Baseball Hall of Fame Needs To Change The Five Percent Rule

Over the past few years, we have seen some players who deserved longer looks and deeper analysis fall off the Hall of Fame ballot for their failure to receive five percent of the vote. This puts sometimes deserving and borderline players in a limbo hoping and waiting they receive eventual consideration from the Veteran’s Committee.

Carlos Delgado fell off the ballot after receiving just 3.8% of the vote. That happened despite his having more homers than Jeff Bagwell and Tony Perez. He had a better OBP than Harmon Killebrew and Willie McCovey. He also had a higher slugging than Eddie Murray. Overall, his 138 OPS+ was higher than Bill Terry and Frank Chance.

Now, you could also argue he wasn’t up to Hall of Fame standards, but that debate never really could develop as he fell off the ballot.

We saw similar problems in center field with Kenny Lofton receiving 3.2% of the vote in 2013 and Jim Edmonds receiving 2.5% of the vote in 2016.

Lofton had a higher WAR than Andre Dawson, who was inducted in 2010. He also has a higher WAR than Andruw Jones, who is appearing on the ballot for a third time this year. On that point, he is teetering himself with his just receiving 7.5% last year.

Edmonds is just a hair behind Dawson in career WAR, but he is also well ahead of Kirby Puckett. Notably, Edmonds trails just Willie Mays, Ken Griffey Jr., and Torii Hunter in Gold Gloves won by a center fielder. Notably, his eight are the same amount as Dawson. Given how comparable he is to Dawson, you’d think he would get a longer look. He didn’t.

The same could be made about any number of candidates. Hideki Matsui had over 500 professional homers. Johan Santana had a higher WAR and ERA+ than Sandy Koufax. John Franco has more saves than any left-handed closer, and he has a higher ERA+ than Hall of Fame closers Bruce Sutter, Rich Gossage, and Dennis Eckersley. Finally, David Cone presents his own interesting case. All of these players were one and one on the ballot.

We will likely see the same happen to Bobby Abreu this year despite his having a better WAR, WAR7, and JAWS than recently inducted Vladimir Guerrero. He also has more doubles, triples, stolen bases, walks, and a higher OBP. Keep in mind, Guerrero was inducted just last year making the votes on the two players quite disparate despite having the same electorate.

All of these players hope to one day have the same chance Lou Whitaker now has.

Back in 2001, Whitaker only received 2.1% of the vote, which to this day, is plain wrong. Looking at WAR, Whitaker is the seventh best second baseman of all-time, and the third best at the position to debut after World War II.

He accumulated more hits than Tony Lazzeri and Johnny Evers. He scored more runs than Red Schoendienst and Jackie Robinson. He has more doubles than Ryne Sandberg and Nellie Fox. He has more triples than Craig Biggio and Bill Mazeroski. He has more stolen bases than Rogers Hornsby and Billy Herman. Overall, his OPS+ is higher than Roberto Alomar‘s and Bobby Doerr‘s

By any measure, Whitaker should be in the Hall of Fame, and yet because of the five percent rule, he has not yet been inducted. Looking at Whitaker and other cases, it is probably time the rule gets changed.

Conceptually, the five percent rule makes sense. A player does not come to vote until five years after his career is over. Ideally, this means voters have had an opportunity to assess a career in full and make a determination. However, in practice, it does not quite turn out that way.

Really, when there are fringe and overlooked candidates, there is usually someone championing them leading to them getting more attention, and eventually, induction. Bert Blyleven received 17.6% of the vote in his first year of eligibility, and he was inducted on his final year on the ballot. Tim Raines received 24.3% in his first year and was inducted on his last year. Hopefully, we will see something similar happen with Larry Walker.

The point is for every Mariano Rivera and Tom Seaver there are a number of Hall of Famers who have needed years of analysis and debate. By taking players off the ballot after one year, we are all losing the opportunity to have deeper analysis and debate about players who may well belong in the Hall of Fame.

There has to be a better way especially when we see a top 10 second baseman like Whitaker fall off the ballot. Perhaps, that rule could be relaxed for a year and moved to a player’s second year of eligibility. Perhaps, the Hall of Fame could tier the percent of the vote needed to keep a player on the ballot.

For example, to stay on the ballot after one year you only need just one vote. After the first year, you need five percent of the vote with the threshold rising roughly two percent each year so you need 18% of the vote to make it onto the final year on the ballot.

Structuring the vote this way allows for more debate about players while also presenting an opportunity to remove players who have not swayed the vote in a particular direction. Certainly, this type of system would be better than just disregarding players after one year, lamenting it, and then hoping someone corrects the error a decade or so later.

0 thoughts on “Baseball Hall of Fame Needs To Change The Five Percent Rule”

  1. Oldbackstop says:

    My first instinct is to say I couldn’t care less if some guy getting two percent soldiers his way up to 70. Yeah, you could bend over backward to say he was “deserving”….but if he was going to be a glaring error, he wouldn’t be getting two percent, right?

    Your Whitaker argument could be a template of dumb debates. He was a 19 year accruer. He was playing longer seasons than, say, Johnny Evers, with better nutrition and training. You cite his career triples as an accomplishment….but he never had more than single digits. 19 years of anything in baseball will be more than a lot of people.

    You whiffed on his best argument, which is fielding. He had a 16 something dWAR, positive every year but his first and last.

    The ballot is too insanely diffuse as it is. Tightening it up is a good idea. The Veterans Committee is always there, and if history holds true, they will change it three times in the next decade.

    1. metsdaddy says:

      The argument was he had both the career WAR and better stats than others indicted.

  2. Oldbackstop says:

    He was below the marks on HoF Monitor and HoF Standards and he would only be in the discussion because his buddy Trammel got it.

    It is nice to have dark horse favorites, but I wouldn’t die on this hill.

    1. metsdaddy says:

      Whitaker is a top 10 second baseman of all-time. He’s better than worthy players already inducted.

      He’s not a dark horse.

    2. Jimmy says:

      Whitaker was a better player than Trammel. Granted, Trammel was slightly better defensively at his position, but Whitaker was far better offensively. Both players were about equal regarding home/road, production with RISP and, with two outs. However, Whitaker was far better in high leverage situations; he was 12% above his career average whereas Trammel was 2% below his career average. Whitaker also created 1395 runs using 6599 outs averaging about 0.211 runs per out. Trammel’s sits at 0.196 runs per out. He’s not a dark horse favorite, he was a better players at his position.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *