Restructured HOF era committees
 

I do like that some long overlooked early baseball names can now be considered more than once a decade. I'm 51 and the thought of adding a guy like Bill Dahlen or Mike Donlin or the like was not as enticing knowing I had 2 or 3 election cycles to potentially enjoy seeing them get in. Knowing there's a greater possibility of seeing them inducted in my lifetime renews my interest a bit. I would suspect the "small hall" crowd is not in favor of this move but I do think it streamlines things considerably.

Agreed on the streamlining... That will be nice.

I can't say, however, that I'm looking forward to another year -- this year -- of continued coverage of the steroid era players.

I believe we were going to get that anyway with the Modern Baseball Era scheduled to be discussed. So it'll be the same conversation under a new name. But I agree, I tire of those debates. People on both sides are staunch in their opinion and it's always the same arguments made by both sides. I haven't seen a new take on the steroid issue in years. I often wonder if there's the same level of debate for the other HOFs. I know people discuss football but I rarely see any discussion around basketball and hockey. And even the football conversations don't generate the same passion the baseball debates do.

Ah, thanks for informing me of that, much appreciated. I was under the impression we were over that conversation for a bit, but I had not followed it closely since, as you said, it's the same sides talking to the wall.

The baseball discussions may be more passionate since the game seems tied to nostalgia much more so than other sports...?

I can’t see any way this doesn’t make it harder to get on a ballot and harder to get elected…except for maybe umps, managers, and execs…who it’ll now be a easier for.

You know, because fans are clamoring to see more umps and owners elected. :mad:

Exactly!