After listening to a whole afternoon of baseball talk radio-specifically to the outrage of some of the on-air personalities like Casey Stern, Kevin Kennedy, and Rob Dibble-I’m wondering why they’re so surprised by Roberto Alomar not getting into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. Their typical first argument is the comparison argument that says Player B is in the Hall of Fame, but Player A has better numbers and, therefore, Player A should be in the Hall of Fame. The common comparison for Alomar is Ryne Sandberg since, by all accounts, Alomar’s numbers are better than his. The point that they miss is that Sandberg wasn’t elected on the first ballot; he was elected on his third ballot, and that waiting is significant to the voters.
This brings us to their second argument, which is why should anyone’s vote change from one year to the next since the stats don’t change? I find this a naïve view of human nature. We are obsessed with rankings, from VH1’s Top 100 One-Hit Wonders (a wonderful series, although why couldn’t they expand it a few hours and play each song fully? But I digress) to the Top 10 reasons why my wife should go get an account on eHarmony. Obviously, the baseball media is not immune to rankings, from Kevin Goldstein‘s Top 11 prospect rankings here, or his Top 101 Prospects in Baseball Prospectus 2010, or innumerable articles at Baseball America, ESPN, and other outlets.
For some reason, people have the illusion that inclusion in the Hall of Fame somehow breaks our desire to rank, or at least the process should break this desire. The simple truth is that, for at least some of the gatekeepers (and likewise for many fans, I might add), this just doesn’t feel right. Some players are just more Hall-worthy than others. Given that the voters are asked only a yes or no question, they will use the only lever at their disposal to create tiers within the Hall of Fame, and that lever is when they are elected.
Let’s go back to the question of deciding whether or not Roberto Alomar was given the shaft by not being elected on the first ballot. I looked at all of the first-ballot percentages for each player since 1960 and plotted them against Bill James’ Hall of Fame Monitor Score (HoFM). In a nutshell, I like to think of HoFM as the measure of bling (awards and milestones that have historically attracted Hall voters), while his Hall of Fame Standards (HoFS) is more a measure of worth (how much value this candidate had compared to other people in the Hall).
From visual inspection alone, two things are apparent. There are a number of players with a much lower HoFM score that made it in the on first ballot. However, there are two players with a higher score that did not get in, so it’s not like the Alomar snub is unprecedented. The reader should keep in mind, though, that those two players are Yogi Berra and Whitey Ford, who had 14 and 11 World Series appearances, respectively. Given how close Alomar is to our best-fit line, the drop can easily be explained by the few voters who still say that the Hirschbeck incident does count for something; despite the apologies and feel-good stories that followed, it was still a very graphic display of unsportsmanlike behavior.
There’s almost no question that Alomar will get in next year, so he will probably be a second-ballot Hall of Famer. How does he stack up with the others? And, for that matter, when (or if) should we expect the other newbies on the ballot to get in? Below is a table of the median HoFM and HoFS scores of Hall of Fame Inductees (filtered to those whose first year on the ballot was 1960 or later) based on the year they were elected by the BBWAA. The group of “Others” consists of those that were not elected by the writers and are no longer eligible, but achieved at least 25 percent of the vote in their best year.
HoFM HoFS
Ballot Elected Number Median [Max,Min] Median/Avg [Max,Min]
1st 39 214 [454,98] 56/54.3 [76,34]
2nd or 3rd 9 158 [226,120] 50/49.1 [57,18]
4th or 5th 7 149 [178,108] 47/48.6 [58,39]
6th to 10th 8 124 [150,81] 41/39.5 [57,19]
11th to 15th 7 134 [146,89] 35/36.0 [47,17]
Other 30 98 [175,42] 34/33.3 [53,16]
Despite what pundits want to believe (or think should occur), there’s an obvious correlation not only to a player’s career and if he gets into the Hall of Fame, but also when he gets into the Hall of Fame. It is not limited solely to whether or not he’s a first-ballot player. Based on the table above, whether consciously or sub-consciously, voters do like to peg players as to when they should get the call.
So what about the current group of 2010 candidates that will move onto next year’s ballot as well?
2010
Player Ballot Vote% HoFM HoFS
Dawson 9th 77.9% 118 44
Blyleven 13th 74.2% 120 50
Alomar 1st 73.7% 194 57
Morris 11th 52.3% 122 39
Larkin 1st 51.6% 118 47
Smith,L. 8th 47.3% 135 13
Martinez,E. 1st 36.2% 132 50
Raines 3rd 30.4% 90 47
McGwire 4th 23.7% 170 42
Trammell 9th 22.4% 118 40
McGriff 1st 21.5% 100 48
Mattingly 10th 16.1% 134 34
Parker 14th 15.2% 124 42
Murphy 12th 11.7% 116 34
Baines 4th 6.1% 66 44
Laying Alomar’s HoFM and HoFS score against the first-ballot group, he does seem to fall in the cracks between the first-ballot/second-ballot group. He would not have looked out of place as a first-ballot Hall of Famer, but he doesn’t seem that out of place going in on the second or third ballot, though he will be one of the best-credentialed of that group. As for Larkin, his high vote total is a little surprising, as he seems to be the typical player who would normally be elected on his sixth to 10th ballot; with his high vote total and the typical growth, he may sneak in on his third or fourth ballot. Edgar Martinez‘s first ballot percentage was perfectly in line with what you would expect. Based on his HoFM and HoFS scores, he seems to be a candidate that would fall into the sixth to 10th ballot group as well. Like Larkin, Fred McGriff got a higher vote percentage than one would expect given his HoFM score, but he profiles as a close-but-no-cigar non-inductee. On the other hand, his relatively high HoFS score suggests that if there is more of a shift in the writers to look not at the hardware but strictly the stats, he may surprise and get in toward the end of his eligibility.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
Note that if everybody agrees that a player is a second-year Hall of Famer and votes accordingly, the candidate gets no votes in year one and doesn't even appear on the ballot in year two.
