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

[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]

I didn't used to feel this way, but I think now that to try to say no to PED users and to distinguish everyone else with other issues just gets you onto very slippery and unsatisfying slopes.

Amphetamines and other drugs.
Domestic violence and abuse.
Racism.
To name a few.

[icurnmedic]

Not sure about the ballpark attendees either. Many is the time I have seen a random camera shot and the people in question, well they probably don’t have their reasoning faculties at that moment.

To keep someone out who has the numbers is illogical at minimum. Unless we are playing the moral high ground game , in which ultimately no one can win. Newsflash for some, many athletes are buttheads.That “chip”,if you will, helped them overcome sometimes marginal skills. $.02

[BobC]

Originally Posted by steve B

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.

Never said my suggestion was great, just someplace to maybe start from.

One big difference from the All-Star selections back then was that everyone was on the ballot, right? If you tried this for the HOF, there would only be a limited number of players considered worthy of selection, and thus listed on the ballot to be voted on. There wouldn't be write-ins for the fan vote. Something to maybe think about and kick around though.

[Jim65]

Getting 75% of the public to agree on anything is hard enough, without bringing team loyalty and bias into it, would make it extremely hard to get anyone elected. Probably only the likable, true greats of the game would get elected.

Voters are allowed to consider a player's character, I didn't hear anyone complain when Albert Belle didn't get elected.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by BobC

Never said my suggestion was great, just someplace to maybe start from.

One big difference from the All-Star selections back then was that everyone was on the ballot, right? If you tried this for the HOF, there would only be a limited number of players considered worthy of selection, and thus listed on the ballot to be voted on. There wouldn't be write-ins for the fan vote. Something to maybe think about and kick around though.

Not all players, but pretty close to all the starters, usually 9 at each position and 27 Outfielders. No DH. You could write in a player, but the ballots only had room for three in each league. The AS ballots probably read like the HOF ballots roughly 10 years later.

I guess it's something to consider, but it hardly ever goes as expected, and securing an online vote is a challenge. Which is why a rap artist called pitbull played Kodiac Alaska. Online voters decided to send him someplace strange. He was offered a chance to decline, but went through with it, becoming one of the few rap artists I like (And I haven't really heard much of his music at all )

The change I would make would be not eliminating a player getting below a certain precentage of votes. A player shouldn't be penalized just because 4-4 superstars decided to retire in the same year.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by steve B

Not all players, but pretty close to all the starters, usually 9 at each position and 27 Outfielders. No DH. You could write in a player, but the ballots only had room for three in each league. The AS ballots probably read like the HOF ballots roughly 10 years later.

I guess it's something to consider, but it hardly ever goes as expected, and securing an online vote is a challenge. Which is why a rap artist called pitbull played Kodiac Alaska. Online voters decided to send him someplace strange. He was offered a chance to decline, but went through with it, becoming one of the few rap artists I like (And I haven't really heard much of his music at all )

The change I would make would be not eliminating a player getting below a certain precentage of votes. A player shouldn't be penalized just because 4-4 superstars decided to retire in the same year.

That is a good point about what happens when several great players all retire in the same year. There is no perfect answer. Maybe what they're doing now isn't so great, but what else can we do? Oh well.