whats your HOF philosophy???

[familytoad]

I'm going to set the PED argument aside for a bit and present another voting alternative . The debate in this thread and the other couple concurrent ones is fun to read and you all present your cases eloquently .

My version probably won't be:

While watching them play, I liked all of the 4 new entries just fine. In fact I think Johnson and Martinez were as dominant as any pitchers ever! They rank among the all-time finest considering the hitters era they played in.
The other two were good enough to be in the conversation for HOF, and I am not surprised that they made it. I personally wouldn't have voted for them before Piazza. But that doesn't fit in my new view of the HOF voting! See below:

My radical idea for the HOF is that a candidate is eligible after 5 years retired and he gets voted on with all other players who retired in the same year. You only get one voting year. The electors can vote in a dozen or more guys if they want. But they are either in or not in...if you don't get enough votes that first year, see ya!

You don't suddenly become a better baseball player or more deserving after you have been retired 6 years or 7 years...either you deserve to be a Hall of Fame member when you finish your career or you don't!

I would allow one catch up year to get this started. Vote as many players in from *any* era that the electors think is worthy, but no looking back. If a guy like Jim Kaat (not picking on Kitty) isn't elected in the catch up year, he's just not getting in. Finito,period.

The class of 2017 would consist only of the guys whose last year was 2012.Finito,period.
Then you don't have to worry about whether a guy makes the vote after years of garnering 50% of the vote one year, 60% another, 67% a third time, and finally the cherished 75%. He wasn't any better of a player in year 4 of eligibility than he was in year 1, but grew suddenly popular?
Hogwash!

I also don't think there are too many players overall in the HOF, but they should strongly consider the bronze, silver, gold, platinum levels of excellence to indicate a players' true relevance and fame.
It would be exciting to have new HOF wings, displays built and celebrations for each of the best of the best (posthumous, unfortunately for most, but they could invite the family)

Imagine that George Kelly and Pop Haines stay in the Hall, as Bronze members.
The Babe, Teddy Ballgame, Gehrig and Cobb are among those going platinum! (One or Two platinum winning votes per year amongst all current members. Same with the other levels.)

That could boost up the inauguration ceremony as current members are voted into elite ranks. Hey...Lefty Grove might eventually win gold!

Thoughts?

[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.