keyboard_arrow_uptop

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.

You need to be logged in to comment. Login or Subscribe
bozarowski
7/28
I'd add Hoffman and Wagner in '16 and Posada in '17 as guys who have reasonable enough Hall of Fame cases.
mikedee
7/28
If over the course of 10 years, you are not seen as a HOF'er, are you really a HOF'er? Come on now, this is all the more reason to take this out of the hands of writers. Quit playing these games year in and out. If a guy is worthy, put him in, if not be done with him.
edwinblume
7/28
It is a bit unfair to say Blyleven would have missed out with the 10 year rule. Having that time limit from the beginning may have changed how some people voted. He may have gotten more support in the years leading up to 10 if the voters didn't have that extra 5 years.
collins
7/28
Exactly. The writers knowing that certain players are about to exhaust their eligibility might affect who they vote for, and when.
lyricalkiller
7/28
I think Edward's point is generally true, but not with Blyleven, whose buildup was not the typical "oh, guess we gotta act now" progression but a true change in how the world's writers came to view him.
Dodger300
7/29
Maybe. But maybe not.
MikeGianella
7/28
It's possible you are right; however; most of the banging for the drum for Blyleven in his later years on the ballot took place because of where we were with analytics and advanced data in his last three or four years on the ballot. He is good example of a case where the extra time helped him out a great deal because people looked at him quite differently in 2006 than they did five years later in 2011.
huztlers
7/28
What's wrong with Piazza?
MikeGianella
7/28
Nothing. I think he belongs, but I think some don't see him as an obvious case.
bhalpern
7/28
Isn't Piazza's only real problem that he has been, inaccurately/unfairly or not, associated with steroids? How could anyone possibly make any argument that Piazza doesn't deserve to be in the hall based on his career performance?
MikeGianella
7/28
The arguments against (and I'm merely playing devil's advocate here) are: 1) He was an offensive only catcher and defense should count too in a player's overall profile. 2) Since he did play in such a high octane offensive context, his numbers should be viewed in the context of his era, not simply versus all catchers all time. My colleague Eugene Freedman has swayed me to the belief that catchers are generally underrated, particularly by mechanical valuation systems like WAR. Where a 62-63 WAR is a reasonable baseline for other hitters, catchers should not be judged in the same manner.
bhalpern
7/28
I certainly agree with Eugene Freedman and understand you're just restating others' arguments. My take is even considering the context of the era he's still one of the all-time great hitting catchers. And the pitchfx data shows he did have value as a catcher, if not on the throwing side of things.
WaldoInSC
7/29
To take your solid point a step further, Piazza's not one of the the best hitting catchers; he's the best hitting catcher of all time. The argument against him is not sponge-worthy.
MikeGianella
7/29
His defense would have to have been historically bad. It was not
eyegortroll
7/28
This rule is nothing more than the HOF assisting MLB in removing the taint of PEDs from the game quicker. Every winter the discussion is whether known and suspected users belong in the Hall. By shortening the stay of McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, Manny et. al. moves that discussion into the past just that much more quickly. If deserving candidates don't make it in because of ballot saturation, so be it. The goal here is to cleanse the image of the brand, not to give the worthy their due.
MikeGianella
7/28
So they're going to knock Bonds and Clemens off of the ballot in 2022 instead of 2027 while knocking a significant number of non-users off earlier? Good job, good effort.
thegeneral13
7/28
That's my read on it, too. And I think it does two things beyond simply advancing the timeline for them to naturally drop off the ballot. First, it might directly cost them votes. If there are fewer years to get "clean" players over the threshold, writers might be forced to kick PED guys off their ballots to make room for guys on the bubble who have 5 fewer years of eligibility than they used to. This could result in some PED guys dropping below 5% and falling off the ballot long before the 10 year window is up. Second, it shortens the time that writers have to change their collective stance on PEDs, for the outrage over PEDs to continue to fade, and for momentum to build behind an objective evaluation of players from the steroid era that could result in some PED users getting in.
MikeGianella
7/28
There are four guys on the ballot with definitive or all but definitive ties to PEDs: Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, and Sosa. McGwire and Sosa were likely to fall off of the ballot anyway, particularly since I do agree with you in theory and believe that some of the voters will err on the side of knocking players like Sosa/McGwire off of the ballot. While anything is possible, I have a hard time believing that Bonds/Clemens are going to drop all the way from the 35% or so range each player is at now to below 5%.
asstarr1
7/28
I think this also helps to absolve all the writers who chose to overlook the steroid use taking place. I would also like to see full ballot transparency. I am less worried about PED guys falling off the ballot because there are too many worthy candidates than a worthy candidate falling off the ballot because some crusty old writer sends in a blank ballot.
MikeGianella
7/29
I agree with this point. I don't mind the PED guys being left off as much as I mind writers handing in empty or near-empty ballots at a time when there are so many amazing candidates.
mdupske
7/30
Would changing the way they count ballots to 75%/5% (or some similar percentage) of all votes thereby "throwing out" the blank/near-empty ballots and eliminate the grumpy old men factor be better?

Baseball Prospectus uses cookies on this website. They help us to understand how you use our website, which allows us to provide an improved browsing experience. Cookies are stored locally on your computer or mobile device and not by BP. To accept cookies continue browsing as normal. You will see this message only once. Privacy Policy

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. See the BP Cookie Policy for more information. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close