Friday, January 13, 2012

No Unanimous Hall of Fame Selections!

Throwing you a bender because I just thought you should know…

Since it is January, with the NBA, NHL, and NFL in full swing…..I was thinking about baseball.  Of course, the recent Hall of Fame voting and Barry Larkin’s election prompted me to go back and review the voting process as his achieving 86% of the vote (75% needed for election) seemed to be unusually high compared to some of the other members and their totals. Yet it was not unanimous….which makes sense on Barry Larkin…but got me thinking….


This is a pretty select group of players and not one of them received a unanimous endorsement upon being voted to the Baseball Hall of Fame!

While there are criteria for being eligible regarding career length, retirement, etc…we will stick to #5 from the BBWAA Election Rules for the purpose of investigating this phenomenon! 

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.

Each writer can vote for up to 10 candidates, there are not any points or places awarded, it is simply placing a “yes” vote for a player to be elected to the Hall. This makes the process very individual and precise. No player’s chances are diminished by a vote for another player.

These rules have governed thousands of writers/voters through the years. While different voters have come and gone, the requirements have remained and applied to each voter through the different eras. Therefore, with integrity, sportsmanship and character in place throughout the voting, there is definitely room for any individual writer to leave any player off his ballot based on his interpretation of the rule. But in review of the voting totals from years past, this Bender is astonished at the results and wonders how those three elements can outweigh the record, playing ability and contribution!

A quick glance of some players and voting results starting back in 1936 does not reveal any unanimous elections, even for these icons of the game! It even goes so far as to show how Cy Young was left off of 115 ballots cast in 1936. A pitcher with 511 career wins could not get a vote from over half the writers?

Year
Ballots Cast
Player
Votes
%
1936
226
Ty Cobb
222
98.2


Babe Ruth
215
95.1


Honus Wagner
215
95.1


Christy Mathewson
205
90.7


Walter Johnson
189
83.6


Nap Lajoie
146
64.6


Tris Speaker
133
58.8


Cy Young
111
49.1
1937
201
Nap Lajoie
168
83.6


Tris Speaker
165
82.1


Cy Young
153
76.1
1966
302
Ted Williams
282
93.4
1969
340
Stan Musial
317
93.2
1979
432
Willie Mays
409
94.7
1982
415
Hank Aaron
406
97.8

Without listing the stats for some of these all time greats (trust me, they are mind boggling and incredible), I just wonder how writers can leave players off a ballot on what must solely be based on integrity, character and sportsmanship. Cobb was hated, Ruth had his moments, and unfortunately, even race could play a part of it. But Cy Young, Stan Musial, and Christy Mathewson were very respected and generally well liked. I understand media members have a job to do and certain players made that harder, unpleasant or even impossible to perform. But part of the job for any voting member of the BBWAA is to recognize the Hall of Fame for what it is and the players that deserve to be enshrined. So shouldn’t there be at least ten, if not a few more, unanimous selections since 1936? 

How do you receive a ballot and see that Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Cy Young, Nolan Ryan, Hank Aaron and Stan Musial are eligible but not select them? At that point, regardless of your personal opinion or relationship with a player, that type of achievement says you have to vote for election of a player with such significant statistics. It is even beyond the normal duty of analyzing and detailing all aspects of their career and statistics in order to make a valid and educated vote (or non-vote).  It basically has crossed over into plain old common sense. 

It also seems like a trend that is likely to continue. If baseball’s all time greats are not elected unanimously, are any of today’s stars capable of being the first? 

So while you review every player in the Hall, read each acceptance speech since 1936 and return to looking at every statistic (or is that just me?), remember that a few voters on each Hall member did not think they should be there.

All this because I know more about nothing…

No comments:

Post a Comment