Hall Of Fame Vote

I kinda wanted to stay out of this, 'cause it's such a heated debate, but here's an example of why baseball writers MIGHT not actually be the best guys to be voting, this is from Hardballtalk.com, I'm cut/pasting the whole article

Thanks, Niners for the interesting article. However, all it really shows is there is a pretty clueless writer among the voters. I'm sure there are some more. However, no matter what group you choose--be it sabrmetricians, GMs, or scouts--you are going to get some clueless voters who are not generally smart and/or let their personal biases guide their votes.

As I said earlier, baseball writers are the best potential voters because they cover MLB year-round. They get to observe and learn the statistical and non-statistical values of MLB players. They also get to see how MLB and its players affect and engage with its communities and fans. Nobody else in the baseball world gets to acquire that level of valuable knowledge.

I'm not advocating they should be excluded from the process, but I do think they should not be the exclusive voters. I think a panel of former players/managers/executives and even broadcasters should be assembled to do the voting. I'm not sure if the radio and TV broadcasters get a vote unless they are also members of the written press. I do not believe guys like Olberman or Costas, two of the most knowledgeable baseball guys around are voters, and I think perhaps they should be included. Either that or some sort of test to become a voter. Not sure what's entailed in gaining a BBWAA card, but I've heard stories that they can go to general sports writers in towns and with the shrinking of print media these days how many guys are actually full time beat writers that follow the team day after day, are there at spring training, etc. I'd bet it isn't nearly the number it was 50 years ago. Times have changed, perhaps the Hall should change a little bit with them.

That sounds sensible. Bringing in Costas and Olberman alone would be worth it.

That sounds sensible. Bringing in Costas and Olberman alone would be worth it.

Hear hear.

( or is it Here, here, I've never known )

The idea that just because all human beings have some bias that sportswriters have equal bias/conflicts of interest as former GMs and sabrmetricians is pretty weak. The idea that just because they cover baseball (many actually don't anymore though) that they are as knowledgeable as GMs and sabrmetricians about baseball evaluation is beyond weak. The examples of HOF voter incompetence are legion and have been mentioned throughout this thread. One that I forgot about until now is the absurd argument that DH's like Edgar Martinez are unworthy because they are "part time players" while the same voters elect 1-inning closers in droves. Edgar had far more influence on a pennant race than Trevor Hoffman in his day. Eck too.

The idea that just because all human beings have some bias that sportswriters have equal bias/conflicts of interest as former GMs and sabrmetricians is pretty weak.

First of all, thanks for your rude dismissals. People have actually been whining I've been wrong for even directly disagreeing with people. But you just come out with the blunt, impolite "weak" remarks and show how polite I have been...

Now, none of my arguments were weak. You said sportswriters shouldn't vote because they are biased. Then you proposed voters--sabrmetricians, scouts, and GMs--who are also biased. So, your proposal undercut your original argument, which was weak. QED...my argument was correct.

Secondly, I never said sportswriters are "as knowledgable" about baseball as GMs and sabrmetricians, although many are. I said they had a particular knowledge that is best for HOF voting, and I was right. Your argument that sabrmetricians' rigorously restricted area of expertise or GM's biased perspectives would make them superior voters is truly beyond weak.

As to mistakes, yes, writers have made them. A lot of writers have gotten it right a lot of the time, too. I, and many others, have no problem with their end result. You need to remember that not everybody shares your WAR-worship, and voters aren't wrong just because they don't share it. Most baseball people don't. And I won't get into the Martinez/DH debate. However, many sabrmetricians, scouts, and GMs also value defense greatly. They might not vote for him either.

Regarding who would make the best voters.....

Sportswriters do not always cover all of baseball. Many cover a specific team and have limited knowledge of other teams, especially those in the other league. Many allow whether they liked a player or not to influence their vote.
A player for example who for whatever reason was not a good interview or did not like talking to the media will find his HOF chances reduced. I know of one writer here in Texas who had it in for Arod because he would not sign this guy's bat upon which he was collecting signatures no doubt with hopes of selling it upon retirement to fund his retirement.

