Aaron Sele and the FOMC

Once a year the members of the Baseball Writers Association vote on who should be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown.  Along with votes for the greats, the near greats, and the pretty goods inevitably some mediocre players get votes.  For example this year Aaron Sele and Reggie Sanders each got 1 vote (see here).  Now as a diehard Red Sox fan I would love to see Aaron Sele in the Baseball Hall of Fame, but a baseball fan I realize that he is nowhere near worthy.

Sele (see here) had a career record of 148-112 and an ERA of 4.61.  ERA+ is a measure which attempts to normalize pitchers across time and home ballpark.  100 is league average.  Sele's lifetime ERA+ was 100.   He never led the league in any statistical category, he made the All Star team two times.  In 1999 he came in 5th in the voting for the American League Cy Young Award.  That was his only top 10 finish. So he had a respectable career but certainly nowhere near Hall of Fame standards.  Yet some writer did give him a vote.

If a writer does not take his job seriously then he should not be voting.  To enforce this I suggest that Major League Baseball should establish a review panel whose job it would be to investigate questionable Hall of Fame votes.  Any writer who casts a ballot for a player of questionable merit - for example Aaron Sele - should be required to appear before the panel and defend his vote.  The writer would not have to convince the panel that the player he voted for should be in the Hall of Fame but he would have to present a reasonable argument for it.  (I would really like to hear the argument for Aaron Sele.  And to be fair, Sele is nowhere near the worst player to ever get votes.)   If the writer fails to convince the panel that there is some reasonable justification for his vote then that writer would lose his voting privileges.  After all if a writer is unable to distinguish truly great players from mediocre players then that writer is not competent to vote on Hall of Fame induction and should not be voting.  And if a writer is able to separate the greats from the mediocre and yet continues to place votes for mediocre players then he does not take his job seriously and that writer should not be voting.

Which brings us to today's FOMC policy statement

"To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends and the economic recovery strengthens. In particular, the Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that this exceptionally low range for the federal funds rate will be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6-1/2 percent, inflation between one and two years ahead is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run goal, and longer-term inflation expectations continue to be well anchored. In determining how long to maintain a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy, the Committee will also consider other information, including additional measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments. When the Committee decides to begin to remove policy accommodation, it will take a balanced approach consistent with its longer-run goals of maximum employment and inflation of 2 percent.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; James Bullard; Elizabeth A. Duke; Charles L. Evans; Jerome H. Powell; Sarah Bloom Raskin; Eric S. Rosengren; Jeremy C. Stein; Daniel K. Tarullo; and Janet L. Yellen. Voting against the action was Esther L. George, who was concerned that the continued high level of monetary accommodation increased the risks of future economic and financial imbalances and, over time, could cause an increase in long-term inflation expectations."

Perhaps we need a review panel for FOMC votes as well.