11
2013
It’s Time To Change The Hall Of Fame Voting Process
An article by 
I’ve read many columns from my colleagues, and was greatly disappointed in those who would not recognize a player on the first ballot, and even worse, those who returned their ballots blank.
As I wrote yesterday, boycotting first timers is an abuse of power. If you truly believe a player merits induction based on his career, then he should be on your ballot the first year.
You can’t legislate whom a voter marks down on his ballot, and history has shown this practice has gone on since the voting began.
It was our own Tom Seaver who appeared on the highest percentage of the ballots when he appeared on 98.84 percent of the ballots cast. In the all-time rankings of the Hall of Fame inductees by percentage: Ty Cobb (4), Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner (tied 11), Willie Mays (14), Ted Williams (18), and Stan Musial (19).
Did you know, Frank Robinson, Joe DiMaggio, Al Kaline, Mickey Mantle, Mel Ott, Yogi Berra, Bob Gibson and Harmon Killebrew didn’t even receive 90 percent of the vote when they first appeared on a ballot?
Did you know, before the voting rules changed, that Lou Gehrig received only 22.6 percent of the vote?
How could any of these players not appear on a voter’s ballot?
If you’re a voter and believe a player is worthy, he should not be omitted based on his first year of eligibility. Frankly, that is an abuse of your voting privileges.
Then there is the issue of the blank ballot. You’re allotted ten votes. Send your message against the steroid users all you want, but don’t penalize a worthy candidate with a blank ballot because it still counts and it impacts the percentages. I find it impossible out of all the candidates a voter can’t find at least one player worthy.
A blank vote is a vote of arrogance.
There are several voting guidelines, but one should never be to dictate how a member votes. I am disappointed in the first-year and blank ballot voters, but don’t believe they should lose the right to vote based on their God-complex.
What changes would I make in the voting process?
- I would have the Hall of Fame voters identified with their choices. Media members can find out easily enough as to whom the voters chose. I think it should be out front and a condition of the voting.
- Blank ballots should be identified and not count against the percentage of ballots cast. This will eliminate the voter who votes against Barry Bonds and in the fallout penalizes Craig Biggio.
- Identify drug users on their plaques and have their names listed with an asterisk in the record books. Tainted players have tainted records. In my thinking, Hank Aaron and Roger Maris have the career and single-season home run records, not Bonds and McGwire. When I refer to Bonds and McGwire, I’ll say “balls hit over the wall,” and not call them home runs.
Baseball is about numbers and history. Bonds, Clemens and Rafael Palmeiro, not to mention Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson, all have careers worthy of induction. We just can’t pretend their careers didn’t exist.
To put a scarlet letter on their careers doesn’t condone their actions, but acknowledges their complete roles in the sport.
About the Author: John Delcos
I am an active member of the BBWAA and have covered Major League Baseball in several capacities for over 20 years, including ten in New York working the Mets' and Yankees' beat. I covered the Baltimore Orioles for eight years and the Cleveland Indians before that. I currently serve as an editor and senior staff writer for Mets Merized Online. Follow me on Twitter @jdelcos.
33 Comments + Add Comment
Recent Comments
- philipag: on Scout Says No Way Flores Can Play Any Position But First Base: I didn't think he looked bad at...
- SaltyGary: on Mets and Braves Suspended After Eight Tied 5-5, Will Resume Play Saturday: Well lets see for Ike, he's known...
- kevin: on Mets and Braves Suspended After Eight Tied 5-5, Will Resume Play Saturday: you hit the nail on the head...
- kevin: on Cowgill and Nieuwenhuis Continue to Struggle in Minors: question, when do legares and puello get...
- Metfan Lou: on Mets and Braves Suspended After Eight Tied 5-5, Will Resume Play Saturday: Although I was disgusted at the Hawkins'...
Need Tickets To The Mets Game?
Check Out These Great MLB Links!
Photographs From Gordon Donovan
5393 Fans Follow Us On Twitter!
1269 Fans Like Us On Facebook!
2341 Fans Read Our Feed!
1702 Fans Subscribe via Daily Email!
hey John – I think part of the problem is the guidelines and how voters feel they should interpret them.
“Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
If those are the only criteria a player should be elected on then items such as integrity and character need to have a burden of proof attached to them. You want to not vote in Roberto Alomar because he spit in the face of an umpire – you have the right. To me that is a clear case against his character. It happened.
You want to vote against McGwire because he admitted steroid use or Palmeiro because he got caught – go ahead.
