{"id":192,"date":"2008-01-18T18:01:23","date_gmt":"2008-01-19T01:01:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/2008\/01\/18\/strange-hof-voting\/"},"modified":"2008-01-18T18:03:19","modified_gmt":"2008-01-19T01:03:19","slug":"strange-hof-voting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/2008\/01\/18\/strange-hof-voting\/","title":{"rendered":"Strange HOF Voting"},"content":{"rendered":"

At times, the manner in which some writers who are members of the BBWAA vote in the Hall of Fame elections seemingly defies rational explanation. <\/span>Writers receive a ballot containing a list of candidates for the Hall. <\/span>They are asked to vote for ten players at most. <\/span>I would assume that if someone is voting for the first time, he (or she) would ask himself: Who do I think is deserving of induction? <\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p>It seems to me that a voter could decide that there are not ten players on the ballot deserving of the Hall and, therefore, choose to vote for only a few who he considers worthy. <\/span>This is perfectly understandable. <\/span>But my assumption would be that a serious voter will only vote for those players who he feels really deserve to be in the Hall. <\/span>And if one of his choices does not make it on this ballot, he will continue to vote for that deserving player in future ballots.<\/span> <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

It could even happen that a voter learns something new about a candidate who he did not vote for and decides to vote for that candidate in the future. <\/span>This, of course, could happen. <\/span>But I would expect that it would be an unusual event since I would like to believe that any voter would take the duty seriously enough to do his (or her) homework the first time around. <\/span>Alas, it does not appear that this is the way that some voters go about their duties at all. <\/span>It almost seems that some of the voters must be flipping a coin or spinning a dial looking for help to guide them \u00e2\u20ac\u201d because there are times when events happen that seem to defy common sense. <\/span>Here is an example of one of those times.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p>Allie Reynolds and Bob Lemon were both effective starting pitchers during their careers. <\/span>Reynolds pitched in the American League for thirteen seasons from 1942 to 1954. <\/span>During that time, he compiled a won\/loss record of 182\/107 for a winning percentage of .630. <\/span>His career ERA was 3.30 compared to a league ERA of 3.61. <\/span>Those are fairly good numbers.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Lemon also pitched in the American League. <\/span>His career also covered thirteen seasons from 1946 to 1958. <\/span>During that time, he compiled a won\/loss record of 207\/128 for a winning percentage of .618 \u00e2\u20ac\u201d<\/span> just slightly less than Reynold\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s. <\/span>His career ERA was 3.23 compared to a league ERA of 3.85 \u00e2\u20ac\u201d somewhat better than Reynold\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p>To many fans, these two pitchers would seem to have had very similar careers. <\/span>And, at the moment, I am not concerned with whether either pitcher had HOF<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> credentials (I will comment on that below). <\/span>Lemon won 25 more games but he also lost 21 more. <\/span>I suspect that most fans would give a slight edge to Lemon after looking at the numbers. <\/span>The careers of the two men overlapped from 1946 to 1954 (nine seasons) \u00e2\u20ac\u201d so they would certainly be considered contemporaries. <\/span>The question here is: How did the two players make out when they were on the BBWAA ballot for the Hall of Fame?<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p>History of BBWAA Hall of Fame Voting for Allie Reynolds and Bob Lemon:<\/em><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n
Reynolds<\/strong><\/font><\/font><\/td>\nLemon<\/strong><\/font><\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Year<\/strong><\/td>\n Run-Off<\/strong><\/td>\nVotes<\/strong><\/td>\nPct.<\/strong><\/td>\nYear<\/strong><\/td>\n Run-Off<\/strong><\/td>\nVotes<\/strong><\/td>\nPct.<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1956<\/td>\n <\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.52<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1960<\/td>\n <\/td>\n24<\/td>\n8.92<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1962<\/td>\n <\/td>\n15<\/td>\n9.38<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1964<\/td>\n <\/td>\n35<\/td>\n17.41<\/td>\n1964<\/td>\n <\/td>\n24<\/td>\n11.94<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1964<\/td>\nRun-Off<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n2.67<\/td>\n1964<\/td>\nRun-Off<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n1.33<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1966<\/td>\n <\/td>\n60<\/td>\n19.87<\/td>\n1966<\/td>\n <\/td>\n21<\/td>\n6.95<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1967<\/td>\n <\/td>\n77<\/td>\n26.37<\/td>\n1967<\/td>\n <\/td>\n35<\/td>\n11.99<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1967<\/td>\nRun-Off<\/td>\n19<\/td>\n6.21<\/td>\n1967<\/td>\nRun-Off<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n2.29<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1968<\/td>\n <\/td>\n95<\/td>\n33.57<\/td>\n1968<\/td>\n <\/td>\n47<\/td>\n16.61<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1969<\/td>\n <\/td>\n98<\/td>\n28.82<\/td>\n1969<\/td>\n <\/td>\n56<\/td>\n16.47<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1970<\/td>\n <\/td>\n89<\/td>\n29.67<\/td>\n1970<\/td>\n <\/td>\n75<\/td>\n25.00<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1971<\/td>\n <\/td>\n110<\/td>\n30.56<\/td>\n1971<\/td>\n <\/td>\n90<\/td>\n25.00<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1972<\/td>\n <\/td>\n105<\/td>\n26.52<\/td>\n1972<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/td>\n117<\/td>\n29.55<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1973<\/td>\n <\/td>\n93<\/td>\n24.47<\/td>\n1973<\/td>\n <\/td>\n177<\/td>\n46.58<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1974<\/td>\n <\/td>\n101<\/td>\n27.67<\/td>\n1974<\/td>\n <\/td>\n190<\/td>\n52.05<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n1975<\/td>\n <\/td>\n233<\/td>\n64.36<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n1976<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/td>\n305<\/td>\n78.61<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

