Change HOF period from 15 to 5 years?

sycks22 · #1 01-09-2013, 05:14 PM

Somebody voted for Aaron Sele

bcbgcbrcb · #2 01-09-2013, 06:09 PM

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

Chris-Counts · #3 01-09-2013, 07:21 PM

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 · #4 01-09-2013, 08:55 PM

Quote:

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 · #5 01-09-2013, 09:19 PM

Quote:

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 · #6 01-09-2013, 09:31 PM

Quote:

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.

Jlighter · #7 01-10-2013, 06:10 AM

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 · #8 01-10-2013, 08:15 AM

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.

dgo71 · #9 01-10-2013, 03:30 PM

Quote:

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.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
T206 Pickering - What's the period about?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	22	01-02-2013 06:22 PM
neolithic period of our hobby on the internet....	chaddurbin	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	12-13-2009 09:20 AM
Best Damn Auction House Period!	V117collector	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	16	05-20-2009 11:45 AM
period checklists of unnumbered cards?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	10-09-2007 06:00 PM
Period Stars of T206	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	25	01-25-2007 06:18 AM