CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com

Baseball Prospectus home
  
  
Click here to log in Click here for forgotten password Click here to subscribe

<< Previous Article
BBQ State of Mind (07/28)
Next Article >>
Premium Article Monday Morning Ten Pac... (07/28)

July 28, 2014

The HOF Rule Change

What Happens After 10 Years?

by Mike Gianella

the archives are now free.

All Baseball Prospectus Premium and Fantasy articles more than a year old are now free as a thank you to the entire Internet for making our work possible.

Not a subscriber? Get exclusive content like this delivered hot to your inbox every weekday. Click here for more information on Baseball Prospectus subscriptions or use the buttons to the right to subscribe and get instant access to the best baseball content on the web.

Subscribe for $4.95 per month
Recurring subscription - cancel anytime.


a 33% savings over the monthly price!

Purchase a $39.95 gift subscription
a 33% savings over the monthly price!

Already a subscriber? Click here and use the blue login bar to log in.

On Saturday, the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame made its most significant rule change to Hall of Fame voting rules in nearly 30 years, reducing the amount of time a candidate can spend on the ballot from 15 years to 10.

How would this change have impacted earlier Hall of Fame candidates? Would reducing the eligibility requirement from 15 years to 10 years have eliminated worthy candidates for the Hall? Is this change relevant to the Hall of Fame landscape now?

In order to examine this change, I went through every Hall of Fame election from 1949 to the present and looked at candidates who were on the ballot for 11 years or more and had received at least five percent of the vote throughout their first 10 years of eligibility. 1949 was chosen because it was the first year that any candidate had 11 or more years of eligibility (the Hall of Fame did not hold elections during most of World War II). The 5 percent minimum vote threshold was not instituted until 1979. A number of candidates prior to this time received less than 5 percent of the vote but stayed on the ballot. This change was grandfathered, so some candidates (such as Bobby Thomson) stayed on the ballot despite garnering less than 5 percent of the vote. I did not include players like Thomson in this study.

The only exception I made for the 5 percent rule was for candidates who received votes before the modern five-year eligibility standard. Hall of Fame voters used to be allowed to vote for players immediately after they retired if they wished to do so. Phil Rizutto, who received less than 5 percent of the vote the year he retired, is included in this study. Ron Santo, who received less than 5 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility and was then reinstated at a later date, is not.

On Saturday, several media outlets reported that more than 100 players stayed on the ballot for more than 10 years. This is correct, but does not account for the modern 5 percent rule. When this rule is accounted for, there were only 43 players who received 5 percent or more of the vote for 10 straight years. These players are listed in three tables below. The source for all Hall of Fame voting data and WAR is Baseball Reference.

Table 1: Elected to the Hall of Fame after 10 Tries

Player

Year Elected

Times on Ballot

% of Vote

% of Vote 10th Time

bWAR

Bert Blyleven

2011

14

79.7%

47.7%

96.5

Jim Rice

2009

15

76.4%

54.5%

47.4

Bruce Sutter

2006

13

76.9%

53.6%

24.5

Duke Snider

1980

11

86.5%

71.3%

66.5

Bob Lemon

1976

12

78.6%

52.1%

37.5

Dazzy Vance

1955

16

81.7%

21.6%

62.5

Rabbit Maranville

1954

14

82.9%

39.3%

42.8

Bill Terry

1954

14

77.4%

62.5%

54.2


Blyleven is always the case trotted out as a prime example of why it is a good idea to allow voters time to let a Hall of Fame case mature. However, he is the only ironclad, no doubter on this list. Snider and Vance certainly belong in the Hall of Fame in my opinion as well, but there are also some players in Table 1 for whom the 11th and subsequent years arguably allowed sentiment to cloud better judgment. It is not necessary to rehash all of the arguments, particularly with modern players like Rice and Sutter whose cases we remember all too well, but more often than not the players who were voted in on the 11th to 15th try pushed through on a sentimental wave, not a rediscovery of how good they really were during their careers.

Table 2: Not Elected to the Hall of Fame but Chosen by the Veterans Committee

Player

Last Year on Ballot

Final % of Vote

% of Vote 10th Time

bWAR

Joe Torre*

1997

22.2%

14.4%

57.6

Orlando Cepeda

1994

73.5%

39.4%

50.2

Bill Mazeroski

1992

42.3%

30.3%

36.2

Jim Bunning

1991

63.7%

65.6%

60.3

Nellie Fox

1985

74.7%

41.8%

49.0

Red Schoendienst

1983

39.0%

34.3%

42.1

Enos Slaughter

1979

68.8%

48.9%

55.0

Pee Wee Reese

1978

44.6%

38.6%

66.3

George Kell

1977

36.8%

25.8%

37.6

Phil Rizutto

1976

38.4%

26.0%

40.6

Lefty Gomez

1972

12.5%

15.1%

43.1

*selected as manager


Eleven players made it past 10 tries on the ballot at 5 percent or higher, were not elected by the Baseball Writers Association of America, but were ultimately enshrined by the Veterans Committee. The new rule would have resulted in all of these players being removed from the ballot earlier. However, with few exceptions, there was little if any voter groundswell for these players. Cepeda, Fox, and Slaughter were the only three players who saw a big vote jump after the 10th try. Perhaps if Mazeroski or Kell had stayed on the ballot 20 times, eventually enough voters would have rushed to their support.