Look at the years 1964 to 1971. <\/span>For seven straight votes of the BBWAA (not counting the two run-offs), more voters thought Allie Reynolds was more deserving of the Hall of Fame than Bob Lemon. <\/span>At least that is how I read the vote. <\/span>In the middle of that span (1968), Reynolds got more than twice as many votes as Lemon (95 to 47). <\/span>So, what would the normal fan expect to happen after 1968? <\/span>Either Reynolds would get into the Hall ahead of Lemon or, possibly, neither player would make it. <\/span>In fact, in 1968, the latter choice would seem reasonable since Reynolds got only 33.6% of the vote and Lemon only 16.6%. <\/span>There was no reason for anyone to think that over 40% more of the voters would decide that Reynolds belonged in the Hall or almost 60% more would decide that Lemon was worthy. <\/span>And so, what actually happened to Bob Lemon defies rational explanation.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p>In 1972, a funny thing happened on the way to the Hall of Fame. <\/span>After both players had been retired for many years, Bob Lemon suddenly and mysteriously became a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153better pitcher\u00e2\u20ac\u009d than Allie Reynolds. <\/span>Or, at least one could infer that from what happened in the voting. <\/span>In 1972, Lemon passed Reynolds in the voting and went on to be elected to the Hall in 1976. <\/span>And Allie Reynolds was never elected. <\/span>What happened? <\/span>How can anyone logically explain this turn-around? <\/span>I have asked this question of some very knowledgeable baseball people and have gotten only one theory. <\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p>How is it possible that in 1968 only 45 writers thought that Bob Lemon deserved to be in the Hall. <\/span>Yet, eight years later (in 1976), 305 writers thought he was Hall of Fame material. <\/span>His credentials were exactly the same in 1976 as they were in 1968. <\/span>What does that say about the people who are voting? <\/span>Well, one might suggest that the voting on the part of some writers is erratic and\/or capricious \u00e2\u20ac\u201d or that some people simply do not take it seriously. <\/span>In either case, it is sad to see the ballots handled in such a thoughtless manner.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/span>The point here is that there is no logical explanation for this result. <\/span>Unfortunately, it is all too typical of what happens on occasion with the Hall of Fame voting.<\/em> <\/em> <\/span><\/o:p><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/o:p>There is some insight about the voting which has been suggested by some members of SABR. <\/span>Bob Lemon became the manager of the Kansas City Royals in 1970 and managed them again in 1971 and 1972. <\/span>In his first full season as a manager, he guided the team into second place with an 85-76 record. <\/span>None of the other 1969 expansion teams had more than 71 wins, so Lemon was praised for his achievement. <\/span>A similar surge in Hall of Fame votes has occurred for other players who became managers. <\/span>Both Gil Hodges in 1970 and Joe Torre in 1997 saw their percentages double from the previous election.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p>Should a player\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s vote for the Hall of Fame be influenced by what that player did in some other major league capacity (other than playing)? <\/span>Should the fact that a player becomes a manager, or a broadcaster or a baseball executive have any bearing on whether they are voted into the Hall? <\/span>I happen to think not \u00e2\u20ac\u201d but I am aware of many fans who do think that these achievements should count somehow. <\/span>Certainly, if either Gil Hodges or Joe Torre ever make it into the Hall, it will be due in part to their managerial careers. <\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p>In any case, the NEWS HOF Gauge suggests that neither of these pitchers has HOF<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> numbers. <\/span>However, Bob Lemon did put up much better numbers<\/strong> than Allie Reynolds during his pitching career. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Player<\/strong><\/font><\/td>\nCWS<\/strong><\/font><\/td>\nCV<\/strong><\/font><\/td>\nNEWS<\/strong><\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Bob Lemon<\/strong><\/font><\/td>\n232<\/strong><\/font><\/font><\/td>\n223<\/strong><\/font><\/font><\/td>\n225<\/strong><\/font><\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Allie Reynolds<\/font><\/font>
\n<\/strong><\/td>\n		170<\/font><\/font>
\n<\/strong><\/td>\n		153<\/font><\/font>
\n<\/strong><\/td>\n		157<\/font><\/font>
\n<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

With a NEWS cut-off of 235 for HOF<\/st1:city> numbers for a pitcher, Bob Lemon came reasonably close to having HOF<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> credentials while Allie Reynolds was not even in the ballpark. <\/span>Another good question might be \u00e2\u20ac\u201c how was Reynolds able to garner more support than Lemon from 1964 to 1971? <\/span>How many writers were guilty of not examining the players\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 credentials closely enough? <\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

And this is just one example of the sometimes bizarre voting patterns that emerge from the BBWAA ballots for the Hall of Fame.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

For more info on the NEWS HOF Gauge, see BASEBALL\u00e2\u20ac\u2122S BEST: The TRUE Hall of<\/strong> Famers<\/strong><\/a> on this site.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At times, the manner in which some writers who are members of the BBWAA vote in the Hall of Fame elections seemingly defies rational explanation. Writers receive a ballot containing a list of candidates for the Hall. They are asked to vote for ten players at most. I would assume that if someone is voting […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-192","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-prof-hobans-hall-of-fame-blog"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t