Hall of Fame changes criteria (again)

[itsbaytime]

So dumb. They are going to eliminate all sorts of real candidates.

[Retired hobbist]

Originally Posted by Poorboy

Seems to be a double edged sword
Records aside ….
We all enjoyed watching record homeruns and baseballs
Leaving orbit
And yes the athletes were paid well I guess
Does the viewing public have some responsibility here ?
If we were part of it viewing don’t we possibly have some responsibility ?
Or no ? It was just pure entertainment ?
Perhaps the public should have a say in hof voting
No offense but bonds or Clemons against some of the other members ?
Who would you pay to see again ?

If the general public had a say in the voting you would see much worse players than Harold Baines and other marginal players getting in the hall of fame.

In the class of 2026' the induction ceremony would include Jerry Remy and he would be further honered at Fenway "Pak"....

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by mfw13

It's utter hypocrisy for the HOF to keep steroid users out when one of these same "Veterans Committees" elected Bud Selig, the commissioner who presided over the steroid era and tacitly condoned their usage because of all the positive publicity McGwire & Sosa brought the game in 1998.

+ 100 ⚾️

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by rats60

Exactly. Give some other guys a shot at the HOF such as Bill Freehan, Keith Hernandez, Lou Whitaker, Bobby Grich, Graig Nettles, Lance Berkman, Kenny Lofton, Jim Edmonds, Dwight Evans, Reggie Smith, David Cone, Bret Saberhagen and Dave Stieb. They are worth having a debate over and are all better than at least 20 guys already in the HOF.



It is pretty obvious that the current Hall of Famers want nothing to do with guys who cheated to put up their numbers and cheated them out of awards and bigger contracts. If you keep putting the same guys on the ballot that are never going to get elected, it just prolongs the wait for others. We don't need any more Ron Santos and Dick Allens being elected after they die.

Do you not see that this will likely result in all of these guys falling off the ballot permanently and never getting in?

[awz50]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Do you not see that this will likely result in all of these guys falling off the ballot permanently and never getting in?

I will answer this only because it was attached to my original comment.

I think that it is entirely possible, and maybe that’s the point. If a player can’t even muster five votes from a panel specifically designed to reconsider overlooked candidates, then maybe their case for induction just isn’t strong enough.

The Hall of Fame is supposed to be exclusive, and while some deserving players may get lost in the shuffle, the reality is that if a candidate repeatedly fails to gain traction, it likely reflects the overall consensus that they don’t belong. This rule ensures that the committees focus on players with a real shot rather than continuously revisiting the same names without progress. That said, if the system truly values honoring overlooked greats, maybe the solution isn’t to keep rehashing the same candidates indefinitely but to improve the way worthy players are identified and evaluated in the first place.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by awz50

I will answer this only because it was attached to my original comment.

I think that it is entirely possible, and maybe that’s the point. If a player can’t even muster five votes from a panel specifically designed to reconsider overlooked candidates, then maybe their case for induction just isn’t strong enough.

The Hall of Fame is supposed to be exclusive, and while some deserving players may get lost in the shuffle, the reality is that if a candidate repeatedly fails to gain traction, it likely reflects the overall consensus that they don’t belong. This rule ensures that the committees focus on players with a real shot rather than continuously revisiting the same names without progress. That said, if the system truly values honoring overlooked greats, maybe the solution isn’t to keep rehashing the same candidates indefinitely but to improve the way worthy players are identified and evaluated in the first place.

First, you and I both know that wasn't the point. We all know what the real point was, and it wasn't to limit Keith Hernandez's consideration.

Second, if a player has no real shot, because they aren't truly worthy, then their being an option to be considered won't take away from looking at more worthy players anyway. If they are taking votes and consideration from who you consider more worthy, that means they must be seen as worthy by some, and therefore have a valid place on the ballot. The reality is, there are many instances of clearly hallworthy players needing many years before they get the recognition they deserve. This eliminates that. I am simply not buying the argument that borderline players are taking away from slam dunk HOFers. Being on a veterans committee ballot already means you are borderline, or you would've been voted in by the writers. Permanently removing potential candidates after 2 times on the ballot is a terrible approach to considering borderline candidates. The committees are so small that 2 times and done is an injustice to potentially worthy candidates whose careers were overlooked and underappreciated. Which is the whole point of the committees, right?

