Transcription
The Major League Baseball Hall of Fame, established in 1936, has become a sacred place, much like the pantheon, a temple of the gods where players, managers, umpires, executives, and pioneers of the game hope to be inducted and immortalized forever. However, over the past couple of decades, the voting process has become hypocritical and frankly feels a bit broken. The current system, where the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) controls the ballot, simply does not work anymore in the modern era. They have become way pickier, causing a concerning backlog of worthy Hall of Famers. From writers refusing to vote for players like Mike Piazza because of suspected steroid use (using Pat's acne as a reason!), to writers refusing to vote for Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux because they won't vote for anyone who played during the steroid era—it is about damn time we re-evaluate the Hall of Fame voting process and its future.
Before discussing the future, we need to understand how we got here. The National Baseball Hall of Fame was established in 1936 in Cooperstown, New York, by Stephen Carlton Clark, an heir to the Singer sewing machine fortune. Sewing machines were a pretty big deal back then, and actually, I guess they still are. Kudos to sewing! Stephen had two goals: creating a place people would want to visit (the Great Depression and Prohibition devastated local tourism in Cooperstown), and celebrating the national pastime. He asked the National League president, Ford Frick, for his blessing.
You might be asking why Cooperstown? That's due to the Doubleday myth. Abner Graves, a mining engineer, claimed Civil War Union Army officer Abner Doubleday invented baseball in Cooperstown in 1839. The Spalding Commission, created by the sporting goods company Spalding, essentially took his word for it, and the public favored this claim. However, modern baseball historians criticize this myth as false, but that's neither here nor there.
In 1936, the first class of Hall of Fame members was named (before official induction in 1939, the believed 100-year anniversary of baseball's invention). Five players were elected: Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson, and Walter Johnson. The BBWAA, founded in 1908 to provide members access to team clubhouses and press boxes, made the selections. The Hall of Fame chose the association because they were the only ones covering Major League Baseball regularly. Ideally, they'd know the most about the game and its history. Back then, games weren't televised, and the Yankees, Dodgers, and Giants refused to allow radio broadcasts. Interleague play didn't exist, so some teams and players were unseen in certain cities. The baseball writers were the only third-party witnesses. For this first vote, the only criteria was players' legacies. The selection process involved the BBWAA picking 20th-century players, while a special veterans committee chose 19th-century players. There were no restrictions; active and even banned players like Shoeless Joe Jackson were eligible. Any player receiving 75% of the vote would be inducted. Voters could choose up to 10 players and *were instructed to vote for 10 players*.
A few things to note: none of the five players were unanimous selections. Ty Cobb had the highest votes (98.2%). Legendary players like Cy Young only received 49.1% and didn't make the first ballot. Even in the first vote, there was significant pickiness. All these writers couldn't unanimously agree Babe Ruth belonged in the Hall of Fame—the beginning of uncorrected mistakes.
The writers' association also votes on end-of-season awards. Over the years, Hall of Fame ballot eligibility guidelines have evolved. I have no issue with how names get on the ballot. It's straightforward: a player needs 10 years in MLB, to be chosen by the screening committee, and to have been retired for at least five years. Players not voted in on the first ballot stay for 10 years, as long as they receive at least 5% of the vote. Then there's the ineligible list (currently banned players like Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose). My concern is with how the BBWAA casts its votes, especially over the past couple of decades.
Before we move forward, let me save you some money! Shout out to SeatGeek for sponsoring; use promo code JABRONIBASEBALL for $20 off your first purchase. SeatGeek is the official ticket marketplace of Major League Baseball. You can use it for sports, concerts, music festivals, Broadway shows, comedy shows, and more. Again, my viewers get $20 off their first purchase with code JABRONIBASEBALL (one word, all caps). Click the link in the description to download the app.
Let's start with the basics: who are these writers, and how do you get into the association? To vote, you must be an active or honorary BBWAA member for at least 10 years and have been an active working writer within the past 10 years of the ballot. The problem? A BBWAA writer may not have covered baseball for 10 years but still be eligible to vote on a ballot including players who were still playing when that writer stopped working. This has already happened. According to a 2014 Forbes article, three active voters (Bob Sherwin, Jim Street, and Kirby Arnold) weren't covering baseball; they ran a golf website, yet still voted.
