How To Reform The HOF Selection Process?

Question

I am doing a report on how the HOF voting process should be changed. When thinking of a solution, I wanted to hear what everyone's ideas were. So...

1. What do you think are the biggest injustices that have happened with the baseball HOF voting process?

2. How would you change the selection process?

Answer 1

biggest injustices sure check jesse haines other old guys vets committee in late '60s early '70s permanently stick in old cronies look at chick hafey someday decent ballplayer sure but who even knows he was on cardinals no kids do you can bet but hes in and find way to purge those guys even agree to replace grave markers that say here lies HOFer of merely some distinction with tasteful markers that dont say it because they are purged from the hall and get sutton out of there mere steady starter health longevity punkass bigtime i mean who gets in fight with garvey right cmon man im not making this up

Answer 2

I have no interest in writing your report for you. But I'll give you a couple of points that you might consider integrating.

The biggest injustices, in no particular order:
1. Pretty much everyone inducted through the Veterans Committee when it was chaired by Frankie Frisch. He was convinced all his old teammates were the greatest ever; he was usually wrong about this, but the old VC was a small, unaccountable, horse-tradin' organ, where strongarming was a valid tactic. None of them were BAD players, mind, but there just wasn't a lot of historic greatness there.

2. Santo and Blyleven have not yet been elected. Not that the BBWAA is doing wrong by these men (Santo's candidacy has since passed to the VC), but how can there be such blindness?

3. Rose -- and let me be VERY specific about him. I do not care whether or not he gets a plaque, and based on his playing career he clearly would merit election. No; the injustice here is the Hall's policy on ineligibility -- it is completely lame, enacts no criteria except "if one is ineligible by Major League Baseball, one is ineligible for the Hall". This is a complete abdication of authority by the Hall, as it (the Hall) makes no decisions, sets no conditions independent of another, separate organization. That's really, really weak, and smacks of internal politics.

The selection process -- well, how the BBWAA ballot works is just fine, although raising the relegation cutoff from 5% (maybe up to 10%) would clear out some obvious ballot deadwood from hanging around. The secondary electoral college, the current VC, is another issue. In three ballot cycles, it has elected no one -- and while that is a completely valid result, if this continues for another, oh, three more cycles, there will need to be answers (the questions are already out there) that the Hall will feel pressured to provide. The top one: is this method working? A committee that elects no one produces the same results as having no committee, and having no committee is easier. There really are not THAT many overlooked candidates scattered across history, but threre are some, and if this VC cannot EVER see fit to welcome at least one, exactly what IS it doing? Validating the writers' conclusions? That really is not necessary.

The VC ballots could also use some relegation criteria (and make it higher than 5%) but that's more tweaking; the entire VC as it is currently constituted may be a broken process. While it is nice to think that the BBWAA ballot could benefit from an expanded electorate -- there are experts out there, brilliant researchers, who don't get a ballot, because they write or publish in other media and don't cover baseball as a daily beat, and the Hall is denying itself the benefit of their wisdom and insight -- the BBWAA electorate is NOT a broken process. The same cannot be said of the VC, because by electing no one, there is not yet a success metric for it. It cannot even induct the very worthy Ron Santo.

The Hall, eventually, will have to ask itself if the VC is even needed, or has its original purpose been satisfactorily fulfilled?

Answer 3

First of all i do not feel there needs to be a change in the voting process, i feel between the writers and the players (veterans committee) are being a lot more selective now as compared to in the past (i still question Bruce Sutter election before Goose or Lee Smith)
The only added detail that i find would help and/or be very interesting to the writers/fans/veterans/Hall of Famers/ET AL.
Each player that becomes eligible or are hold overs from prior elections should apply for the HOF, just as you would for a job, and no not an application but a resume sort of to introduce themselves to the public and writers one more time and to high light why they feel they belong in the MLB Hall of Fame.

P.S. make it mandatory so if someone does not apply or send in his "Resume" make him ineligible
P.S.S. have a deadline like October 30Th so the writers and veterans have time to make there decisions and post them come January.

Answer 4

I believe that both the Baseball Writer's (who have the votes now) and the players in the Hall of Fame should have a vote. I think this because a player like Barry Bonds might be kept out of the Hall because he was a dick to sports writers, so they have personal feelings. With the past players getting a vote, they will know more than anybody else who is Hall of Fame worthy and the HoF'er judge steroids just as stiff as the writers, but only if the players been caught, not rumored.
Both Part 1 and Part 2 are there, I just forgot to label them and seperate them in sentence structure. Hope this helps with ur project bro. Peace.

Answer 5

Allow any retired major league player to vote, counting as 1 third, baseball writers as 1 third, & all managers, general managers, & owners to count as 1 third. Need 2 thirds to get in. All players retired over 5 years get a look, but if they don`t get 1 third, they don`t get a second look for 5 years. Also, Pete Rose should never be allowed any active participation in any MLB sponsored event, but based on what he did before his brain faurt, he should be a member of the hall of fame.

Answer 6

Why do you think it needs to be changed?? The one thing I might do is to remove every player that has a positive steroid test from the voting process. That and allow Pete Rose to be voted on, if they want to leave him out thats fine, but it should be decided by the voting process instead of one person making the decision.

Answer 7

change the selection process and follow the NFL formate with writes, and ex players on the committee.
The writers can be pricks if they did not get interviews. And what makes them the authority

Answer 8

The process is fine just the way it is.

If it aint broke, dont fix it.

and, my god, anyone who even remotely thinks rose should be in the hall (or even on the ballot) is clearly NOT a BASEBALL fan.

Answer 9

I think it's fine the way it is. All I know is that Omar Vizquel should be in there...