whats your HOF philosophy???

[Kenny Cole]

Brian,

The problem I see with that is you have to depend on knowledgeable voters to make that decision. That doesn't always work so well. DiMaggio was first eligible in 1953. He was not elected then, nor in 1954. He got elected on his third try in 1955. DiMaggio. Three tries. Perhaps if the voters knew that it was one and done they would be more dutiful, but I'm sceptical. [/PHP]

[familytoad]

Yeah Kenny, we shouldn't expect smart voters to represent us. That's a flaw (one of many) in my logic to change the annual HOF voting. Without getting too political, it's been a flaw most Novembers too.

Anyway, I'd really rather see voting on the all-time greats again than rehashing Minoso, Kaat, Hodges or Tiant multiple times. (Again these are fine players, but vote yes or no, don't vote "maybe next year")

Additionally I love Cooperstown and the Hall. I went three times when I lived in the east . I went to 1995 inauguration which was one of my greatest trips of any kind ,ever!

But the Hall could use some change, some fresh energy in my opinion. I saw almost all the same exhibits each time, and if I return (after 20 years now!) I probably will remember seeing them all previously.

[triwak]

Not saying that the current voting systems are without their flaws, but I've always been a big supporter of leaving a player's eligibility intact, even if they failed to be inducted in earlier votes. (The various Veteran's Committees). This doesn't mean that they are perpetually on the ballot - a knowledgeable screening committee still must nominate them. But you just never know, how a player's career will be judged through the hindsight of history! Perfect example: Players who were originally judged to have mediocre power numbers from the 1970s-80s compared to the steroid era boys, are NOW being recognized more favorably - as they should be.