Notice: Trying to get property 'display_name' of non-object in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-seo/src/generators/schema/article.php on line 52

There are a lot of things wrong with the Hall of Fame vote. There’s the fact that the recent bar for enshrinement is set far higher than it’s been in the past (especially for pitchers). There’s the 10-vote-per-ballot limit, even in a year when there are probably 18 candidates I’d vote for if I could. There’s the belated moral panic about PEDs that holds back anyone who is remotely suspected of having used them (no matter how baseless or arbitrary the rumors) even though there are plenty of both dopers and cheaters already in Cooperstown. And then there’s the fact that Kenny Lofton fell off on his first ballot.

But at the top of my list is the BBWAA’s secret balloting system. As you probably know, voters are free to share their selections, and every year a significant number of them do. But the default is secrecy, and voters are not required to explain or even reveal their individual ballots. And that’s a problem.

You probably also know that the right to vote for the Hall of Fame is granted exclusively to journalists who have had some involvement in covering baseball for at least 10 years. In other words, anyone who has a say in awarding the game’s highest honor has both a deep-seated knowledge of baseball and the communication skills to offer facts, analysis, and opinions in clear and interesting ways. Obligation or not, explaining one’s ballot is something that every voter is more than qualified to do.

That’s why, when the thought first crossed my mind four years ago, I was disturbed to find that voters who kept their ballots secret didn’t just vote significantly differently than those who shared their picks—their selections were worse. I thought perhaps that was a fluke until the same thing happened in 2012. And 2013. And the trend continued last year, when anonymity probably cost Craig Biggio an earlier place in Cooperstown.

Unfortunately, the voters weren’t content to let the streak of anonymity impacting the selection process end after (at least) four years in a row: When the 2015 Hall of Fame voting results were released Tuesday, it turned out it had happened again.

Sources of Secrecy

Before we get to the numbers, I should say that there are surely some demographic factors at work here. Those who reveal their ballots probably skew younger, both because they are more likely to use and be active on social media and because retired journalists have fewer writing outlets at their disposal. Younger writers, in turn, are more likely to be tuned into contemporary baseball analysis. They probably also have more favorable opinions of recent players—it’s basic human nature to be more skeptical of things that come after your time, especially in a sport that’s obsessed with how great the game used to be at the expense of appreciating the present. So the pool of public voters is not a perfect counterfactual for what the results would be if all ballots were revealed.

But there’s a point at which discrepancies between the groups can’t be wholly chalked up to generational factors. Take last year’s election: inductees Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas were both fairly obvious first-ballot Hall of Famers who got broad support across the board, and Greg Maddux has to be in the conversation as one of the greatest pitchers of all time. Yet anonymous voters snubbed Glavine and Thomas at about twice the rate of those who revealed their ballots. Even more damningly, only one of the 16 writers who somehow didn’t pick Maddux was willing to own up to his ballot. Ken Gurnick became the lone face of the anti-Maddux movement even though more than a dozen of his peers also had club jackets.

If, in your opinion, Greg Maddux wasn’t good enough to join the likes of Jesse Haines and Rube Marquard in the Hall of Fame… well, that’s your prerogative. If you assume that every player in the last 25 years is a doper and also think they should all be held to a higher standard than any other generation of Cooperstown candidates has faced, I doubt I’ll be able to convince you otherwise. And if you declined to check Maddux’ name because you didn’t want him (or anyone) to get in unanimously, you were entirely within your rights to do so. But considering that by definition you have a wealth of knowledge about the game and experience expressing your opinions to your readers, you should be willing (if not eager!) to reveal and explain your choices to your audience.

We’ll never know how different the 2014 vote would have looked had all the ballots been public. But if even two nameless writers left Craig Biggio off their ballots in part because they knew no one would ever know who they were, then the BBWAA’s secret voting process can be said to have cost him an earlier induction. And if lending anonymity to people who are specifically qualified to support their choices changes the outcome of the vote, that’s problematic.

The 2015 Ballot

Okay, so we’ve got some good news and some bad news. The good news is that secret balloting probably didn’t make a difference in terms of actual outcomes. The bad news is that this ballot may have seen the single most blatant example of anonymity driving voting behavior in the five years since I’ve been doing these studies.

Just after the results were announced on Tuesday afternoon, I snagged the results from Ryan Thibs’ phenomenal Hall of Fame ballot tracker and removed the ballots that he had received anonymously. I then compared the results of the 198 public ballots in his collection (representing 36 percent of the electorate) with the 351 unmarked ballots cast and looked at the 23 candidates who received more than four votes each. Here’s what I found:

The biggest thing that jumps out here is that Mike Piazza would have been elected from the public ballots. It would be easy to jump on that and blame anonymous voting for his falling short of 75 percent overall, and a couple years ago when I was quicker to jump to conclusions I probably would have. However, he just barely made it over the threshold among public voters, and some of the 10-point difference between the two groups’ support from him probably comes from demographic differences. Anonymity surely didn’t help, but I doubt he would have gotten in either way.