But to attack a person’s character with absolutely no proof is something people are sued for. You can’t just throw around accusations without any proof that a person’s character is flawed. And those that believe for example Piazza or Bagwell’s character is flawed are in the business of finding legitimate proof and writing about it. They had plenty of time to do so and nothing came up.
I believe the Hall of Fame has a responsibility to be the bigger person and to tell it’s electors to consider actual evidence that a person’s character, integrity or sportsmanship were flawed to the degree it should negate their contributions on the field.
John, thanks for considering alternatives. But I don’t think you went far enough.
1) Don’t most writers reveal their ballot anyway nowadays? The web has made that possible and we all can easily find out who voted how.
2) If blank ballots were discarded, couldn’t someone then just add a stupid write-in candidate so that their entire ballot would count. You know, someone like Sean Green or even Rey Ordonez?
3) I think this is an excellent solution. For players already in the hall who are later found out to have done steroids, then an asterisk can be added to their plaque. I also like Gossage’s recommendation that players later revealed to be cheaters should just have their plaque removed.
I think there needs to be more fundamental change in the voting electorate and the process. But at least the asterisk solution or the plaque removal solution would eliminate the instances where writers say they fear an inductee would later be found out.
hey Metro (or me as I should call you?)
There are hundreds of ballots, so no – the majority of writers still do not reveal their ballot. Many of them do now, but you’re still not seeing the majority.
I don’t like Goose’s view because I think it leads to more controversy. For example lets say Bagwell gets in and then 2 years later somebody comes out and says I gave Bagwell steroids. Is that enough? What kind of burden of proof do you need?
Also, doctoring a ball was illegal but it didn’t add a * next to Gaylord Perry’s name. Why is 1 level of “cheating” determined acceptable but another is not?
jessep, fair points.
You’re right. Not all ballots are revealed. So maybe it will make a difference. If they don’t do more fundamental change (which is unlikely) they should implement smaller steps such as this one.
As for handling members later found out to be cheats, well maybe a special committee could be convened to determine that. It could consist of either only HOF members or both members and writers. They could allow for an advocate or lawyer to represent the member in question and give arguments for their side. Gossage was able to distinguish between Bonds/Clemens and Piazza as regards to varying types of evidence, so I don’t think the majority of the other current members and writers would have a hard time. This panel would decide whether the level of evidence warranted the asterisk or removal of the plaque.
Regarding the spitball and scuffed balls … There is some debate as to how much it really impacts a pitch. Some claim it’s mostly a mental thing. Isn’t that what Scott claimed in ’86 when he faced the Mets? Regardless, assuming it does have some effect, I differentiate between minor forms of cheating and anabolic steroids. Minor forms of cheating are greenies, corked bats, spitballs, stealing signs, etc. If a HOF-caliber player had been suspended for greenies and nothing else, and I had a vote for the HOF, I would not hesitate to vote for him.
See – I totally disagree. If MLB says “doing X is cheating” then you can’t say doctoring a baseball is still okay. You can’t dictate the levels of cheating that deserve a *. Basically we’re just saying we prefer one method over another.
If major league baseball tells its players “do not doctor a baseball or you will be cheating the game.” then deciding to do that is exactly the same as deciding to perform any other activity that is deemed as “cheating.”
It’s about the act of CHOOSING to cheat the game not the level of impact that decision has on a statistic. It’s about character, integrity and sportsmanship remember?
The charter of the HOF is not specific as to the issue of cheating. Therefore it leaves the decision to each individual voter. It is by design a subjective process. So subjectivity is inherently a big part of the voting.
Therefore, I think a writer looking at the broad range of behavior would normally make distinctions between different types of behavior. As an analogy, lets look at he law outside of baseball. Jaywalking, tax evasion, bribery, and assault are all against the law. But would you put all those transgressions on the same level? If various political candidates had engaged in each of these activities, which ones would you automatically exclude from your ballot? Which ones would you vote for?
Selig and MLB caused this problem. They turned a blind eye in the 90s to what they surely knew was running rampant. After the strike shortened season, the last thing they wanted was to bring this controversy to the forefront, possibly losing more fans than the strike did. HRs, power hitters, power pitchers were exciting – and they knew it.
Fast forward 20 years and we’re seeing the repercussions of that decision. Sure, players like Bonds and Clemons and ARod made their decision, no one twisted their arm. No one made them think twice about those decisions either as there were virtually little penalties for what they were doing.
Something tells me Selig & Co. either were too ignorant to see 15 years down the road or didn’t much care at the moment. For all those in the industry that turned a blind eye then…I don’t want to hear you up on your soapbox now. And that includes some in the media.
