Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens don’t have the integrity, sportsmanship or

[Republicaninmass]

Notice how those attributes come LAST in the description.

[egri]

If the voters never let in anyone with a character issue, then the entire Hall would be an exhibit about Christy Mathewson.

[Republicaninmass]

Wikipedia is a great read on this guy. Clearly need the ratings, and should lose his vote. Mostly for his Ortiz comments.



The column attracted the attention of ESPN personality Keith Olbermann, who awarded Simmons the title of "Worst Person In The Sports World".[11


Simmons was referenced in a spoof letter supposedly written by Phil Kessel after Kessel had won the Stanley Cup with the Pittsburgh Penguins in 2016. The post script of the letter reads thus: "How did the country that produced literary giants like Margaret Atwood and Alice Munro also crap out Steve Simmons?"

[Mike D.]

I occasionally write about baseball and/or baseball cards on the internet. Whenever I start to get “imposter syndrome”, thinking maybe I’m not worthy (I’m no Peter Gammons or Bill James, after all), I go read material from so called “professional” writers out there, and the feeling goes away in a hurray.

In a world where Dan Shanessy has a job that doesn’t involve making French fries, I can feel ok about sharing my thoughts in print. I read an article on mlb.com recently where a professional writer argued both that Billy Wagner didn’t belong in the hall of fame both because of his low career IP total (900+) and because of his playoff performance (career postseason IP - 11.2).

I tend to think that the biggest problem with HOF voting is that the people who are competent and actually care and the actual people who get a vote barely overlap.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by egri

If the voters never let in anyone with a character issue, then the entire Hall would be an exhibit about Christy Mathewson.

I can think of a few more in there with Matty:

Walter, Hank, Brooks, Ernie B., Harmon, Buck O'N. Mariano, etc, etc



.

[Seven]

I definitely think changes need to be made, in terms of whose allowed to keep their vote, and who exactly gets a vote. I think if you submit a blank ballot, as a form of "Protest" that should be grounds to lose your vote. You're just clogging up the system, and strikes me as an attempt to garner attention.

Also, I have no issue if a voter believes in a "Small Hall" mentality. But the idea of leaving a guy off your ballot, whose a surefire Hall of Famer, with no links to PED's, for an asinine reason of "he played during x time period" pisses me off to no end. The most prominent example of this, in recent memory at least, was when Ken Gurnick voted for Jack Morris, but not Greg Maddux in 2014. His rationale behind it was "Maddux played during the steroid era, but Morris didn't" which makes no sense considering PED's were being used in the 80's as well! Still fires me up, just typing it out! He thankfully has abstained from voting in future elections, but there are more like him out there.

[BobC]

It is interesting how in the article, Simmons talks about integrity, sportsmanship, and character as the three HOF qualifications that he can't vote for certain people because of. Then he goes on about how Schilling is not so great a person either, but because his issues are off the field issues, that's okay and he votes for him. But then he brings up Vizquel, and his "off the field" allegations, and how he will no longer vote for him now. So, why are some "off the field" issues okay and others aren't, especially when at this point I believe in Vizquel's case there have been no formal charges ever filed or final determinations made?

Now if Vizquel is ever proven to be to guilty of all that was alleged, well that is a discussion for another day. But it goes back to what one poster mentioned about unproven PED allegations relating to some former players, like Ortiz. Nothing has to be proven for someone to still be considered unworthy for election to the HOF apparently.

Well, if they can decide to exclude someone for simple allegations, what would/should they do if someone is elected to the HOF, and then subsequently does (and is proven to have done) something despicable? Should they go back and remove that person from the HOF then, because if not, it shows their system for determining eligibility for enshrinement can be quite arbitrary and totally dependent on timing. Though not the baseball HOF, the primary example of this type of dilemma would be O.J. Simpson. He's in Canton still, but had he done some of the things he's done prior to getting elected to the HOF, do you really think he would have still been enshrined? And if not, why should he be be left in now? I believe Cooperstown would do about the same as Canton does.

And why do we still leave it up to a small group of sport media personnel to decide who is worthy for election to Cooperstown anyway? Beginning back in 1936 I can understand the baseball writers being given the task, because there was no TV and games were played during the day, when most normal people worked during the week. The sport writers were the one known independent group that was able to attend all the games and actually see all these players play, in person, so as to better judge who was worthy of enshrinement. With night games, TV coverage, streaming services and such the norm now, pretty much everyone can watch all the games and players they want. Since the HOF is really more for the fans than anyone else, why not figure out a way to let the fans decide who should or shouldn't get in. Would make a lot more sense.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by BobC

...Since the HOF is really more for the fans than anyone else, why not figure out a way to let the fans decide who should or shouldn't get in. Would make a lot more sense.

On the surface, that makes sense to me. However, I can envision unintended consequences. For example, a few "social media influencers" could drastically impact voting results.

"...so-and-so wouldn't sign my jersey years ago, and I've always hated him. Everyone get together and vote for other players so this clown doesn't get in the Hall. Who cares if he got 3,000 hits, 500 HR, and 3 rings; his (hand-picked stat) was horrible..."

[Mike D.]

I'm pretty sure letting any random person vote wouldn't make it better. What you want is people who actually care, are educated on the HOF and the candidates, and will vote in a defensible and consistent manner.