Before discussing egregious examples of BBWAA writers not taking the Hall of Fame vote seriously or voting with their egos, I want to preface this: most BBWAA voters take their votes seriously and have the game's history and future's best interest in mind.
Now, let's talk about changes. First, the 75% vote needed to get into the Hall. Where did this number come from? It's a random number decided in 1936 by NL President Ford Frick and members of the Associated Press. They didn't do test ballots or deep studies. It could have easily been 51%, 90%, or 95%. If we keep the 75% threshold, we need to get rid of the 10-vote limit. With more talented players on each ballot, we need to adjust this. In a perfect world, I'd recommend adjusting both the percentage and the 10-vote limit. ESPN's Jason Stark openly discussed this, saying a broken system forces him to vote the way he has. He didn't want to waste votes and believed players like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens deserved to get in, but he had to change his votes because he didn't think other voters would support them. Stark wasn't alone. In 2013, five voters sent in blank ballots, citing confusion around the judging standards. Another ESPN writer, TJ Quinn, wrote an article on why he gave up voting completely. Three concerning examples he cited: he heard writers saying they couldn't wait for certain players to make the ballot so they could leave their names unchecked; the steroid era problem (the Hall of Fame and MLB won't provide PED use guidelines, forcing 575 eligible writers to apply 575 different standards); and some voters used their votes to punish or reward players (using Albert Belle as an example). I'll link Jason Stark and TJ Quinn's articles in the description.
It gets even weirder. In 2014, Deadspin bought a vote from an anonymous BBWAA writer and let the public decide how to vote—to publicly mock the voting process. This happened a decade ago, and nothing has been done. These problems aren't new. The forced pickiness of only 10 votes has been an issue for a long time. Writers have left players like Tom Seaver, Nolan Ryan, and even Hank Aaron off their ballots. Hank Aaron isn't a 100% unanimous Hall of Famer, and there's a reason for that. Some writers said if they know a player will get 75%, they won't vote for them, instead using their votes on players they believe may not get enough support. The logic: hopefully, over the next 10 years, that player can build a case, even though stats and impact won't change. Writers could change their minds—adding to the subjectivity. It's more like, "Maybe they'll feel like a player is a Hall of Famer next year," and it needs to be more objective. Another reason players aren't unanimously voted in (besides Mariano Rivera in 2019) is writers believing that if Babe Ruth didn't get 100%, nobody deserves it. To preserve their predecessors' legacies, some BBWAA writers don't vote for anyone on their first ballot to ensure popular picks don't go in unanimously. Mariano Rivera's unanimous vote (which he deserved) was largely due to ballots becoming public in 2018, adding transparency. Ken Griffey Jr., for example, had three voters not vote for him; those writers haven't explained why. This new change wasn't universally loved; some writers believe public votes lead to public pressure.
Next, perceived steroid use. Reportedly, 15 voters didn't vote for Greg Maddux (a first-ballot Hall of Famer) simply because he pitched in the steroid era. Maddux, one of the greatest pitchers ever, wasn't unanimous because some writers believed he may have taken PEDs, with zero evidence. The system is broken. My earlier statement about a writer not voting for Mike Piazza because he linked his acne with PED use wasn't a joke. Murray Chass (a baseball blogger who wrote for the *New York Times* and Associated Press, and received the J.G. Taylor Spink Award) admitted he consciously limits his votes, even with qualified candidates. He said he'd give up his vote but kept it to annoy his critics. MLB.com's Ken Gurnick only voted for one player in 2014 (Jack Morris). When asked why he didn't vote for Glavine or Maddux, he said he won't vote for anyone who played during the PED era. Bob Brookover didn't vote for Curt Schilling (because he lied about chewing tobacco) or Jeff Bagwell (possible steroid lies). This has reached insanity: players who never failed a drug test and put up first-ballot Hall of Fame numbers are left out because some writers need to make a statement. Ego has left some of the game's greatest players out of the Hall of Fame. Glavine, Maddux, Bagwell, and Piazza should be in, but the majority of writers disagree.