In my opinion, the only probable effect of secret balloting on the outcome this cycle is saving Nomar Garciaparra from falling off the ballot, which doesn’t bother me at all: I’d much rather give a questionable candidate another chance than bounce a potentially worthy player off too soon. However, there are some very real differences in how open and anonymous voters viewed certain players. To wit:

  • Public voters averaged 8.8 names per ballot; private voters checked off 8.2.
  • Fifteen of 23 players registered statistically significant differences in support between the two groups, including five gaps that were significant at the 0.1-percent level.
  • Private voters were more than twice as likely not to vote for Randy Johnson.
  • Private voters were more than six times as likely not to vote for Pedro Martinez.
  • Private voters were twice as likely to vote for Larry Walker and Don Mattingly.
  • Private voters were more than three times as likely to vote for Nomar Garciaparra and Carlos Delgado.
  • Private voters picked Craig Biggio over John Smoltz and Lee Smith over Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds.
  • Tim Raines got almost two-thirds of the public vote but less than half of the private vote.
  • Curt Schilling got majority support from public voters but was named on fewer than a third of private ballots.
  • Amazingly, Mike Mussina got more votes from public voters (69) than from private voters (66).
  • I think this bears repeating: Private voters were more than six times as likely not to vote for Pedro Martinez.

Where Anonymity Mattered

Let’s focus now on the 15 players for whom we observed statistically significant differences in how the two groups voted. Some of the gaps probably don’t mean very much. Delgado and Garciaparra got so few votes that their discrepancies aren’t worth wasting too much bandwidth on. I’d lump Walker in that group too since I can’t think of a reason for why he’s getting so much more support from private voters aside from the fact that they have more ballot space since they’re voting for fewer other people. (Nor for that matter do I understand why he’s not considered a serious candidate for induction.)

Of the 12 remaining big-gap players, some of the discrepancies probably represent differences in demographics. Younger voters probably care less about Clemens and Bonds’ PED scandals as well as the questionably substantiated doping rumors surrounding Piazza and Jeff Bagwell than their older peers. (This squares with some research I did for a term paper in college showing that age is one of many demographic factors that shapes opinions on PED use.) Raines and Mussina are players better appreciated with sabermetric stats, while Smith and Mattingly’s candidacies look more appealing through the lens of more traditional numbers. I don’t agree with the arguments I’m assuming of the private voters, but considering the generation gap between the two groups of writers, I think there are legitimate explanations for why the anonymous voters differed as they did.

But that leaves four players whose vote gaps are much harder to square. Randy Johnson’s vote differential isn’t much, but as with Maddux private voters apparently found it significantly easier to leave him off their ballots than their more-open peers did. John Smoltz’s relatively underwhelming showing among anonymous writers is noteworthy, but it might not grab much attention in a vacuum either. But what about Schilling, who fared almost 20 percentage points worse among private voters than he did on public ballots? And, most strikingly, what about Pedro? Of the 49 BBWAA members who neglected to check the box for the man who may have been the greatest pitcher to ever walk the Earth in his prime, only four did so while putting their names on their ballots.

Of course, there is at least one valid reason not to vote for Martinez or Johnson: If you’re sure he’s going to get in and believe that more than 10 worthy candidates exist on the ballot, it might be worth the risk to leave him off and vote for a less-obvious Cooperstown candidate instead. But that’s the kind of strategic voting you’d expect a writer would be eager to explain—especially since the plan depends on the rest of the voters knowing you’re counting on them to put the right guys in. And since the anonymous voters averaged almost two empty spots per ballot, I’m not inclined to assume that they were simply running out of space.

Which leads us to the fact that, in the aggregate, the public ballots are simply better than the anonymous ones. The 18 candidates I (probably—I keep going back and forth) would have voted for if I could averaged four percentage points more support from public voters, while the five I would have snubbed averaged three percentage points more from the private ballots. The vote differentials had linear correlations of 0.59 and 0.57 with Jay Jaffe’s JAWS and Adam Darowski’s Hall Rating, respectively. I wouldn’t recommend basing one’s Hall of Fame vote on a single mathematical formula, but those are two pretty good proxies for Cooperstown worthiness, which means the following plots are troubling macro-level indicators for how voters’ behavior changes when nobody’s looking:

Whatever the cause, it’s clear that anonymous voters don’t just vote differently. They vote worse. And that’s a problem that the BBWAA needs to address.

