My 2012 Hall of Fame Ballot

By Bill
I spend enough time criticizing and arguing against writers with actual votes, and urging voter openness, accountability, and so forth, that it seems only fair to give my own thoughts on the year’s BBWAA Hall of Fame ballot. (Do it every year: here’s 2010, here’s 2011.) Besides, it’s fun. With the big announcement coming up in a week, this is likely to be kind of Hall of Fame Week (or Two Weeks) here at TPA, so this seems like as good a way as any to kick it off.

I’m a big Hall guy. More accurately: I think that, for all the (justified) ribbing it gets, the Hall has established a pretty definable standard after more than seventy years, and that standard should be maintained. That’s not at all to say that anyone outside who is better than anyone on the inside should get in; there are numerous clear mistakes, like Chick Hafey, Freddy Lindstrom, Jim Rice and Bruce Sutter, who just aren’t any part of the standard. But if you’re close to the average Hall of Famer -- that is, better than about half the guys who are already in -- I think you belong.

Two years ago, I “voted” for seven guys; last year, I used up all ten slots. Three of my ten are now gone, in one direction or t’other -- Bert Blyleven, Roberto Alomar, and Kevin Brown (frowny face) -- so I figure I might as well go through the whole ballot top-to-bottom again.

In addition, later this week, I’ll bring back my piece from last year that takes a look at otherwise eligible candidates who didn’t make the ballot, so check back for that.

Here's the full ballot:

No, Dummy, Nobody Accused You of Plagiarism.

By Bill

I can't believe I have to do this.

Toward Fixing the Hall of Fame Selection Process

By The Common Man

The Common Man believes there is little doubt that the Hall of Fame voting process is flawed. Deserving candidates, such as Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, and (until recently) Bert Blyleven and Ron Santo have been held back while clearly less deserving players, such as Jim Rice and Bruce Sutter have been elevated far beyond their actual value by the voters. The process as it currently stands is held hostage by peer pressure, by suspicion, and by ignorance. This is a problem.


It's a problem because so many fans of the game care so deeply about the Hall of Fame, the ultimate career achievement of the best players in baseball history. In a sport where history is so revered and studied, the Hall of Fame offers a link to the past, and to the players we have loved. And to stand by while that past is willfully ignored and distorted is simply unfathomable to TCM. Quite simply, the system must be reformed.

But how? That's the central question. Alas, there's no obvious and glaring fix that we're ignoring.  Here are a few possibilities:

On Rights and Responsibilities in Hall of Fame Voting: Do the Job Right or Don't Do It At All

By The Common Man

A couple of days ago seemed to be Hall of Fame Day around the internets, as SI’s Jon Heyman released his ballot which was predictably non-sensical and haphazard (Update: Heyman has since published a column explaining his voting. While TCM doesn't agree with his vote, nor his criteria ("in some ways you just had to be there" and "impact," and especially his assertions for Morris over Blyleven), it's clear that Jon has put a great deal of thought into his vote and has tried to be as consistent and true to his own criteria as possible.  He also strikes a very consiliatory and reasonable tone, and demonstrates an active interest in rethinking his previous votes.  He is also not trying to enforce a new standard on the Hall.  The Common Man is sorry, Jon, for suggesting otherwise.) and it was commented on here. Also, Hall of Fame voter Paul Leume offered to give readers a chance to have some input on his ballot over on Around the Horn. Paul announced his dissatisfaction that the Hall’s criteria for membership has been less than stringent in the past trimmed his 33 man ballot down to a more manageable number by crossing off players who did not meet his criteria, which he defined as:

“To me there is only one category of ball players that should be considered for the Hall of Fame. That category consists of those once in a generation type ball players that were dominant at their position during the era they played in for an extended period of time. These are players who changed the way the game was played and managed.”

This criteria, however, gave rise to serious objections by Bill and The Common Man, who contributed extensively to the comments section, and who suggested that Leume should face dire consequences for his desire to actively reshape the Hall of Fame’s body through his voting. Bill wrote, “

The Hall is what it is, and I think voters, while obviously totally free to apply their own valuations of players and such, have an obligation to do their best to more or less hold to the Hall's already entrenched standards. If you're going to say 'I know the Hall is this, but I think it should be limited to this instead, so I'm going to vote as though that's what it is,' in my opinion, you should have your vote taken away. You've been given a responsibility to the sport and the institution, and you're utterly failing to uphold it.”

The Common Man echoed, and perhaps amplified, Bill’s sentiments,

“You seem to be announcing a decision to completely abdicate your responsibility to the public and to the Hall of Fame as a voter and is an attempt to substitute your own subjective and arbitrary definition of a 'Hall of Famer' for one that has been previously established by the Hall and your brethren. You have crossed over from an arbiter to a politician…. Voters had to think carefully about these players to parse between them and less worthy candidates and came to the conclusion that, indeed, they were worthy. To hear you say you're not willing to do the heavy lifting is infuriating and sad. If you're not going to do your job, then stand aside so someone else, who is willing, can.”

 All of which gives rise to an important question, what are the responsibilities of a Hall of Fame voter in 2010?