A truly perverse voting system.
I actually kind of like the first ballot being only for the best of the best. If I had a vote I would probably only give first ballot votes to the Ricky Hendersons of the game.
Each of us has the capacity for rational thought (that's what makes us people). I'm asking the voters to use that capacity.
So it is, ultimately, a binary outcome -- you get in, you don't. Yes, some get in by the Veteran's Committee (and in summarizing a particular year's new entrants, the HOF website notes the number elected by the VC). But I don't think ultimately there's an asterisk on anybody.
So perhaps short-term interest in how quickly, or on what ballot, somebody gets in really doesn't matter that much (even if it's fodder for hot-stove chatter).
That all said said, Kniker's call for patience is reasonable. It ain't over til it's over. Even though it may take a looooong time.
But with that said, I do think there is a bit of another tiering. While it may never be said and mentioned, there is no question that a guy who got in on the 2nd or 3rd ballot are typically better players than those that got in on the 9th or 10th or 14th.
The problem with letting time determine who gets voted for is that time dims and confuses memories. Jim Rice is the classic example: a player whose performance the voters couldn't accurately remember nor put into context, making them vulnerable to the Red Sox hype machine.
People always say that a player doesn't accrue any more stats after they quit, so why not have a one and done voting process. I don't like this though, because while the player might not change, the way we look at the game definitely does, and I for on like that the voting gives a long time to figure out what a player's true worth was.
So I have no problem with the length of time someone's on a ballot.
An example of what gets me frustrated is Edgar Martinez garnering 36% in his first year, while Tim Raines barely gets to 30% in his fourth year. Raines failed to crack 20% on his first ballot, I believe.
Crazy stuff! No disrespect to Martinez, but he wasn't 1/2 the player compared to Raines. It's hard to not show some frustration towards the voters when considering outcomes like this.
The process itself can use updating. Fifteen years of eligibility might have made sense in the late 1930s when they had to deal with the pre-1901 backlog. Slicing it to about ten years now seems reasonable. And let's consider consider killing the Veterans Committee, although its current form is not nearly as harmful as previous versions.
If that means that a Blyleven wouldn't make it, so be it. Tough call, but I'd rather err on the side of trying to keep the standards very high. Ten years should be enough time to analyze, ponder, brood, and campaign.
The problem with players like Rice and Tony Perez entering on their 15th try is the slippery slope theory. Excellent players Perez & Rice. My dad is huge Perez fan, in fact. I grew up hearing how clutch he was again and again and again. still, I don't think the Hall would really miss either player.
Perhaps process reform is something for the new Selig Super Task Force to tackle? Patience? Yes, we'll need plenty. After all, is there an organization slower to embrace change than MLB? I'm exaggerating, but not by too much ...
The thing I worry about is setting the bar too low. When you do that the standards slowly creep down and down and down, until it gets the feel of the Hall of Occasional All-Stars or worse the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
The Pro Football Hall of Fame might be mocked, but for each Hall of Famer, there are a thousand who don't make the cut. Same thing goes with baseball.
It is possible standards might creep down. Yet, as long as baseball keeps out churning players with talented careers that force post-retirement evaluation, comparison and criticism with their peers and others, there will always be some level of standard there.
I don't think shortening the time frame would do anyone any good. By the 15th ballot you're 20 years from retirement and likely 30 years from the player's peak, which means the sentimentality is fading among the old writers and a new generation has had time to digest the statistics and the stories. It does lead to poor choices sometimes, but it also means that there's fair consideration to their case.
If you want to shorten the timeframe, then we should also lower the bar for induction to, say, 60% from 75%. And we should make sure the Veterans Committee is doing its job as well to correct the mistakes of the writers. (Personally, I'd like to see the BBWAA lose its sole arbiter position over HoF entry; I'd open it up to include players, coaches, executives, historians, and yes, even fans, though I'd limit the number to 2-3 for every MLB team's fan base.)
I do feel like they should make all the ballots public and eliminate voters who submit blank ballots. Sunshine is a wonderful disinfectant.
Just as the evolution of baseball made the relief pitcher an important role, MLB created the DH position, and it seems very narrow-minded to exclude the greatest person to play in that role.
One of my criteria to elect someone into the Hall is whether that person was ever considerd the best at his position. On that score I'd say Martinez could easily be considered the best at his position, both on an annual and lifetime basis, while Raines was never considered the best OF of his day in any given year.
But the point is that if he gets in at all, he will have one of the lowest HoFM of ANYONE who was elected by the Writers.
I'm a Yankees fan, and I remember Rice as being downright feared in that Red Sox lineup.