The Cure: Mandatory Public Ballots

The difference between public and private ballots may stem more from demographic differences between the groups than from a desire to avoid being associated with unpopular opinions or internal politicking, but in the long run even that could be mitigated by opening up the voting process. The knowledge that people will be reading their opinions could be enough to inspire older voters to learn more about sabermetrics (it certainly was for me when I first started writing), and engaging with readers about their choices could help everyone come to a better understanding of how the game works and who is worthy of immortality among Cooperstown’s legends.

Not to mention that, among the 351 writers who did not make their ballots public (at least, in time for inclusion in this article), there are probably at least a handful who did not vote with careful thought and consideration in part because they knew they wouldn’t have to put their names on their ballots. Maybe they didn’t want Johnson to go in unanimously but didn’t want the accountability of being the ones to stop him from doing so, or maybe they thought Martinez didn’t feel like a Hall of Famer even though they didn’t have articulable reasons for thinking so. We all convince ourselves to make decisions we don’t really believe are right. But when it comes to the Hall of Fame selection process, I think it’s fair to expect a higher standard.

Put it another way: In a group of 351 experienced professional baseball journalists, 45—more than 1 in 8—implicitly said they didn’t think Pedro Martinez should be in the Hall of Fame (or at least that he wasn’t one of the 10 best players on the ballot) but declined to take ownership of their opinions. If each had been required to publicly reveal his or her ballot, how many of them do you think would have voted for Pedro? If your answer to that question is greater than zero, then we have a problem.

Let me be clear that I am not saying that all, most, or even a significant minority of the voters who have not disclosed their ballots have anything but the best intentions. Nor am I saying that my opinions about who should be in the Hall are infallible. I personally know some of the qualified voters whose ballots I have not seen; I trust their integrity as much as I respect their experience and knowledge of the game—I imagine I would disagree with some of their choices, but I would never dream of accusing them of intellectual dishonesty—and I assume the same of most of the electorate. But after five years of seeing these discrepancies in the results, something needs to be done.

Voting for the Hall of Fame isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. Of the millions of people who would love to have a say in whose plaques hang in Cooperstown’s hallowed halls, only a few hundred get to vote. The electorate is chosen based on strict guidelines and the BBWAA isn’t afraid to punish perceived impropriety. So what’s the harm in making all the ballots public (especially since they’ll be covering the news they helped to create)? If you are a professional sportswriter and you are incapable of convincingly supporting the ballot you cast, you voted wrong.

Making the ballots public won’t fix all the problems with the Hall of Fame selection process (I’ve been saying for years that we should just put John Thorn, Bill James, and Adam Darowski in a room together for an afternoon and induct whomever they agree on), but it would urge the voters take the job more seriously and lend the process a much-needed boost of transparency and legitimacy. BBWAA voters have the right to cast whatever kind of ballots they want, but to prioritize their preferences for privacy over ensuring the integrity of the vote is to compromise the sacredness of the Hall of Fame.

Thank you for reading

This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.

Subscribe now
You need to be logged in to comment. Login or Subscribe
The main two reasons I could think of for some one not voting for Pedro (strategically leaving him off because he is guaranteed to get enough votes and enforcing the no 100% theory) would also apply to Randy Johnson. What is the variable between the two that would account for a 6% difference in their votes? I hope it wouldn't be the obvious one.
It wouldn't surprise me if a bunch of old crusty sportswriters (more likely to keep their ballots private) wanted to lower his vote % as eternal retribution for throwing their beloved contemporary Don Zimmer to the ground.
Yeah, I do think there is a pressure to have no one at 100 percent.

Gonna be interesting to see what happens with that when Jeter hits the ballot.
Mariano hits it first and there's no excuse in not voting for him, either. Unless you don't think relievers should be in the HoF. I guess the argument against St. Derek is that he was a crappy defensive SS and that is the most important part of the job description - certainly for a Hall of Famer.
The variable is obvious - 303 wins to 219 wins. That's pretty massive. We can reject that as a meaningful stat all we want, but it is indicative of a much much longer career, as are the nearly 200 more starts and 1700 more strikeouts. Johnson had 5 Cy Young's to Pedro's 3.
It's sort of comparing Tom Seaver and Sandy Koufax.

I believe there is a large section of the unpublished balloteers that sees 219 wins and says, "Nope. Not a Hall of Famer. You need 300."
Nice to see the Anons back Larry Walker and Alan Trammell at higher rates! It'd be interesting to analyze what kinds of players Anons prefer over the Knowns.

