The problem, as I see it, is that the voters aren't very good at their task. Some are ex-players vulnerable to cronyism (how did Mazeroski get in?) or media people, who may be good at writing or talking about contemporary sports, but know little about evaluating players from different eras or ballparks. Some don't even cover baseball. And many seem to have this inflated idea that they need to raise the standards of Hall of Famers, which seems ridiculous to me. The Hall of Fame's standards are the sum of 75 years of voting and nobody can change that unless they kick out about 50 players, which is not happening.
Because the voters can't be counted on to vote without bias — or be informed about baseball history — I say let players stay on the ballot forever. For some deserving players, it's the only way they can get in. A five-year limit unfairly reduces their chances. It's not their fault the voters are petty or ill-informed.
If only baseball historians voted — people who understand the numbers and the difference between ballparks and eras — more players would get in.
The Hall of Fame offers a great way for fans to connect with baseball's history. Too much time is wasted arguing about the merits of players like Minnie Minoso, Cecil Travis, Alan Trammel and so many others who unquestionably are better than dozens already inducted. If the floodgates are opened, some will howl. But most fans will celebrate their heroes getting inducted, which is the way it should be.
By the way, lots of NFL and NBA greats get elected all the time and nobody complains ...
|