“Gods of the Keyboard, be cautioned! Some of the little people are suggesting that our process for selecting candidates for the Baseball Hall of Fame has brought about an element of taint to our normal state of perfection!”
First of all, The Pecan Park Eagle wants to thank those of you who have made such seriously important comments in response to all of our Biggio column articles this week. Keep it up. Maybe we can drum up enough restlessness with the current system to eventually get something more than disappointment out of this arrogant and inept “near miss by the little gods of HOF selection”. Again, please keep all the good thoughts, questions, and improvement suggestions flowing into public print everywhere.
Just a few more loose end comments on the Biggio vote and the policies and powers of the BBWAA group in their historic handling of the induction process before I take a needed breather from the subject until something else sizzles to the front burner in this baseball news matter. First, the Biggio vote:
We’ve heard since Wednesday that Craig Biggio missed induction by two votes. His 74.8% was rounded up from the 74.78% he got for receiving 427 of the 571 votes cast. If that was OK, then why would they not have rounded his percentage up to 75.0% had he received only a single other vote to make it 428 out of 571 for his induction? – The following simple chart shows how Biggio’s support percentage would have increased with one or two more votes of support:
| Biggio’s Vote Total Was | Of Total Votes | Biggio’s Vote Percentage |
| 427 | 571 | 74.8 (.7478108) |
| If Biggio Total Had Been | ||
| 428 | 571 | 75.0 (.7494956) |
| 429 | 571 | 75.1 (.7513134) |
Did they change the math rules about rounding up since I was a kid? Or does the BBWAA simply use the method until a vote percentage reaches the magic 75.0% mark and then insist upon actual penetration of the barrier without rounding?
Next, did you either already know or pick up from the PPE column on Biggio’s consolation of Thursday that there have been two past instances when the writers approved an induction of a player who had failed to get 75.0% of the vote, In both instances, the failed candidates had lower vote percentages than Biggio, but they led the pack in years that found no one qualifying for induction. In both instances, 1947 and 1964, runoff elections were held between the top two original vote getters for each year to approve one of the failed candidates for HOF induction in that same, otherwise induction-barren year.
Here’s a little chart that shows how the fates of these two men played out differently than it has for Craig Biggio:
| Ballot Year | Candidate | Voting % | Result | Induction Year |
| 1964 | Luke Appling | 70.6% | Won Runoff | 1964 |
| 1964 | Red Ruffing | 70.1% | Lost Runoff | |
| 1967 | Red Ruffing | 72.6% | Won Runoff | 1967 |
| 1967 | Joe Medwick | 72.6% | Lost Runoff | 1968 (84.8%) |
| 2014 | Craig Biggio | 74.8% | Failed bid | ??????? |
So, Luke Appling defeated Red Ruffing in a 1964 runoff election between two candidates with less support than Craig Biggio in 2014 and Red Ruffing defeated Joe Medwick in the second runoff in 1967 to secure his own induction on the heels of two vote totals that were less than the support garnered by Biggio this year. Following his runoff defeat, by the way, Joe Medwick won induction the next year (1998) the old-fashioned way – he earned it with a support total of 84.8%.
Meanwhile, Craig Biggio is left twisting in the wind.
Questions: If the BBWAA has the power to call special runoff elections in years of all candidates failing to qualify, why didn’t they do so last year? Was Biggio’s vote percentage in the high 60%s too low for consideration? Has MLB and the Hall of Fame simply given the BBWAA blanket power to do this induction process any way they see fit to do it? If so, they need to be thinking about establishing some kind of overview body that has the guts to insist upon criteria, transparency, and the general bleeding of arrogance from a program in which big egos in small minds have the power to rob those who’ve already earned their rights to be duly honored for greatness in the game. We don’t need a capricious system which sometimes aids those who fail to qualify by the installation of a playoff ballot because it suits the needs of the BBWAA – and other times leaves even more qualified candidates (based on actual vote support) twisting in the winds of fate and gossip-mongering minds.
Now, much as we love Mr. Biggio’s character and talent, we shall try to let this subject marinate for a while, but please keep up the flow of your own comments and questions.
And have a nice weekend.
The Pecan Park Eagle 
January 11, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
Bill, it’s harder for me to follow this in Denver, but one of the comments I read was that Biggio has never addressed this issue publicly. Is this true?
January 11, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
Tom – To my knowledge, Biggio has never been charged with PED use in the past. As a result, I don’t think he’s ever felt the need to make a preemptive denial of something that wasn’t part of his life, anyway. With the PED-use innuendo now spreading from people like Mr. Noble, however, Craig may have to reconsider. In effect, his days for a preemptive denial are now at an end, The troubles are always these for the innocent: (1) those who want to believe you are guilty aren’t going to believe you, anyway; and (2) there is no way to exonerate yourself by proving the negative because it simply isn’t possible. Defending one’s true innocence under these circumstances is a Jacob’s Ladder climb all the way.
January 11, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
Biggio will undoubtedly get in eventually, probably next year.
The real travesty is the treatment of Jeff Bagwell, whose vote total actually went down this year, which is not a good sign. Likely his only hope is the Veteran’s Committee.
January 12, 2014 at 1:12 am |
I certainly hope that Biggio gets in next year alongside Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez. As for Bagwell, I think that his vote total will hold steady next year and that he’ll get in sometime within the next three years when the pools of Hall candidates aren’t as strong as in 2014 and 2015.
As for Biggio, I think it’s a travesty that he hasn’t been voted in yet. Not only was he everything that a Hall of Fame player should be on the field, but he was also everything anyone could ask of a player off the field. Everyone in Houston knows this – it’s unfortunate that word doesn’t seem to have gotten out to other locations.
As a teenager, I lived in Pittsburgh, PA from 1978-82, and got to see the end of the late, great Willie Stargell’s career. I have picture of him that I took myself in 1982 (his last season) on the field of old Three Rivers Stadium at the Picture Day game that year (there’s something that teams don’t do anymore). I guess I spoke of Stargell in such reverential tones that my wife finally felt compelled to ask, “Why do like him so much?” My response was, “He was to Pittsburgh what Craig Biggio is to Houston.” That was all I needed to say. My wife didn’t ask what I meant by that or how they were similar; because she knew about Biggio, she knew exactly what I meant and understood why I liked Stargell. I think that exchange with my wife is a great example of the esteem in which Biggio is held by all Houstonians, even more so because my wife couldn’t be called even a casual baseball fan (yet she still knows all about Biggio).
January 12, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
I did not know they had had run-off elections to include candidates and also find it odd they did not do this last year if that was true.
Secondly, Biggio did make a denial of sorts to Jerry Crasnick of ESPN in more of a “how do you deal with the suspicions” way he responded that it was tough and hurtful to be accused of things that aren’t true. But that’s Craigspeak.
January 13, 2014 at 8:50 am |
Since when is HOF admittance contingent on making denials? Frank Thomas didn’t have to make a denial. Did McGraw deny that he bet on baseball?