But regardless, my comment was to Rats, who clearly wants those borderline guys to get more consideration. So your entire premise has nothing to do with my comment.

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by awz50

I think that it is entirely possible, and maybe that’s the point. If a player can’t even muster five votes from a panel specifically designed to reconsider overlooked candidates, then maybe their case for induction just isn’t strong enough.

I agree - but only to a point. As mentioned earlier, there are plenty of players who've been enshrined -- deservedly so! -- who would have been forever eliminated from consideration had this rule been in place.

Additionally, as mentioned earlier, you can easily stack an eight-player ballot with eight players who easily deserve consideration. Given the vote limits, you will have a Minnie Minoso-type player who will be removed from future ballots.

And that also fails to take into account how players may be viewed differently as time goes on. Bobby Grich, for example, was a one-and-done on the HOF ballot. And yet he is a cause de celebre among the stat community these days. While he hasn't been considered by the vet committee yet, what's to say that someone like him will be permanently removed years before his career is appreciated?

--

I would make three changes that I think would at least satisfy most people:
- For the BBWAA ballot, the threshold for staying on goes up 5% each year. On your first ballot you need to clear 5%; second, 10%, etc. That would at least eliminate players who clog up the ballot while getting stuck at 20 - 25% of the vote every year.
- We revert back to the "era committees" and rotation of a few years ago. I thought we had a good system with the "early baseball every ten years", "golden era every five", and "todays game / modern baseball twice every five." We had good delineations as well. Let's go back to that.
- The era committees -- people can vote for as many candidates as they want. However, only the top two will be inducted during that cycle.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by awz50

I will answer this only because it was attached to my original comment.

I think that it is entirely possible, and maybe that’s the point. If a player can’t even muster five votes from a panel specifically designed to reconsider overlooked candidates, then maybe their case for induction just isn’t strong enough.

The Hall of Fame is supposed to be exclusive, and while some deserving players may get lost in the shuffle, the reality is that if a candidate repeatedly fails to gain traction, it likely reflects the overall consensus that they don’t belong. This rule ensures that the committees focus on players with a real shot rather than continuously revisiting the same names without progress. That said, if the system truly values honoring overlooked greats, maybe the solution isn’t to keep rehashing the same candidates indefinitely but to improve the way worthy players are identified and evaluated in the first place.

The problem is, when you have a lot of candidates worthy of consideration, you are going to permanently block some from ever getting in. I’d agree with you if there were just one or two candidates missing from the Hall, but with each voting member limited to 3 votes, it is impossible to avoid permanently eliminating worthy candidates with this new rule. There are literally dozens of players worthy of consideration.

Also, the Veterans Committee process is a small group and the members change within the committees fairly regularly. Players aren’t getting revisited by the same voters each time. Some committees have different perspectives.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

The problem is, when you have a lot of candidates worthy of consideration, you are going to permanently block some from ever getting in. I’d agree with you if there were just one or two candidates missing from the Hall, but with each voting member limited to 3 votes, it is impossible to avoid permanently eliminating worthy candidates with this new rule. There are literally dozens of players worthy of consideration.

Also, the Veterans Committee process is a small group and the members change within the committees fairly regularly. Players aren’t getting revisited by the same voters each time. Some committees have different perspectives.

Well they can just change the rules again. This is all made up. People treat the hof rules like they were on a third tablet Moses brought down from the mountain.

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by JRX

People treat the hof rules like they were on a third tablet Moses brought down from the mountain.

Isn't the third tablet the one that Mel Brooks dropped

[JRX]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

Isn't the third tablet the one that Mel Brooks dropped

That had the hof rules lol

[JoshMN]

Let's face it, a lot of people now alive are going to need to die before Bonds and Clemens get in the HOF, including Bonds and Clemens. Pretty much everybody knows this, so the BBWAA realized it might be for the best to stop wasting everyone's time. Regardless of your position on Bonds and Clemens, you have to admit this is an elegant solution to make this problem go away without needing to ban these guys outright like Rose and Shoeless Joe.

