Golden Era Hall of Fame Ballot announced

[tonyo]

Someone in this thread wrote "The Hall of Fame is for the elite of the elite players" Which made me wonder about the real criteria dictated by the HOF to the voters.

I didn't look very long but did find this criteria on the HOF website: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Seems like 5 out of 6 criteria are intangible and only one (record), maybe two (playing ability) possibly a third (contributions) Can be even partially measured by numbers.


Makes me think that the players peers should be allowed a large portion of the input. Also, once a player passes the 10 or 15 year period (whatever it is now) after their retirement, maybe they shouldn't be considered at all. As memories and first hand interaction fade, the weight of those intangibles fade as well.

I suppose this will never happen, but it seems if the HOF removes the current voting pool and replaces it with any player who played in the majors for a certain period of time overlapping the careers of those on the ballot, it would result in a more accurate representation of those players who deserve enshrinement based on the criteria set forth by the hall.

If a player doesn't make it in within the decade and a half after their careers end, there must be some decent reason (assuming voters are honest in their assessment).

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://theweek.com/article/index/254...r-sabermetrics

[brewing]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

http://theweek.com/article/index/254...r-sabermetrics

I'm good with removing all of them except Fingers.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by tonyo

Someone in this thread wrote "The Hall of Fame is for the elite of the elite players" Which made me wonder about the real criteria dictated by the HOF to the voters.

I didn't look very long but did find this criteria on the HOF website: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Seems like 5 out of 6 criteria are intangible and only one (record), maybe two (playing ability) possibly a third (contributions) Can be even partially measured by numbers.


Makes me think that the players peers should be allowed a large portion of the input. Also, once a player passes the 10 or 15 year period (whatever it is now) after their retirement, maybe they shouldn't be considered at all. As memories and first hand interaction fade, the weight of those intangibles fade as well.

I suppose this will never happen, but it seems if the HOF removes the current voting pool and replaces it with any player who played in the majors for a certain period of time overlapping the careers of those on the ballot, it would result in a more accurate representation of those players who deserve enshrinement based on the criteria set forth by the hall.

If a player doesn't make it in within the decade and a half after their careers end, there must be some decent reason (assuming voters are honest in their assessment).

I really like your line of thinking, but there is a big problem that would need to be ferreted out. And that's personality and ego. Say a player had stats that clearly put him into the conversation for enshrinement, but to put it plainly, he was a douchebag and the players on other teams despised him or thought of him as an obnoxious, self-centered prick. (I'm pretty sure most of us who just play softball every week run into these types of players on other teams.) The fact they were good or great on the field could get lost in the human frailty of hard feelings and cause them to be kept out of the Hall. Just a thought.