Those that participated in causing this problem should step up to the plate now and find a way to fix it.
srt – For me, I think when people only blame Selig and the sport they are passing blame unfairly. The media and the fans are also to blame. You can’t say the era saved the sport if the fans didn’t respond favorably to the usage. Steroid use wasn’t some mysterious thing that nobody had ever seen before. People had ideas and thoughts of “why is Henry Rodriguez all of a sudden a HR king caliber player?” but they didn’t want the answer.
I’m not saying we as fans knew people like say Palmeiro was taking PED but to say we never had suspicions about guys like McGwire, Dykstra, Bonds, Canseco etc is not accurate at all. We all knew it wasn’t natural (or should have known) we just didn’t want to know for sure.
jessep (or me, lol) … what exactly do you think the media should have done. Let’s say you (or me
) are a beat reporter in 2000. You see back acne on Piazza. What, if anything do you do?
First thing you should do is confirm it is bacne and not skin irritation on a hairy Italian guy who wears catcher equipment in 90+ degree weather for 4 hours a day.
Do Donal, let’s say you are the beat reporter. Are you simply going to ask Piazza directly what’s with his back? And if he says, it’s a bad case of back acne, what do you do next?
should read: SO, Donal …
Look into it. research. Investigate. Reporters in the past have done such things.
Does Piazza demonstrate any other symptoms of steroid use? Did he attain mass in ways that don’t coincide with natural growth? Did his body radically change in a way most likely associate with steroids?
I get the fear of rocking the boat and losing access, but what is the point of that access if you can’t ask some pretty important questions? Why are you a reporter in the first place?
In all honesty, I wouldn’t even be making an issue of the media’s complacency if so many of them weren’t being such blazing hypocrites right now.
Does Piazza demonstrate any other symptoms of steroid use? Did he attain mass in ways that don’t coincide with natural growth? Did his body radically change in a way most likely associate with steroids?
So, in terms of “other symptoms” you have as much info on Piazza as we all have today. You ask Piazza how he got such big muscles. He tells you he works hard in the gym. You go look at your newspaper’s archives and the pictures they have don’t show Piazza’s weight to be much different in the past then it is at time you are covering him.
Do you just let it go then? Or do you keep peppering him with questions and have him tell you to bug off?
I get the fear of rocking the boat and losing access, but what is the point of that access if you can’t ask some pretty important questions? Why are you a reporter in the first place?
You can ask. But you are likely not going to be told anything that clarifies the situation, or you are going to be told to bug off. You’re a beat reporter to report on the team you cover. That doesn’t mean investigative reporting. A few papers have dedicated reporters for that (like the NY Daily News) but many don’t even have the budget for it. So your boss is likely to tell you to stick to your assignments. That’s what you’re being paid to do.
Metro – I would love to ask a lawyer this question if I could
Does writing and accusing a player of taking PED’s without any evidence qualify as a defamation of character?
Because TECHNICALLY throwing the idea out there with no proof that Bagwell or Piazza took steroids essentially is keeping them from earning $. Because a HoF player does get paid a good amount to go to shows etc.
I’m just wondering aloud really.
jessep, I don’t see why it wouldn’t. Seems like classic libel. A reporter could say he had back acne, and that would be fine. But a reporter can’t write that Piazza roided up and he knows this because he has back acne. He would expose himself and his newspaper to a libel suit.
So this is why Murray Chass’ editors told him to shut up essentially — besides the fact that they personally may have also felt it wasn’t fair to accuse someone of PEDs usage without evidence.
So one more good reason why I can’t blame the beat reporters. That doesn’t mean I give the media a complete pass. National writers and NY columnists had the ability to voice their concerns in general on the broader issues (but not point fingers without proof) and so few did. Some did like Verducci and TJ Quinn of the Daily News … but some had a soapbox and didn’t . I don’t recall Gammons, for example, saying anything about it. And he was one of the most influential baseball writers at the time. At any rate, I place the media’s culpability as fairly low because of all of these factors.
“So, in terms of “other symptoms” you have as much info on Piazza as we all have today.”
Which means I don’t have much more to go on. Which means I say I have no reason to think he did steroids at that time. Which means I don’t go talking about it now a decade after the fact and smear his name.
the other thing is, of course I expect a denial when I ask him, especially if I have no proof. which is why I don’t confront him first. I ask those other questions and do my leg work. If I get affirmative answers to those questions, then I consider asking him directly. But, I have to get proof before I make an accusation.
So Donal, then I hope you get my point. There was little the beat reporters could do. But that doesn’t mean the media deserve a full pass. As I mention to jessep above, national writers and columnists could have done more.