Anyhoo, for some reason it all reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld's poem, "The Unknown":

The Unknown

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
This is great, thoughtful writing, and keeps me coming back to BP.
Is there a way to control for age? Our sample size might not be big enough in the public sphere to establish any trends that could be applied to the mass of private ballots.
I think it would be great if the ballots were public, but it does make it harder to keep borderline candidates around in stacked years. I wonder if they should change the rules about keeping candidates on the ballot to be a fixed (lower) number of votes, instead of 5%. Like 5 votes and you stay on. Or even 1 vote. Then you can make the ballots public, people can all vote for the players who are obviously worthy (or else defend their non-vote with some actual reason, instead of using a non-vote for Pedro as a strategic way to keep more players on the ballot).
I enjoyed the article, but I stopped carrying about the HoF years ago. The voting process (anonymous voting, limiting people to voting for 10 players, punishing suspected steroid users without definitive proof, etc) is a disaster. And ultimately, a baseball hall of fame without Pete Rose lacks legitimacy.
I think the issue of public vs. private is a distraction, an excuse to publicly excoriate voters with whom we disagree. There's a reason the secret ballot was invented.

The real problem, if it is a problem, is different classes of voters who use different criteria to evaluate what is and is not a HOF player. This is far more of a cultural issue than anything else.

I know statheads like to think there is an objective measure of what makes up a worthy HOF career, that's the bar that ought to be used when voting for a candidate and anyone who votes otherwise is making a mistake.

It just isn't that simple. As much as we'd like to think such an objective value exists for each player, there is no such thing. The best numbers we have at our disposal are still rather fuzzy, with significant margins of error and faults in the algorithms that can lead to poor conclusions.

WARP was not handed down by the baseball gods on marble tablets, it is an estimate that has undergone revision multiple times. That's how Bobby Grich went from an unsung HOF candidate, to a cause celebre, then back to an HOF also ran. For all we know, future revisions could well return him to HOF relevance. I loved JAWS, but even that system required eyeball considerations of career and peak values before making a HOF call on a player.

So, if some writers choose to use other criteria for HOF voting, that is their prerogative and it isn't necessarily wrong. I agree with most of the conclusions posted at BP on the topic, but I think it takes a touch of hubris to try to make the case that [insert your favorite statistical model here] is the only good way to make a HOF voting decision and anyone who does otherwise is a bad voter, deserving of public scorn.

"I think it takes a touch of hubris to try to make the case that [insert your favorite statistical model here] is the only good way to make a HOF voting decision and anyone who does otherwise is a bad voter, deserving of public scorn."

I agree and I bet Lewie does too which is why he included no such hubris or assumptions in his article.

More importantly, if Walker and Raines got serious consideration we'd be talking about some huge Expos representation. Could someone with more time on their hands post an article on how good/successful a top WAR7 expos team would have been?

I know every team loses players but the Expos made a tragedy of it during the nineties.
If you go back to last year, you'll see that Lewis wrote a very similar piece, one with which I agreed 100% (I commented on that one also).

The difference though is prior article dealt with voters who were not taking the process seriously or were using their ballot to conduct personal crusades (see Ken Gurnick). Lewis was very right about taking those voters to task.

The difference here is if every ballot must be made public, voters with a honest difference of opinion are going to get caught in the same net as the Gurnicks and Marty Nobles, and that is a dangerous road to take in my opinion. As several have noted, the cure could be worse than the disease as too many voters submit to a herd mentality, just to avoid the inevitable vicious backlash if they dare submit an atypical ballot with or without a cogent defense.
I could not agree with you more.

Even with a "cogent" defense, if others with a differing opinion disagree, in today's age, the writer still gets blasted. Respecting others' opinions is simply not a concept by which everyone in the public abides.

Secret ballots are done to avoid peer pressure and backlash. Would everyone be willing to have their ballots for elected officials be public? Would everyone vote the same knowing that the next time they are with an elected official, that official would know if the person voted for them? Many writers are no different, especially if they have to cover players/teams. Say the writer who covers the Astros doesn't believe Biggio is a HOF. You think s/he can vote with a clear conscience not knowing if there's backlash within the organization by not voting for Biggio? That's their everyday job at risk here.

In the end, I am still failing to understand what needs to be "fixed". What exactly is the "problem"? The only people who seem to think there's a problem appear to be those who disagree with how the voting turned out. If so, making ballots public won't change that - unless you plan to publicly bully anyone who disagrees with you. 10 names on a ballot won't change that as there were already 867 blanks from this years vote.

