Bad Behavior Could Result in Hall Snubs for Former Atlanta Braves

A crowded Hall of Fame ballot means a tough time for many worthy candidates.  So why reward some of these vote-getters first?

I had resisted writing this for a while… because for a while, it didn’t seem to matter.  But now I think it does, and that’s wrong.  And it impacts some former Atlanta Braves‘ favorites.

Ryan Thibodaux provides a wonderful service for Hall watchers – a spreadsheet that tracks all official Hall of Fame ballots that have been released for public viewing.

His tracker can be viewed at this link.  But there are some trends in this year’s voting that frankly seem a bit disturbing, and that’s the subject of this rant.

Defining the Terms

Let me first remind you of the rules of engagement for voters.

Those to be enshrined will have 75%-or-better nods on all ballots returns… roughly 327 of the estimated 435 ballots for this year.  If you’re honored to be on the ballot, you will have up to 10 years of voting to get that 75%, though any failure in any year to reach 5% and you’re done.

Right away, that’s one reform I’d like to see done:  if you reach something like 10% during the any year of balloting, you get to stay for the full 10 years

Another reform I’d like to see gets to the heart of the problem I’m seeing now:  that limit of 10 selections on any single ballot.  The first 106 ballots shown on Ryan’s spreadsheet are averaging 8.9 player vote apiece.  That means many voters are having to make choices as to who gets omitted.

Jayson Stark noted that the average was 8.39 in 2014 and 8.42 in 2015.  He also noted that a 2015 proposal to raise the limit from 10 to 12 was rejected.

“At some point, there has to be a line drawn,” said a board member of the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA).

I’m sorry… but why is that the case?  That line could be “everyone on the ballot”, but nobody will do that.

Frankly, with a strict 75% threshold for acceptance, there is no good reason for restricting voters from casting their choices without limit.  That 75% line is the one already drawn thickly across the history of the process.  That serves as your limiting factor.

So instead… we have choices.

Some may be choosing to leave a player out because he’s “less worthy” than another.  Some are selecting players because it’s their last shot.  Whatever the reason, choices are being made.

That’s just not right.  If you’re a worthy Hall of Fame player, nothing so trifling as a balloting limitation should keep you out.

Yet that might actually happen.