Baseball HOF changes voting rules

[soxhop411]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/13332844/baseball-hall-fame-eliminate-voters-inactive-more-10-years

NEW YORK -- Baseball's Hall of Fame is cutting the number of voters in its annual election by eliminating writers who have not been active for more than 10 years.


Before the Baseball Hall of Fame announced Tuesday it would eliminate voters who were not active writers for more than 10 years, there were 650 people eligible to vote. AP Photo/Mike Groll
The change was announced Tuesday by the Hall's board of directors.

Until now, the electorate has included people who have been active members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America for 10 consecutive years at any point.

The Hall says in a statement that "BBWAA members previously holding Hall of Fame voting privileges who are no longer active in the game and are more than 10 years removed from active status will have the opportunity for annual reinstatement, based on their coverage of the game in the preceding year."

Before the change, about 650 people were eligible to vote.
---------------------

I wonder if this could positively effect suspected PED users.

 

[TheYaz67]

Good question, I guess we will see.  However, I would kind of imagine that the guys that don't actively write on baseball anymore but still have a vote would be inclined to vote for the "stars" that they know certainly have HOF-like numbers (so Bonds, Clemens) rather than doing the hard work of trying to figure out whether marginal guys actually have a decent case, but that is just a guess.
 
Speaking of guesses, how many voters do we think this will cull out?  I imagine the HOF knows but is not saying for whatever reason - I'm guessing it will get rid of around 100 voters or more...

 

[JimD]

It's a good thing Murray Chass isn't alive to see this.

 

[MuzzyField]

Good question, I guess we will see.  However, I would kind of imagine that the guys that don't actively write on baseball anymore but still have a vote would be inclined to vote for the "stars" that they know certainly have HOF-like numbers (so Bonds, Clemens) rather than doing the hard work of trying to figure out whether marginal guys actually have a decent case, but that is just a guess.
 
Speaking of guesses, how many voters do we think this will cull out?  I imagine the HOF knows but is not saying for whatever reason - I'm guessing it will get rid of around 100 voters or more...

This is the obvious and necessary part of this initiative, but could a secondary concern be the number of credentialed baseball "writers" has actually expanded with online coverage and at some point these writers (not the ones already voting after long print careers that jumped off the sinking print ship out of necessity to join the .com world) will be reaching the 10-year mark for inclusion in the HOF voting process?

 

[TheYaz67]

I am guessing that this is indeed related to that dynamic Muzzy, along with the long standing frustration regarding some of the rather awful/uninformed ballots that some of these voters that are being shed turn in (or in some cases, don't even bother to turn in)...

 

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

This is a step in the right direction but until they expand they number of players a guy can vote for the system will still be very flawed. My ballot would have had 19 people on it last year, and there were 205 FULL ballots last year.
 
If anyone wants to see David Ortiz in the hall of fame, take a look at Carlos Delgado's numbers and the 1.5% of ballots he was on.

 

[ALiveH]

Ortiz' career has been significantly better than Delgado and he's still continuing to put up counting stats.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/delgaca01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/ortizda01.shtml

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

What does "active" mean? And what does the annual application for reinstatement based on previous year's work entail? 
 
If I'm an 80 yo, retired BBWAA guy who hasn't had a column in 15 years, but will force you to pry my vote out of my cold dead fingers, can I go back to my old paper and write an op ed a couple times a year? Have my grandson set me up a website and start a blog? 
 
This is obviously a step in the right direction, I'm just curious as to the details. I have a feeling this isn't exactly all the old men getting the boot to the ass we hope it is. 

 

[Hank Scorpio]

This is a step in the right direction but until they expand they number of players a guy can vote for the system will still be very flawed. My ballot would have had 19 people on it last year, and there were 205 FULL ballots last year.
 
If anyone wants to see David Ortiz in the hall of fame, take a look at Carlos Delgado's numbers and the 1.5% of ballots he was on.

 
A few weeks back, a Facebook friend asked me "why is Ozzie Smith a Hall of Famer, but Dwight Evans isn't?"
 
The election process was a big part of my answer:
 

I'm looking at the HOF voting results for 1997, which I was Evans' first year of eligibility, and I'm having a hard time understanding how he didn't at least get more votes. He came in 18th, with no real "names" ahead of him. Phil Niekro was the only one who got in with 80.3% of the vote. Evans only had 5.9%...
Evans fared a bit better in 1998, with 10.4%, but Don Sutton was the only one voted in, on his 5th year on the ballot. It was pretty much the same Hall class of 1997.

1999 is what screwed Dwight over completely. There were new "big-name" HoF candidates, Nolan Ryan, George Brett, Robin Yount, and Carlton Fisk. The first three would all get in, and Carlton Fisk would be close. Since writers only have so many votes they can cast, a lot of these votes came at Evans' expense. He fell to 3.6%, and thus became ineligible for future ballots. 

When Ozzie Smith made his HoF Ballot debut in 2002, he was going up against a lot of the same guys Dwight Evans was: Jim Rice, Bruce Sutter, Steve Garvey. And Ozzie steamrolled the competition, getting 91.7% of the vote. Gary Carter was the only one close to making it that season.

 
Delgado got screwed over much like Dwight Evans did. Maybe they should be in the HOF, maybe not, but their time on the ballot was cut short by years with absolutely insane ballot cards.
 