One more point about the beat reporters. Let’s say you, as a beat reporter, dug too deeply into Piazza’s situation with the back acne. He resents you for prying into his affairs. He blackballs you, and gets his buddies, Leiter and Franco, to blackball you. All of a sudden you find yourself having problems getting access to these players. Your stories start to suffer in relation to the other beat reporters. Your bosses notice and — boom — you’re fired! There’s just so much investigative type digging a beat reporter may want to do.
If I pursue a story that has no merit, then I have to stop. That is part of the job. If I say that Piazza used steroids but lack proof, I deserve to be blackballed and fired.
” There was little the beat reporters could do. But that doesn’t mean the media deserve a full pass.”
See, here is the problem. They didn’t just look and fail to find proof. they either failed to look or buried what proof they had. There is no way a room full reporters could laugh at Lenny Dykstra’s “good vitamins” and not know what was going on.
Donal, how do you know they failed to look? These guys didn’t juice up in plain view. IF they had, many more people than beat reporters would have said something. How do you that those who saw something buried it? Many reporters said they saw back acne with Piazza and they didn’t bury it. It’s just that you can’t go far with that.
As for Dykstra, you can look at him and say without a doubt that he’s a juicer. But without evidence, you can’t go anywhere with that suspicion. If you publish accusations without proof, you put yourself and your paper at risk for a lawsuit, and you risk your own job too.
The idea that reporters buried incriminating evidence is pure speculation on your part. They likely had suspicions like the rest of us, but without proof they can’t go anywhere with it.
You don’t need to dig for proof with Dykstra. He’s since admitted it – on more than one occasion. Of course, Dykstra isn’t going to the HOF either.
Well, several of them are going around saying they knew the whole time. Maybe they could have asked their friends that reported on the NFL, body building, Olympic weight lifting, pro wrestling and collegiate steroid scandals where to look.
This was a booming industry full of guys who are not known as MENSA candidates. You wouldn’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to find evidence if it existed. they weren’t be very subtle about it.
srt — we’re talking about the time when these players first came under suspicion. For Dykstra, I believe that was 1990, in spring training for the Phillies. That’s when he first showed up significantly bulked up. So, if you’re a reporter THEN, how do you go about proving he juiced?
They may have suspected for a long time, but they don’t mean they actually knew for a fact. Suspicions are one thing. Actual knowledge of something is a different matter.
In order to prove that some guys juiced, Mitchell spent over a year, millions of dollars, and he had the resources of the federal government behind him. How can a beat reporter whose job it is to cover one team supposed to do similar work? How would you go about proving that Dykstra juiced at the time?? Serious. It’s easy to say it could be done. But you wouldn’t even know where to begin to look. Also, what’s your boss gonna say? You’re supposed to be covering the next 162 games for the Phillies, writing pre-and-post game stories every day. When are you going to find time to go on a wild goose chase trying to prove Lenny juiced? Who’s going to pay for it?
I understand what you’re saying, Jessup and you have a point. More than just Selig participated in turning the blind eye.
But ultimately, it was Selig’s responsibility as commish to take action and he didn’t. The buck stops with him and I believe he knew exactly what he was doing back then.
Don’t get me wrong…I’m kind of on the fence with this whole cheating controversy to start with. What bugs me more than anything though is those that turned a blind eye back then have no right to get up on their soapbox now. It’s a bit hypocritical.
I say overlook the ‘roid guys and just vote on stats. The casual tourist to the HOF will walk through and take a cursory look at the display and be in and out in ten minutes. The KNOWLEDGEABLE fan will be visiting “The Shrine” and when they pass Bonds and McQuire and Sosa, etc., will take a quick look, and move on to the guys who were respected like Blyleven and DiMaggio and Robinson and Schmidt, etc. This is the way to handle it. And vote Pete Rose in. He did prison time, admitted it and it is time before he dies to honor him for his ON FIELD record.
It is a museum. The best of th ebest should be in, even if controversial. Though I can see keeping out the guys that admitted or got caught to cheating.
still, guys have to be evaluated in the era they played in. If 500 HRs is the new 400 or 300, so be it. But don’t penalize say Murphy because of what the roid guys did.
bottom line, it should be for the guys that were the best of their time, and true stars. And of course, you can note their “issues” if they get it, since it is part of history.
My thoughts on voting” ditch the writers, and form a rotating committee with some writers, current HOF guys, MLB insiders, heck even some bloggers. have guys rotate on and off.
I don’t think the voting is the issue….
I think the Ballot and nomination proccess needs to be changed.
Guys like Bonds and Clemmon who are KNOWN ped uses should be given the same treatment a guy like Rose got, banned from baseball and entry into the hall!