Players would make a better judge of hall worthiness as they know who the good players were. They know who you could take the extra base against and who you better not challenge. They know who the best opposing pitchers were or what batters they had to be extra careful against.

GMs would be better than writers because they have to keep up on players for all teams. It is their jobs to know who the best players in the league are and evaluate whether any given player would be someone to pursue as a free agent or consider in a trade offer.

Regardless of who does the voting though it should not be a lifetime appointment. Failure to even turn in a ballot or turning in an empty ballot should get you removed from voting privileges for example. When a candidate is as obvious as Maddux or Johnson and some airhead leaves them off ballot they should lose voting privileges and be barred from ever watching another baseball game.

Valen is being a bit misleading here.

Sportswriters do not always cover all of baseball. Many cover a specific team and have limited knowledge of other teams, especially those in the other league.

This is an exaggeration. All decent beat writers stay abreast of the rest of baseball. They have to to knowledgeably write bout the teams they cover. So most of them are knowledgeable voters.

Many allow whether they liked a player or not to influence their vote.

We've already agreed some writers are biased. So, Valen's A-Rod anecdote is merely anecdotal. However, as I noted earlier, members of any group of voters are going to be biased. So moving away from sportswriters isn't going to change that.

Players would make a better judge of hall worthiness as they know who the good players were.

This just isn't true. Firstly, players would be the most biased voters of all. They'd be biased for the players they played with and biased against players they didn't like. Also, many of the players pay no attention to what is going on in the other league, if they even pay great attention to their own. They are busy playing the game; most of them aren't going to spend much time studying it. Most players would not be great voters.

GMs would be better than writers because they have to keep up on players for all teams.

I have no problem with GM's voting. They are all very knowledgable about the game. However, they too would be biased for players they had, drafted, or for whom they traded. So, if Valen is actually against biased voters, he can't be for GM voters either.

Regardless of who does the voting though it should not be a lifetime appointment. Failure to even turn in a ballot or turning in an empty ballot should get you removed from voting privileges for example. When a candidate is as obvious as Maddux or Johnson and some airhead leaves them off ballot they should lose voting privileges and be barred from ever watching another baseball game.

I completely agree that voting should not be a lifetime appointment, and gross violation of voting rules should lead to disbarment. However, you can't remove voters for not picking who they were supposed to pick. That goes against the whole idea of voting. It also adds an unsavory intimidation element. Also, who would determine what players the voters had to pick? Who would judge their decisions? So, there is a clear undesirable quandary there.

Valen is being a bit misleading here.

Sportswriters do not always cover all of baseball. Many cover a specific team and have limited knowledge of other teams, especially those in the other league.

This is an exaggeration. All decent beat writers stay abreast of the rest of baseball. They have to to knowledgeably write bout the teams they cover. So most of them are knowledgeable voters.

No it really isn't.

I've worked in the media, (TV to be precise) but have many friends that work in print, radio and TV and trust me, other than the larger cities, NY, LA, Boston,etc. many of the smaller market teams do not have a beat writer anymore, or at least not a guy that's exclusive to the baseball team. and even if they do, they may only cover the team when they are in town, and not see the competition up close like they did back in the day. Newspapers can't afford it. It's changed and the panels of voters should too.

Yes, it really is.

You didn't counter what I said, Niners. I said all decent beat writers stay abreast of the rest of baseball and they do. With all due respect to your anecdotal experience, most (if not all) baseball markets do have newspapers with writers covering their local team. They also mostly stay abreast of what other teams are doing as well. With the internet, they certainly don't have to see the competition up close to do so, and it costs their newspapers nothing.

As I've said before, I have no problem with the makeup of the panel of voters changing to meet the times. However, sportswriters are (and would be) particularly and specially knowledged voters vital to a successful voting process.


P.s. What exactly did you do in TV? It sounds interesting.

Strether I think the argument is weak, but I honestly wasn't intending for that to come off as rude on a personal level. I'm trying to be "nice". Seriously.

Have a good day.