Not surprisingly, this group of players is also a weak group of Hall of Famers on the whole. Reese and possibly Bunning are strong candidates, while Slaughter deserves additional consideration for missing time due to World War II. The rest of these players aren’t inspiring, and Torre was inducted as a manager.

Table 3: On the Ballot 11 or More Times and Not a Hall of Famer

Player

Last Year on Ballot

Final % of Vote

% of Vote 10th Time

bWAR

Jack Morris

2014

61.5%

44.0%

43.8

Lee Smith*

2014

29.9%

50.6%

29.4

Alan Trammell*

2014

20.8%

24.3%

70.4

Don Mattingly*

2014

8.2%

16.1%

42.2

Dale Murphy

2013

18.6%

13.8%

46.2

Dave Parker

2011

15.3%

14.6%

39.9

Tommy John

2009

31.7%

21.9%

62.3

Dave Concepcion

2008

16.2%

11.1%

39.8

Steve Garvey

2007

21.1%

28.4%

37.7

Jim Kaat

2003

26.2%

27.3%

45.2

Luis Tiant

2002

18.0%

11.2%

66.1

Mickey Lolich

1999

5.2%

5.0%

48.8

Bobby Bonds**

1997

4.2%

5.1%

57.7

Tony Oliva

1996

36.2%

36.1%

43.0

Maury Wills

1992

25.6%

27.4%

39.5

Harvey Kuenn

1991

22.6%

33.9%

25.9

Roy Face

1990

11.3%

15.7%

21.3

Roger Maris

1988

43.1%

18.4%

38.2

Elston Howard

1988

12.4%

8.6%

27.0

Don Larsen

1988

7.3%

5.9%

12.2

Gil Hodges

1983

63.4%

56.0%

44.9

Alvin Dark

1980

11.2%

13.3%

43.0

Allie Reynolds

1974

27.7%

30.6%

26.0

Marty Marion

1973

33.4%

34.2%

31.7

*Smith, Trammell, and Mattingly are currently on the ballot.
**fell under five percent after 10 times on ballot.


Table 3 is the largest list of all players who match the 5 percent criteria for 10 years running. Predictably, most of the players on this table fall well outside the range of a typical Hall of Famer in bWAR. Trammell fits the Cooperstown mold and a good case could have been made for the underrated Luis Tiant (go look at his numbers if you don’t believe me) but most of these players clearly do not belong in the Hall.

Overall, out of 43 candidates who were on the ballot for more than 10 years with more than 5 percent of the vote, only eight had a bWAR of 60 or higher. Of those eight, three (Blyleven, Snider, Vance) were elected by the BBWAA and two (Bunning and Reese) were elected by the Veterans Committee. Only three of these 43 candidates—Trammell, Tiant, and John—produced 60 WAR but are not in the Hall.

If the worst “transgressions” are not included in Tables 1-3 above, who are the most deserving players not in the Hall?

Table 4: Top 20 Hall of Fame Eligible Players not in HOF by bWAR: 1901 – Present

Player

Last Year on Ballot

Years on Ballot

Most Recent % of Vote

Currently on Ballot?

bWAR

Barry Bonds

2014

2

34.7%

Y

162.4

Roger Clemens

2014

2

35.4%

Y

140.3

Mike Mussina

2014

1

20.3%

Y

83.0

Curt Schilling

2014

2

29.2%

Y

79.9

Jeff Bagwell

2014

4

54.3%

Y

79.6

Lou Whitaker

2001

1

2.9%

N

74.9

Larry Walker

2014

4

10.2%

Y

72.6

Rafael Palmeiro

2014

4

4.4%

N

71.6

Bobby Grich

1992

1

2.6%

N

70.9

Alan Trammell

2014

13

20.8%

Y

70.4

Rick Reuschel

1997

1

0.4%

N

70.0

Tim Raines

2014

7

46.1%

Y

69.1

Kevin Brown

2011

1

2.1%

N

68.3

Edgar Martinez

2014

5

25.2%

Y

68.3

Kenny Lofton

2013

1

3.2%

N

68.2

Graig Nettles

1997

4

4.7%

N

68.0

Dwight Evans

1999

3

3.6%

N

66.9

Luis Tiant

2002

15

18.0%

N

66.7

Buddy Bell

1995

1

1.7%

N

66.1

Willie Randolph

1998

1

1.1%

N

65.5

Ah. The problem the rule change is not because of what happened in the past, but rather with the Hall of Fame’s present and its future.