How you do that, I don't know.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I'm pretty sure letting any random person vote wouldn't make it better. What you want is people who actually care, are educated on the HOF and the candidates, and will vote in a defensible and consistent manner.

How you do that, I don't know.

See my previous post about possibly limiting the voting to attendees at the ballparks. Would mean those voting would likely have some knowledge and passion for the game since they're willing to pay money to actually go watch teams play. And for those trying to stuff the ballot box for or against a certain player, would think them having to pay money for the chance to vote a certain way would discourage such trolls who wouldn't want to spend their own cash just to do something like that. And you could possibly even keep the games that ended up being selected as voting games confidential up till just before the gates open. This would help to prevent trolls from trying to organize people in advance so as to sway them and affect the voting.

You could have the baseball writers/media people still involved and maybe take part in selecting the players to go on the ballot. You just don't leave it entirely up to them alone then to select the actual inductees to Cooperstown. Again, just some thoughts to use as a possible starting place to change/improve this process.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Eric72

On the surface, that makes sense to me. However, I can envision unintended consequences. For example, a few "social media influencers" could drastically impact voting results.

"...so-and-so wouldn't sign my jersey years ago, and I've always hated him. Everyone get together and vote for other players so this clown doesn't get in the Hall. Who cares if he got 3,000 hits, 500 HR, and 3 rings; his (hand-picked stat) was horrible..."

Agree, the problem is how do you limit/stop that kind of disingenuous activity. Don't know a perfect, correct answer, but there's got to be a better way.

And even baseball writers/media members that currently vote can have grievances and grudges against players for supposed personal affronts, like from a player treating them rudely, blowing them off for an interview, or who knows what.

Maybe you do something like have a designated period during the season in which people who buy a ticket and actually attend games during that designated time get a ballot and vote for who they think belongs in the HOF. The ballots have to be collected and count only if submitted that same day of the game at the ballparks. You have the counting done for every MLB team over the same number of home games. This would help keep any one city from trying to stuff the ballot box for a favorite son player. And only allowing attending and paying customers/fans to vote would help to insure the voters do have some interest in the game since they are, in effect, paying for the right to vote (which should please owners as it would likely increase ticket sales during the designated voting period). And it would likely also deter trolls and agitators from trying to sway people for or against certain players. Certainly not a perfect solution, but maybe at least a place to start out and work from?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by BobC

Agree, the problem is how do you limit/stop that kind of disingenuous activity. Don't know a perfect, correct answer, but there's got to be a better way.

And even baseball writers/media members that currently vote can have grievances and grudges against players for supposed personal affronts, like from a player treating them rudely, blowing them off for an interview, or who knows what.

Maybe you do something like have a designated period during the season in which people who buy a ticket and actually attend games during that designated time get a ballot and vote for who they think belongs in the HOF. The ballots have to be collected and count only if submitted that same day of the game at the ballparks. You have the counting done for every MLB team over the same number of home games. This would help keep any one city from trying to stuff the ballot box for a favorite son player. And only allowing attending and paying customers/fans to vote would help to insure the voters do have some interest in the game since they are, in effect, paying for the right to vote (which should please owners as it would likely increase ticket sales during the designated voting period). And it would likely also deter trolls and agitators from trying to sway people for or against certain players. Certainly not a perfect solution, but maybe at least a place to start out and work from?

We did that for the All Star games in the 70's....

Have you looked at those lineups? Usually 6 players from 2 teams, a couple guys you just couldn't keep out, and some random pitcher who wasn't chosen by the fans.

I tried to be fair, but anyone from the Yankees would have to be incredible to get my vote. Just as I'm sure most Yankee fans really didn't vote for the Red Sox players.

It basically came down to whose team drew the most fans, and which players were popular.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

I can think of a few more in there with Matty:

Walter, Hank, Brooks, Ernie B., Harmon, Buck O'N. Mariano, etc, etc



.

Maybe, but do we even know really? It's a fairly recent trend that the world learns about people's every bad action.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe, but do we even know really? It's a fairly recent trend that the world learns about people's every bad action.

Reminds me of Kirby Puckett. He was a beloved angel…until he wasn’t. Lucky for him he got into the HOF before scandal hit.

[Seven]

Respected journalists/media personnel/sports authors with a strong reputation, in the industry, should be the requirement. People like:

Peter Gammons
Joe Posnanski
Ken Rosenthal
Tom Verducci
Buster Onley
Jane Leavy
Bill James

Just to list a few

[Mike D.]

Maybe it’s the residual Platonist in me, but I tend to think the answer is fewer, better qualified voters, not more.

Maybe not quite the 12-16 voters of the various veterans committees (too small has its issues too), but not hundreds or thousands.

And you want a qualified writer, analyst, TV or web writer, or even former player or fan…someone who understands, cares, and will do the research and analysis required.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Maybe it’s the residual Platonist in me, but I tend to think the answer is fewer, better qualified voters, not more.

Maybe not quite the 12-16 voters of the various veterans committees (too small has its issues too), but not hundreds or thousands.

And you want a qualified writer, analyst, TV or web writer, or even former player or fan…someone who understands, cares, and will do the research and analysis required.

Completely agree, Mike. I think a smaller panel would be better. The inaugural class had 226 voters, that should be the cap, I think.