Change HOF period from 15 to 5 years?

[jcmtiger]

Does anyone think the HOF should change the number of years a candidate can be on the HOF ballot? Seems like 15 years is a waste of time for most players on the ballot. The stats won't change that's for sure.

Joe

[Kenny Cole]

That has been my position for years.

[insidethewrapper]

Ten years maximum with at least 20% of the vote each year or your off. If you can't get 20% of the vote then you are not HOF material.

[Gmrson]

I've always felt if there were knowldgeable baseball people voting it should be 1 year. How can a player not be a HOFer one year, but be one the next? How can someone leave Hank Aaron, Cal Ripken or Nolan Ryan, among many others, off their ballot? If they do they don't know baseball. A poorly flawed system with too many holier-than-thou sports writers.

[z28jd]

I'd like to know why they decided they needed more than 50.0% of the votes to get in? If more than half of them thought they were a Hall of Famer, why doesn't that put them in like every other voting process. I would think if they are qualified enough to vote, then only one more than half of them needs to think they should be there.

[sycks22]

Originally Posted by z28jd

I'd like to know why they decided they needed more than 50.0% of the votes to get in? If more than half of them thought they were a Hall of Famer, why doesn't that put them in like every other voting process. I would think if they are qualified enough to vote, then only one more than half of them needs to think they should be there.

Then there would be way too many guys in the hall every year.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by z28jd

I'd like to know why they decided they needed more than 50.0% of the votes to get in? If more than half of them thought they were a Hall of Famer, why doesn't that put them in like every other voting process. I would think if they are qualified enough to vote, then only one more than half of them needs to think they should be there.

They probably thought it would dilute the already water downed significance of the Hall. If it was 50% this year we would have had 5 inductees. Craig Biggio, Jack Morris, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza and Tim Raines.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

They probably thought it would dilute the already water downed significance of the Hall. If it was 50% this year we would have had 5 inductees. Craig Biggio, Jack Morris, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza and Tim Raines.

They started that in 1936, so that is who I meant. If the people voting were supposedly qualified to do this vote, a simple majority should get people in. The simple answer is not everyone is qualified to vote for the HOF, so they made the number higher to compensate for that, which just means the system was flawed from the start. There definitely isn't over 500 qualified voters now.

I think there should be some sort of testing to see if you're qualified to vote first before you get to vote. If you have 100 qualified voters knowing what they are looking at, then 51 should be all that is needed to make the Hall.

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Ten years maximum with at least 20% of the vote each year or your off. If you can't get 20% of the vote then you are not HOF material.

Come on Mike, you don't need to collect those 19th Century Detroit Wolverines!!!

Joe

[sycks22]

Somebody voted for Aaron Sele

[bcbgcbrcb]

I would keep the process the same, it's traditional.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

They probably thought it would dilute the already water downed significance of the Hall. If it was 50% this year we would have had 5 inductees. Craig Biggio, Jack Morris, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza and Tim Raines.

IMO all 5 of these guys would make fine HOFers. Morris being the low man on the totem pole, but I feel he's going to get in regardless of my opinion of his worthiness.

So I don't understand the above logic, what's the difference between putting them all in now versus putting them in a little at a time over the course of the next 10 years or so? If these guys go in through the Vets' Committee in 20 years, does that still make the HOF watered down? Or less watered down?

The problem is the writers. There are a lot of them who are petty people who feel like they can make some kind of point by not voting for a guy. It's absurd really. Tony Gwynn was on XM today, and he was asked to say "yes" or "no" on ten names. He said "yes" to 9 of them. I trust a HOFers opinion on judging a players' HOF worthiness over the opinion of some beat writer who has too much personal bias. The point being, if you don't feel someone is a HOFer don't vote for them. If you do, vote for them. But base your opinion on what the guy did on the field, and his character off of it. Period!

Sure, sometimes you have a guy (like Blyleven) where people need to understand that the player's worth goes beyond stats. The changing mindset of the "win" statistic helped his case. However, there is rarely a good reason for voting for someone in 2013 when you didn't vote for them in 2010. These are some of the "reasons" I've heard voters give for not voting for someone:

* "I don't trust the era he played in."
* "Nobody should be inducted their first year." (Is there a First Year Wing???)
* "Hank Aaron wasn't unanimous, so nobody should be."
* "He was uncooperative with the media." (So what???)
* "He never won a World Series." (Isn't that a TEAM accomplishment? And if that is a detriment, then why praise Mazeroski and Jack Morris for their postseason success, since that was the impetus of their HOF case.)

To me, if those statements pass as justification to not vote for someone for the HOF, then the voting has clearly been placed in the wrong hands. The HOF vote is not the time to make some petty point about whether you like a guy or not. A vote as important as the 2013 vote was not the time to send in a blank ballot, or one with only Aaron Sele selected (PLEASE!). If the writers don't want to take the responsibility of HOF voting seriously, give it to someone who will.