It's kinda like when Kanye ran for president. That scared the crap out of people on all sides because everybody had to assume there was a chance he could actually win. But the answer there wasn't to try to campaign against him or otherwise treat him like a legitimate candidate. People just focused on enforcing rules to remove him from enough state ballots so he had no shot.

[JRX]

I'm half expecting someone to create a separate hall of fame and induct all the players that should be in based solely on their performance on the field.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Do you not see that this will likely result in all of these guys falling off the ballot permanently and never getting in?

No, this is the same committee that elected Rick Ferrell because the head of the HOF asked committee members to vote for him so he didn't receive 0 votes. These elections don't happen in a vaccuum. If a player doesn't receive 5 votes the first time on the ballot, committee members will know it. When they come up again, members know that if they don't vote for them, they won't ever get in.

If a player can't get more than 25% multiple times, maybe they don't belong in the HOF. Why should certain players get rejected over and over again while others never get a chance with the Veterans Committee? This will keep ballots from being stale with the same rejects. It is good to give more players an opportunity at election from their fellow players.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, this is the same committee that elected Rick Ferrell because the head of the HOF asked committee members to vote for him so he didn't receive 0 votes. These elections don't happen in a vaccuum. If a player doesn't receive 5 votes the first time on the ballot, committee members will know it. When they come up again, members know that if they don't vote for them, they won't ever get in.

If a player can't get more than 25% multiple times, maybe they don't belong in the HOF. Why should certain players get rejected over and over again while others never get a chance with the Veterans Committee? This will keep ballots from being stale with the same rejects. It is good to give more players an opportunity at election from their fellow players.

I missed the part where nobody had a chance to get in the hof. The problem has always been that you've had different groups gate keeping it with no defined rules

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

I agree - but only to a point. As mentioned earlier, there are plenty of players who've been enshrined -- deservedly so! -- who would have been forever eliminated from consideration had this rule been in place.

Additionally, as mentioned earlier, you can easily stack an eight-player ballot with eight players who easily deserve consideration. Given the vote limits, you will have a Minnie Minoso-type player who will be removed from future ballots.

And that also fails to take into account how players may be viewed differently as time goes on. Bobby Grich, for example, was a one-and-done on the HOF ballot. And yet he is a cause de celebre among the stat community these days. While he hasn't been considered by the vet committee yet, what's to say that someone like him will be permanently removed years before his career is appreciated?

--

I would make three changes that I think would at least satisfy most people:
- For the BBWAA ballot, the threshold for staying on goes up 5% each year. On your first ballot you need to clear 5%; second, 10%, etc. That would at least eliminate players who clog up the ballot while getting stuck at 20 - 25% of the vote every year.
- We revert back to the "era committees" and rotation of a few years ago. I thought we had a good system with the "early baseball every ten years", "golden era every five", and "todays game / modern baseball twice every five." We had good delineations as well. Let's go back to that.
- The era committees -- people can vote for as many candidates as they want. However, only the top two will be inducted during that cycle.

Under the current system, Bobby Grich is never getting a second chance. By eliminating guys who can't get more than 25% on multiple ballots, players like Grich will have their second chance with the Veterans Committee.

[JoshMN]

If Bobby Grich is the hill people are dying on at this point, then I think the HOF rules are totally fine. Nothing to see here, it is time to move on to something worth arguing about.

[jduds]

I absolutely don't think they need to limit it in this way, and the change serves little practical purpose other than allowing the current committee to say f-u to certain PED players. I also think it doesn't matter because as soon as there is a committee that is sympathetic to the PED players, they'll just change the rules again.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, this is the same committee that elected Rick Ferrell because the head of the HOF asked committee members to vote for him so he didn't receive 0 votes. These elections don't happen in a vaccuum. If a player doesn't receive 5 votes the first time on the ballot, committee members will know it. When they come up again, members know that if they don't vote for them, they won't ever get in.