Transparency simply isn't the issue. The issue is that you need 75% consensus among over 500 people. That rarely happens in Congress. Why would HOF voting be any different?
I am in favor of making the ballots public in order to broaden the debate of the HOF rather than limit it. I think if people feel strongly about a player then they should explain themselves. Maybe they can start a movement for a player to gain induction.

The problem with making ballots public is that social media can be a cruel and unforgiving landscape when you don't agree with the masses and this could lead voters to bend to the will of the mob. It would take a great deal of courage for someone to vote for ARod when he's eligible and social media backlash from such a vote could sway that decision.

My proposal would be for the writers to create an oversight committee. The group would be voted on by the eligible voters and would oversee the process to make sure that people who aren't fulfilling the obligation to the voting process are removed.
To me what it comes down to is accountability. The people who have been tasked with selecting the members of the hall aren't forced to do so and aren't being threatened by armed thugs outside their doors waiting to see how they vote. They are caretakers for an institution that represents, to many, a significantly meaningful distinction.

It really doesn't seem like too much to ask to make the people with this power take ownership of the decisions they make. If the voters realize they may need to justify (well, at least explain) their decisions, it seems pretty logical that we are more likely to see some sort of coherent thought process go into the effort. We may not agree with those thought processes, but that's much better than wondering how some people can possibly justify the choices they've made.
Plain and simple, most of the writers who vote are lazy. I wouldn't be surprised if they put in less than five minutes of research prior to casting their other words the same amount of time it takes them to write one of their lazy columns.
Interesting point of view. What if a writer has the attitude that there are too many people in the Hall now, most of whom are in because people spend too much time comparing players not in to players already in. This writer believes that Hall should be for the elite, that we have forgotten about the "Fame" part of the name and are busy trying to discover the marginally deserving. To him, five minutes is all it should take. You look at the list and if someone doesn't jump out at you as a Hall of Famer, he probably isn't. He may be a really good player, but not a Hall of Famer. And sometimes you might miss someone the first time around, but you can always check back on Schilling or Mussina and vote for them another time.
Again, similar to an earlier piece on how BP writers voted, there seems to be a strange group-think at BP that everyone needs to follow the same thought process (Jaffes WAR model) or they are wrong. You guys are looking more and more like global warming theorists who won't countenance any other models but their own.

Jaffes model clearly does not deal with the character clause ( a requirement for choosing members). Other writers in the private ballots are factoring that in. And let's remember the private ballots are 60% of the electorate, not some fringe group.

Even if you don't have hate for the Roiders, you need to look at stats of people in that era relative to what others were doing. Bagwell looks like a power hitter across generations but in his era somewhat pedestrian.

Look at Edmonds next year. He will probably get no more than 10% of vote. If you strip all the Roiders from his era jimmy ballgame looks like one of the best players of his generation but it's now hidden.

Getting 7 people into hall with 75% agreement is amazing. There nothing wrong with the process.

The idea that total transparency is always a good thing and some kind of American "right" is not necessarily true. If I have earned the right to vote on a secret ballot, well, I can maintain that secrecy. No one should have to identify his vote publicly in this day and age. Why should I be required to hear from every crackpot who has an Internet connection? No, thanks.
Having said that, I would have no problem with all the ballots being revealed with no names attached. Who is the one voter who somehow found room on this ballot for Darin Erstad? Who are the two who somehow made room for Aaron Boone? These outliers are the ones that worry me. Was there a favor returned in some fashion? Some kind of "thank you for the exclusive interview in 2006"? If I am the only guy voting for a certain candidate, I must not be using the same voting rules as everyone else.
The BBWAA obviously gets to see each ballot. They should police themselves rather than expose a voter to some kind of online mob treatment by the sabermetric community, or any other faction that might feel outraged by the vote results.
I'm still not convinced there's a problem with how the BBWAA is voting. Sure, the PED moralizing stuff sucks, but the writers have still elected 10 players in the last five years. That's tied for the most in any five-year span going back to the mid 1950s. Why not focus on changing the Veterans Commitee, who have elected just four MLB players in the last 15 years?

I agree that accountability in any decision-making process is important, but the idea that private ballots need to be disclosed just because they don't adhere to a specific criterion you use to gauge HOF worthiness seems misguided. I too believe there are an abundance of credible candidates on the ballot, but that's not the only reasonable way to see it.

The only definitive conclusion I can see to be drawn from the numbers is that a majority of the private voters happen to be Small Hall people. Anything beyond that is conjecture.

"...If each had been required to publicly reveal his or her ballot, how many of them do you think would have voted for Pedro? If your answer to that question is greater than zero, then we have a problem."

No, if even one person feels pressured into changing their vote because it's going to be made public, THEN we have a problem. The last thing you want to do in an election is create a kind of chilling effect.