One last point, baseball is still far and away the most exclusive Hall to get into. Football has a MINIMUM number of inductees. Hockey is approaching 400 members, and basketball inducts 5-10 people a year. Nobody complains about that. 1-2 people get into baseball's HOF, which represents slightly less than 1% of the total players EVER in the game, and it is still somehow viewed as watered down. I really don't get that.

#end rant....

[Chris Counts]

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 ...

[triwak]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

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.

I think these points were the reason the Hall instituted the new Veterans Committee formats a few years ago. Technically, if someone played 10 years, they ARE eligible for life. They have to get through the nominating committees' screening process first, of course. But I believe those committees, as well as the actual voters, are now populated by more true baseball historians than in past Veteran formats.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by triwak

But I believe those committees, as well as the actual voters, are now populated by more true baseball historians than in past Veteran formats.

Excellent point. This is without a doubt the best iteration of the Vets Committee we have had. No more "cronyism" to get guys like Bancroft, Doerr and Mazeroski enshrined. True historians with a love for the game and its lore to make fair and accurate assessments. I've not encountered one person who had issue with the selection of O'Day, Ruppert and White. This version of the Vets Committee seems to be about getting it right.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Excellent point. This is without a doubt the best iteration of the Vets Committee we have had. No more "cronyism" to get guys like Bancroft, Doerr and Mazeroski enshrined. True historians with a love for the game and its lore to make fair and accurate assessments. I've not encountered one person who had issue with the selection of O'Day, Ruppert and White. This version of the Vets Committee seems to be about getting it right.

The old version of the Veteran's Committee was always subject to cronyism. It was reported that Charlie Gehringer hated Phil Rizzuto and kept him out of the hall. When Charlie died he was replaced by Ted Williams, who loved Rizzuto, so Phil got in the next year. So if Gehringer outlived Williams, Rizzuto is not a Hall of Famer? This Committee seems a definite improvement.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Gmrson

I've always felt if there were knowldgeable baseball people voting it should be 1 year. How can a player not be a HOFer one year, but be one the next? How can someone leave Hank Aaron, Cal Ripken or Nolan Ryan, among many others, off their ballot? If they do they don't know baseball. A poorly flawed system with too many holier-than-thou sports writers.

totally agree. Voting should be open also.. college football coaches polls are. I want at least one of the I think 7 (?) guys explain why they voted for Clemens and not Bonds. I can understand why you do or don't vote for either, and I wouldn't hold that against anyone, but to vote for one and not the other??? WTF?

edited to add-- I still think players should be given several opportunities to be voted in, since I'd never have faith writers would get it right the first time every time.

[Jlighter]

Mr. Derek. The problem is that two of those players are not Hall of Famers. The Veterans committee is almost always going to find a player to put in the Hall, whether these two players are elected or not. If the BBWAA starts voting for 5 people a year, we might as well just start calling it The Baseball Hall, this isn't like Kindergraden awards where everyone gets one, people feelings will get hurt, people will be left out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think 5 years is plenty, and I don't care for the Veterans' Committee either resurrecting players who were not considered good enough in the context of their time, it's a recipe for dilution not to mention an inherently flawed process. In fact it's so diluted already it doesn't have much meaning.

[insidethewrapper]

Just like when Ted Williams was on the Veterans Committee, Rizzuto was going to get in. Same today, when Pete Morris got on the Vet Committee, Deacon White was an automatic pick.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

Mr. Derek. The problem is that two of those players are not Hall of Famers. The Veterans committee is almost always going to find a player to put in the Hall, whether these two players are elected or not. If the BBWAA starts voting for 5 people a year, we might as well just start calling it The Baseball Hall, this isn't like Kindergraden awards where everyone gets one, people feelings will get hurt, people will be left out.

I understand where you're coming from but must disagree. To say some isn't a HOFer...I think you will find many who consider Raines and Morris (I assume that's the two you meant) quite worthy. The thing people fail to realize is that not everyone who was HOF material was Mays or Mantle or Ruth. And that's OK. There can be "tiers" of members even within the already elite top 1%. The Mantles and Aarons of the world were the very upper eschelon, even by HOF standards, but that doesn't mean a very good player (like Larkin, Blyleven, etc.) are NOT worthy of enshrinement because they weren't as good as the top 10 names in history.

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I understand where you're coming from but must disagree. To say some isn't a HOFer...I think you will find many who consider Raines and Morris (I assume that's the two you meant) quite worthy. The thing people fail to realize is that not everyone who was HOF material was Mays or Mantle or Ruth. And that's OK. There can be "tiers" of members even within the already elite top 1%. The Mantles and Aarons of the world were the very upper eschelon, even by HOF standards, but that doesn't mean a very good player (like Larkin, Blyleven, etc.) are NOT worthy of enshrinement because they weren't as good as the top 10 names in history.

That is true, all future HOF players will not meet rhe standards of the 1st Five.

Joe