If a player can't get more than 25% multiple times, maybe they don't belong in the HOF. Why should certain players get rejected over and over again while others never get a chance with the Veterans Committee? This will keep ballots from being stale with the same rejects. It is good to give more players an opportunity at election from their fellow players.

That's an awful lot of faith you are putting into committees, that change regularly, to keep people you strongly feel should be enshrined from being permanently inelgible.

I sense there is another motivation to your support of this rule change, because the argument that it will help your list of candidates doesn't hold water. I wonder what that motivation might be?

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by JRX

Well they can just change the rules again. This is all made up. People treat the hof rules like they were on a third tablet Moses brought down from the mountain.

That's fair, but the problem is, you can't predict which rule will get revised and which will become sacrosanct. The Hall operates in a vacuum.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

For the BBWAA ballot, the threshold for staying on goes up 5% each year. On your first ballot you need to clear 5%; second, 10%, etc.

That's a great idea!

I also think there needs to be some clarity and revision in how people are selected for consideration by these committees. For example, how did Steve Garvey end up on the most recent committee ballot instead of Keith Hernandez? Why was Dave Parker considered but not Dale Murphy?

I would suggest that the first qualification for being on a committee ballot should be a minimum level of support over time on the BBWAA ballot....maybe at least one year at 50%, or five years at 40%, or all ten years at 25%+.

Then a separate preliminary ballot for the "one & done" guys like Grich or Johan Santana that would let them advance to the main ballot.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

That's an awful lot of faith you are putting into committees, that change regularly, to keep people you strongly feel should be enshrined from being permanently inelgible.

I sense there is another motivation to your support of this rule change, because the argument that it will help your list of candidates doesn't hold water. I wonder what that motivation might be?

I don't have a list of candidates. I just listed some names of players who haven't been on the Veterans ballot or in the case of Evans, a guy who got a lot of support and then was dropped. I don't think it is fair to have the same guys on the ballots over and over, whether it is Garvey and John, who I'd like to see elected, or Bonds and Clemens, guys I don't think deserve it.

I don't make the rules and I don't have a vote, so in the end whatever they do is fine. I am not the one crying because a favorite player may never get elected to the HOF.

[mfw13]

A lot of the problem can be traced to the fact that there are no minimum statistical qualifications other than having played ten seasons in the majors, either for the BBWAA ballot, or for the committee ballots.

Therefore you get a huge amount of inconsistency, not just in the voting, but also in who is eligible for consideration.

For example, for position players, you could establish the following minimum qualifications....400 HR, or 500 SB, or 50 WAR, or a 125 OPS+, or 2 MVPs, or 5 Gold Gloves....if you meet any one of those qualifications, you become eligible.

For pitchers it could be something like 2000 IP or 250 quality starts, or 50 WAR, or a career 125 ERA+, or a career WHIP of 1.20 or less, or 500 saves.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by rats60

. I am not the one crying because a favorite player may never get elected to the HOF.

Neither am I. I'm not a fan of any of those people you listed. But this change will screw them over, along with many other worthy candidates. Shame you can't understand that.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by mfw13

A lot of the problem can be traced to the fact that there are no minimum statistical qualifications other than having played ten seasons in the majors, either for the BBWAA ballot, or for the committee ballots.

Therefore you get a huge amount of inconsistency, not just in the voting, but also in who is eligible for consideration.

For example, for position players, you could establish the following minimum qualifications....400 HR, or 500 SB, or 50 WAR, or a 125 OPS+, or 2 MVPs, or 5 Gold Gloves....if you meet any one of those qualifications, you become eligible.

For pitchers it could be something like 2000 IP or 250 quality starts, or 50 WAR, or a career 125 ERA+, or a career WHIP of 1.20 or less, or 500 saves.

There's never been a standard. It started with the best players then expanded to their friends then to who the media is friends with then to the guys they weren't after they refused to vote for ped guys and newer players they weren't friends with and now the new veterans committee is back to voting in their friends.