say Mariano Rivera is a HOF'er without, in effect, calling him the greatest player ever. I can punish Barry Bonds by giving him a 5, but a single 10, or a couple 9's from other voters balances out my disdain.

I think it actually works better for a large panel of voters, so it might not be a perfect answer in committee situations but I find it hard to believe sane voters are scoring Baines 7's and 8's, while in a yes/no scenario, appeals to emotion work much "better." However if there are candidates out there who legitimately WOULD score 7's and 8's it's probably an easier path than the yes/no system, especially if they don't have a champion on the committee.

[scotgreb]

I believe in the need for veterans / oldtimers / era committees as the BBWAA has many inexplicable oversights in electing worthy players. Two that quickly come to mind are Johnny Mize and Arky Vaughan.

I've said this before in prior threads, but I believe the structure of the voting [of the era committees] essentially requires collusion to get anyone 75% -- especially when there is a strong ballot, as there are only so many votes to go around. It can also result in someone questionable getting elected when the ballot sucks. It shouldn't be this difficult. Barring someone from future ballots [due to lack of votes] is nuts in my opinion. Why back yourself into a corner?

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I came up with what I thought was a beautiful solution to this problem as well as the unanimity issue as well as the roid guys.

Instead of binary votes, yes or no. Every eligible elector (committee or for the hall in general) scores each candidate on a scale from 1 - 10. Anyone receiving 75% of the possible points gets in. That way it's still the same threshold of 75% as the current system but allows for more nuance.

I can say Mariano Rivera is a HOF'er without, in effect, calling him the greatest player ever. I can punish Barry Bonds by giving him a 5, but a single 10, or a couple 9's from other voters balances out my disdain.

I think it actually works better for a large panel of voters, so it might not be a perfect answer in committee situations but I find it hard to believe sane voters are scoring Baines 7's and 8's, while in a yes/no scenario, appeals to emotion work much "better." However if there are candidates out there who legitimately WOULD score 7's and 8's it's probably an easier path than the yes/no system, especially if they don't have a champion on the committee.

It's an interesting idea, but I think it would make it almost impossible for a borderline candidate to get voted in, especially with a small number of voters (as you mentioned). Even with larger numbers of voters, a borderline candidate would most likely get mostly 8's (with few 9's and 10's) from people who felt they should be in, while voters who didn't support someone could give much lower scores that would make it almost impossible to get to 75% of the possible points. Trying to offset even 3's and 4's would probably require more 9's and 10's than would likely be given.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by jayshum

It wasn't clear if the rule is being applied retroactively or not. If so, then Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro and Belle already have their first less than 5 vote ballot so wouldn't be eligible for the next one. I guess we'll find out later this year.

Everything I've read it suggests with the ballot this December (so, not retroactive).

Thankfully, the nominating committee is terrible at building ballots, so hopefully my fear of 8-10 very good candidates appearing in the same year and some dropping won't happen.