If they are not on the Ballot then they can’t throw the cotes into a tizzy and what remains can be judged on it’s merits not on who was left after I decided who NOT to vote for.
If it ever comes about that someone who used PEDS is exposed post being voted in they get banned and removed from the hall as well!
Then it is not about SUSPICIONS and RUMORS over use tey made the Ballot based on what was known at the time and if information changes they lose the honor!
Either that or what they need to do is get some fat cat donor who will finance a new wing at the Hall for the “STEROIDS ERA” and anyone who gets inducted from that era gets put there!
It won’t have to be a big section just big enough to hold 20-30 years worth of inductees….
Personally I applaud those who submitted empty ballots….
If you believe none of them deserve to be in that is precisely what you should do.
I’m surprised that it has only happened 9 times since 1936 that someone was NOT inducted…
That number should be MUCH higher if they really are using the standards that they are given.
I believe Roger Clemens took steroids, however – I don’t think you can lump him in with Bonds. This is exactly the problem with this issue.
Whether you or I like it or not, Roger Clemens was found not guilty on all of his perjury charges related to this issue. The amount of actual proof (which is your favorite word) on Roger Clemens is not equal to that of Barry Bonds.
So how can you honestly look at Roger Clemens and give him a lifetime ban when a US Court of Law ruled him not guilty?
jessep, keep in mind Clemens wasn’t on trial for steroids use. He was just on trial for perjury. That’s a totally different thing. There was a lot of evidence not allowed at trial because of that. So he wasn’t acquitted on steroids use.
There is a ton of evidence on Clemens. Now some may say they don’t believe McNamee. But he had no reason to lie and his life was left in ruins due to this whole thing. There is also evidence from other people that paints Clemens as a PEDs abuser.
A few writers voted for Clemens and didn’t vote for Bonds. Many in the media remarked that this was another example of illogical or inconsistent HOF voting. I agree.
Hate to disagree with you here, because we usually see eye to eye. But look at it this way, no one can ever accuse of us of being the same person anymore!
Granted Court of Law found him not guilty but then again we know that Pettite perjured himself to get that verdict….
As for Bonds you can make a good case for him too….
He WAS an HOF bound player long before he took roids and started taking them when guys like McGwire and Sosa were taking what used to be his annual titles away due to thier use of PEDs….
He wasn’t cheating and then decided if others are going to a get away with it, I have to do whatever I can to keep up!
This is the main problem with Bonds and why some think he should get in regardless of his use.
SO it comes down to drawing a line that will have lots of straddlers who get in or shut out fairly or unfailry, Or ignoring all uses that occurred pre-testing and only take action against those who tested positive once it was CLEARLY a violation of MLB rules.
Thats why I suggest making a new wing at the Hall that is for all the guys who played in and through the Steroids era. It will malign those who have never been proven to use for sure, But it does show who got in during an era where numbers may be the product of chemicals and maybe serve as an Educational exhibit for the younglings who go to the hall and see how cheating and chemicals put you outside the hall of the other greats.
if a player is worthy to be in HOF then why penalize them and others then go and vote the same players in the following year or the next when nothing in that players resume has changed?
Too many voters consider themselves judge, jury and decider of when a player goes in.
Piazza, Biggio and Bagwell are no brainers for HOF but because they played in steroid era they are kept out by holier than thou voters.
Really, I know that Baseball HOF is toughest to enter, and I like that, but to penalize worthy players and the say that in 2014 or 2014 they are more “worthy” makes the voters just a bunch of spoiled kids who didn’t get invited to the dance so they penalize those that were able to to go to the dance.
Travesty and all the supposed baseball minds on MLB network and writers who have made themselves judges should be ashamed and not allowed to justify or make eloquent excuses on tv.
They fracked up and should be called out on this lack of integrity.
What in the Wide, Wide World of Sports is going on here? (In memory to Blazing Saddles)
If a player is worthy to be in HOF then why penalize them and others then go and vote the same players in the following year or the next when nothing in that players resume has changed?
Too many voters consider themselves judge, jury and decider of when a player goes in.
Piazza, Biggio and Bagwell are no brainers for HOF but because they played in steroid era they are kept out by holier than thou voters.
Really, I know that Baseball HOF is toughest to enter, and I like that, but to penalize worthy players and the say that in 2014 or 2014 they are more “worthy” makes the voters just a bunch of spoiled kids who didn’t get invited to the dance so they penalize those that were able to to go to the dance.
Travesty and all the supposed baseball minds on MLB network and writers who have made themselves judges should be ashamed and not allowed to justify or make eloquent excuses on tv.
They fracked up and should be called out on this lack of integrity.