What is the Hall of Fame? An objective place showcasing the game's greatest, or a place where history is told by how the baseball writers want us to see it? The writers are getting too wrapped up in comparing modern-day players to past legends. They should be compared to the level of competition they played against. The game today is far different. We may never see another pitcher reach 300 wins or a hitter reach 3,000 hits, not because of lack of talent, but because of how baseball has evolved. If a player dominated during his time and is essential in telling baseball's story, he should get in. We shouldn't overthink this. Yes, the museum preserves baseball's story, but these players should be rewarded with baseball immortality.
As of 2024, the Hall's main instruction is simple: voting should be based on record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contribution to teams. MLB and the Hall of Fame make no mention of what to do with players who have or haven't tested positive for steroids. They end up on the ballot like any other eligible player. The hypocrisy is baffling; players and fans suffer the most. I believe the steroid era needs to be addressed. MLB hasn't banned players like Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens (arguably the greatest hitter and pitcher in the past 30 years). The Hall of Fame Museum showcases them. If MLB and the Hall of Fame have no problem telling their stories, why are the baseball writers the arbiters of right and wrong? It took them 80 years to pick the first unanimous player. They get things wrong, yet nobody steps in. These are the same voters who voted for them for awards, now refusing to vote them into the Hall of Fame. Bud Selig, who oversaw the steroid era and profited from it, was voted into the Hall of Fame in 2017 with a 93.8% vote. If steroid-era players are vilified, Selig's induction makes no sense. When the Astros cheating scandal came out, those at the top were punished; this should have been the same for Selig.
Moving away from the steroid era (which deserves its own video), it's time to start voting for players like Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, and Rodriguez into Cooperstown.
My top four players who should be in the Hall of Fame are: Keith Hernandez (a crime he's not in, never receiving over 11% of the vote; 17-year career, 60.3 WAR, MVP, batting title, two-time World Series champion, five-time All-Star, two-time Silver Slugger, 11 Gold Gloves, widely regarded as the greatest defensive first baseman); Don Mattingly (highest vote percentage 28.2%, excellent 14-year career cut short by back issues, AL MVP, batting title, three-time Silver Slugger, six-time All-Star, nine Gold Gloves, 42.4 WAR, 127 OPS+, Yankees captain, managed the Dodgers and Marlins); Lou Whitaker (popular Hall of Fame snub, 19 years with the Tigers, Rookie of the Year, World Series champion, four-time Silver Slugger, five-time All-Star, three Gold Gloves, 75.1 WAR, 117 OPS+); and Tim Lincecum (peak was incredible, All-Star, two no-hitters, four-time All-Star, three-time World Series champion, two Cy Young Awards, MVP votes). Honorable mentions include Kenny Lofton, Bernie Williams, Billy Wagner (looks like he'll be voted in soon), and Joey Votto.
How do we fix this? If we keep the 10-vote maximum and 75% entrance window, we need to ensure all 10 votes are used; otherwise, you lose your voting ability. No more empty ballots or voting for six players when you could have voted for 10. The reason the BBWAA was necessary in 1936 doesn't fly anymore. They had to do it because nobody else covered baseball regularly. Today, we have analysts, media personnel, reporters, radio broadcasters, TV broadcasters, writers, and even you and me. More voters, more voices. Have active players vote, living Hall of Famers vote, and fans vote. Diversify it to limit ego or special interest. The weight of each vote would vary, but that can be fine-tuned. We need clearer standards. Someone who gets in on their eighth ballot should have gotten in earlier. Their career numbers haven't changed, but opinions have. A clear threshold would help. We should also make the Hall of Fame a place people want to visit. Keeping players out doesn't help this cause. I'm not saying leave the doors open for any player, but letting more in wouldn't hurt. It's good for players, fans, and baseball. We want to see more greatness, not less.
Thanks for watching! Please like and subscribe. What do you think of the current Hall of Fame voting? What would you change? Sound off in the comments! [Music]