Ortiz has the most ridiculous of postseason resumes, which Delgado lacks (one postseason, although he was impressive in it). The biggest thing working against Ortiz is going to be the PED (Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod eventually) guys and the guys who are unfairly lumped together with the PED guys (Bagwell, Piazza, maybe Schilling). Not saying Ortiz won't get in because of PED allegations, but there are so many of those guys who are going to get 20-60% of the vote, and not get in each and every year, that we might wind up with several consecutive seasons of either zero or one guy getting in. I think Griffey gets in next season, maybe Hoffman.
 
The following year, you have Pudge, Vlad and Manny - who will quite possibly still be going up against Bagwell, Piazza, Bonds and Clemens, not to mention Schilling, possibly Hoffman, McGriff, Smith, Raines, and so on... 2018 brings Chipper Jones, Jim Thome, and Omar Vizquel... 2019 ushers in Roy Halliday, Todd Helton, and Fruitbat... 2020 will be the biggest Captain Intangibles sploogefest yet, along with Paul Konerko and Jason Giambi.
 
By the time Ortiz is eligible (say 2022?), we could be on a six year run in which we've seen historic amounts of talent on the ballot, with maybe only Griffey, Rivera and Jeter getting in. Every player I've listed deserves to be in on their own merits, but the voters are fickle. This season's class of four was the largest ever voted in by the writers, and last season's class of three is a rare occurrence.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Could you reference a reason Schilling might be lumped in with PED guys?

And seriously, Jason Giambi? Who the hell is he stealing votes from? Id be surprised if he gets more than ten. Konerko will fall off after one year as well, he's not getting close to 5%.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

What does "active" mean? And what does the annual application for reinstatement based on previous year's work entail? 
 
If I'm an 80 yo, retired BBWAA guy who hasn't had a column in 15 years, but will force you to pry my vote out of my cold dead fingers, can I go back to my old paper and write an op ed a couple times a year? Have my grandson set me up a website and start a blog? 
 
This is obviously a step in the right direction, I'm just curious as to the details. I have a feeling this isn't exactly all the old men getting the boot to the ass we hope it is. 

 
 
Here's what "active" means according to the BBWAA's constitution:
 

 
Section 2: Active membership in this Association shall be reserved to persons who meet the following qualifications:

1. A: Members, as restricted below, of the staff of a daily newspaper which covers, by staff reporter at home and by a staff reporter or special correspondent on the road, 75 percent of the scheduled games of the Major League teams in its area. In the case of a chapter in which two or more Major League teams are based, it shall be sufficient for a paper to cover, by staff reports, 75 percent of the home games of those teams.
    
   1. On such papers, the sports editor shall submit to the Chapter Chair a list of applicants. That paper shall be entitled to membership in the Association for one sports editor, all full-time general sports columnists who regularly cover baseball, and as many reporters as are primarily assigned to cover baseball.

1. 2. The definition of “special correspondent,” as noted in Subsection A, shall be determined by the local chapter. Any newspaper denied Association membership in this situation may appeal the ruling to the National Board of Directions.

1. B: Regularly-assigned sports staff members of foreign-language daily newspapers or press associations who emphasize single-city coverage, but only within the limits prescribed above.

1. C: Statisticians who supply baseball records to daily newspapers, baseball public relations personnel and other specialists who may be deemed eligible by the Board of Directors of the National Association.

1. D: Members qualifying under A and B (above) shall be affiliated with the appropriate local chapter. Members qualifying under C (above) shall be “Members-at- Large,” not affiliated with any single chapter. Members-at Large shall have full privileges and shall be under the direction of the National Vice President.

1. E: Full-time employees of major wire services whose primary assignment is covering baseball. These may be either members of a local chapter or Members-at-Large, as determined in each case by the National Board of Directors in consultation with the appropriate Chapter Chair, in accordance with the nature of the member’s responsibilities.

1. F: Employees of The Sporting News, whose individual qualifications for membership shall be decided by their Chapter Chair, shall be members in the chapter in the Major League area in which they are based.

1. G: The Association shall also admit full-time members of internet sites under the following procedure:
    
   1. The National Board of Directors each year prior to the national meeting at the World Series shall obtain a list of internet sites issued credentials by Major League Baseball for that year’s World Series. Employees of MLB.com shall not be eligible.

1. 2. Active members attending the Annual Meeting at the World Series shall vote to accept or amend the MLB list of credentialed sites for the purposes of Association membership. A simple majority is needed to accept a site for membership.

1. 3. The Association shall then accept membership applications from full-time employees of those sites whose primary job responsibility is to write about baseball.

1. 4. Applicants who believe they qualify must submit appropriate fees by December 1 to the National Secretary-Treasurer.

1. 5. The National Board of Directors will review all applicants between December 1and the National Meeting at the Winter Meetings to determine whether those applicants meet Association requirements.

1. 6. The National Board of Directors will submit its findings and recommendations at the Winter Meetings National Meeting for a final vote by active members in attendance. A simple majority is required for an applicant’s admission.

1. 7. Approved applicants may then choose to become national members or apply for membership to specific chapters, where further fees might apply.

 
http://bbwaa.com/constitution/
 
Seems pretty stringent. Based on that, just starting a blog doesn't count unless he blogs for a site that was credentialed by MLB for the World Series. Writing a couple of op-eds also likely wouldn't count, unless the editor of that paper tries to pass the writer as one of paper's "full-time general sports columnists who regularly cover baseball".