The 2017 Baseball Hall of Fame inductees will be released in the coming weeks. But here is the thing; I have a problem with the voters. In the last five to ten years, it seems as if Hall of Fame voting has become this next-level exercise of brainpower, analytics, and whining. Voting should not be this complicated; it is the simple practice of nominating the very few best players from the previous two decades. But for some reason, these baseball writers have gone way over the top.
The 10-vote ballot
The Hall of Fame allows each writer 10 votes per year. That seems like a very reasonable number; after all, only 217 Major League players have been voted in since the Hall was created in 1936.
But nowadays, the writers all want additional votes on their ballot. They’ve whined saying the ballot is too clogged (the Hall took care of that by shortening the number of years eligible to be inducted from fifteen to ten – the writers did not like that). They’ve said this generation has been underrepresented. Name one Hall-worthy players who has missed out over the last 20 years. Jack Morris? Dude had a career 3.90 ERA. C’mon. They’ve even boycotted from voting.
Rarely, if ever, has there been a year where ten people deserve induction. Yet, these writers act as if every year, double-digit players not only deserve consideration, but ultimately deserve votes. That is so far off base.
Strategic Voting
Because all these writers feel shorted with “only” 10 votes, they have started using strategic voting. For example, in Ken Rosenthal’s article detailing his ballot this year, he decided to leave off Vladimir Guerrero for Billy Wagner. His reasoning? “That’s right, I’m omitting Guerrero even though I believe he is completely worthy (.318 career batting average, 2,590 hits, 449 homers, crazy-powerful arm, singular, see-ball, hit-ball style). It’s a strategic move — I’m not certain that Wagner will receive the necessary 5 percent of the vote to remain on the ballot. But I’m quite certain that Guerrero will, and I will be happy to vote for him in the future.”
Rosenthal is very good at his job, but this is nonsense. Rosenthal admits to Guerrero being a better player, and a likely Hall of Famer. I don’t care that Wagner has the highest K/9 all-time for at least 800 innings pitched. He did not crack 1,000 innings pitched for his career. He did not have a substantial impact on the game. The Hall of Fame is not the time to play vote-counter. It is simple: vote for the best players.
Hall of the Famous
I love advanced metrics. They have completely changed the game of baseball, and as you know, I love to dive into these numbers when breaking down the Washington Nationals. But I think they are more for the day-to-day analysis of baseball, not necessarily for the Hall of Fame. It’s great to look at Adam Eaton’s wRC+ when the Nationals trade for him, but when it comes to Hall of Fame voting, it should be more about that intangible “x-factor.”
For example, let’s look at Fred McGriff, who is on his eighth year on the ballot. He has a career 134 OPS+ with 493 homers. That’s pretty darn good. But when you watched McGriff, did you ever feel like he was a top ten player in the league that season? Was he someone who struck fear in opposing pitcher’s hearts? No.
The Hall of Fame is about sifting through the millions of people who have thrown a baseball, and finding the very select few who not only had the talent to dominate the highest level, but also created that feeling with players and fans alike. It’s not about picking the players who just had great numbers. It’s about finding those excellent numbers, paired with players who created a lasting legacy. Those are the players who are worthy of the Hall of Fame.
The post Problems with Baseball Hall of Fame voters appeared first on isportsweb.