The current ballot has nine of the Top 20 players in bWAR among players who aren’t in the Hall of Fame and eligible for balloting. This doesn’t include Craig Biggio, who certainly has a very good case, and players like Mark McGwire and Mike Piazza, who have decent cases as well depending upon your induction criteria. This problem will only get worse in the next few years.

Are all of these players Hall of Famers? Maybe they are, maybe they are not. WAR is not nor should it be the be all and end all for Hall of Fame induction. It is one way of looking at deserving players, not the only way.

In the past, the 10-year rule would have worked quite well, and saved us from a mostly undeserving crop of candidates. Yes, a handful of players like Blyleven would have missed induction but he is an extreme exception to the general rule. In not-too-distant past, the players getting lopped off of the ballot were players like Concepcion and Garvey: very good players but not Hall of Fame worthy by nearly any standard. In the past, the most worthy players who failed to make Cooperstown were players like Bell, Whitaker, and Grich, immediately underrated by the electorate and then eliminated after one ballot.

This has happened a couple of times in recent years (Brown and Lofton), but in more and more cases the stronger candidates are staying on the ballot but not getting admitted to the Hall of Fame. The BBWAA is often accused of making terrible choices and leaving deserving people out of the Hall. This is true on a case-by-case basis, but on the whole the electorate is getting better. It is quite possible that a candidate like Edgar Martinez might have been one-and-done a generation ago; now he is lingering on the ballot for years and years.

It seems like a funny time, then, for the Hall of Fame to decide to change the eligibility rules, which won't even do much to ease the overcrowded ballot in the short term. Mattingly, Trammell, and Smith were all grandfathered under the old 15-year rule, so they won’t be leaving the ballot until 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively (although Mattingly might fall short of the 5 percent threshold next year). As far as the candidates currently on the ballot, McGwire will drop off the ballot in 2016 and Raines will fall off in 2017. After that, the next candidates to exit the ballot will be Edgar Martinez and Fred McGriff in 2019.

Clearing the Hall of Fame ballot of lesser candidates by changing the eligibility rules is a good idea. This is not what is going to happen during the next few years. The ballot is going to continue to be jammed with deserving candidates, who will drop off of the ballot five years earlier than they would have under the old system. Jettisoning players like Smith and Mattingly from the ballot five years earlier would have been one thing. Knocking players like Mussina and Raines off of the ballot five years sooner is going to leave a far greater number of deserving players out of the Hall and in the hands of the Veterans Committee, or whatever incarnation of that body exists in the next 15 to 30 years.

Mike Gianella is an author of Baseball Prospectus. 
Click here to see Mike's other articles. You can contact Mike by clicking here

Related Content:  Hall Of Fame,  Cooperstown

21 comments have been left for this article.

<< Previous Article
BBQ State of Mind (07/28)
Next Article >>
Premium Article Monday Morning Ten Pac... (07/28)

RECENTLY AT BASEBALL PROSPECTUS
Expert FAAB Review: Week 18
Premium Article Minor League Update: Games of Monday, August...
Fantasy Rounders: Say Uncle, Phil
Premium Article An Agent's Take: Serendipitous Spectatorship
Premium Article What You Need to Know: August 4, 2015
Premium Article Ducks on the Pond: The Kiermaier Can
Premium Article Baseball Therapy: No Relief For Starters

MORE FROM JULY 28, 2014
Premium Article The Prospectus Hit List: Monday, July 28
Premium Article Minor League Update: Games of July 25-27
The Week in Quotes: July 21-27, 2014
Fantasy Article Fantasy Freestyle: FAAB in Review: Asking th...
Fantasy Article Closer Report: Week 18
Fantasy Article Interleague Report: Week 18
Premium Article What You Need to Know: July 28, 2014

MORE BY MIKE GIANELLA
2014-07-31 - Premium Article Transaction Analysis: Chris Denorfia is in t...
2014-07-31 - Fantasy Article Free Agent Watch: Week 18
2014-07-29 - Flags Fly Forever Podcast: Ep. 28: Trade Dea...
2014-07-28 - Premium Article The HOF Rule Change
2014-07-28 - Premium Article Transaction Analysis: Bochy and Peavy, Back ...
2014-07-28 - Fantasy Article Fantasy Freestyle: FAAB in Review: Asking th...
2014-07-25 - Flags Fly Forever Podcast: Ep. 27: Closers O...
More...