what do you think should be done to change how voting is done for the baseball hall of fame?

Question

this yrs. voting is a good example of what is wrong with the baseball hall of fame voting system. the 8 writers who didnt vote. have brought up new conversations about what is wrong with the system of voting in the hall of fame. what should be done to fix this and how? should the voters who didnt vote at all have their status as voters reviewed and possibly suspended or revoked?

Answer 1

To answer your last question, I feel that voters should have to pick at least two candidates for the hall each year. If they don't wish to then they should be suspended from voting for one season. Voting is A privilege, not A task.The reasons that were given by the 8 (or some of the eight) for not voting was the were protesting the hall and baseball as A whole for the steroid scandal. Basically they were saying that they were fed up with steroid abuse in baseball during that era and didn't cast votes. Which is funny, because I would like to know what pills Tony Gwynn or Cal Ripken took in their career for those voters to snub them. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but there are dozens of eligible players for the hall every year, when A player is not selected his status is still active for A set amount of years. These writers are looking for players with freakishly high numbers (or sweet-talking abilities) and overlooking those who's number were high and respectable for their time.

One way to change the voting is to have managers and players allowed to vote in the same election. (Currently there is A veterans committee of players that vote for A nominee(s) every 2 years. But by allowing the writers, players and managers vote in the same election you could have A more objective look than what you would get from just one side of the spectrum.

Another change they must make is to change the percentage of votes one needs to get into the hall. I believe the number is between 70% - 75% of votes to get in. That is an unfair number seeing how there are so many great players that won't get in because of whatever unjust reasoning on the behalf of these voters.

No voting structure in any sport (or democracy for that matter) will ever be void of all flaws, but baseball has A long way to go to even call it's voting acceptable.

There are more things that could be done, but that is all I could get out of my head at the moment. :):):)

Answer 2

How it should go is like this:
1. Everyone in their first year of eligibility is on a ballot.
2. All those getting a "yea" vote from over half of the voters get into the Hall of Fame. No stupid point system, or grossly unfair percentages to gum it up--just "yea" or "nay."
3. Those not qualifying go to the Vets Committee for reconsideration.
4. Those who get a "yea" on half or more there get a second chance the following year.
5. Those not qualifying there are eliminated from all ballots permanently, and must be written in to be inducted.

Nice, clean, and simple--just like baseball itself. Only one or two guys going in each year is absurd. Get the guys who belong in quickly, and the guys who don't onto the scrap heap where they belong. There are too many sentimental votes taking votes away from those who belong in on the first shot. Those who don't vote at all should be stripped of the privilege for good. . . .

Answer 3

The BBWAA, as the Hall's primary electoral college, does a very good job of gatekeeping the institution. I don't see a need to modify that election method, except perhaps expanding the college to include similarly qualified people, like announcers (both game and network) and non-newspaper affiliated writers. But it really is not necessary.

The current VC should get one to three more cycles to see if it can accomplish anything, although perhaps it will accomplish something by verifying that it is no longer needed or wanted.

Answer 4

No.
Some writers CAN'T vote due to restrictions by their publisher, like the NY Times.
If they change papers, then they should be able to vote.

Some writers don't feel anybody in a certain year deserves to be in the HoF. That's a vote in itself (like the Y! Answers "No Best Answer")

Answer 5

Here's a good idea: Once you've voted, disable that screen name from being able to vote again. If you continue to delete and make more screen names just to vote, after a certain number of votes, disable voting from that specific account. Eventually, it would get to the point where nobody would go through all that trouble JUST to vote for players and give it up. Or, disable voting from the entire city of San Francisco for voting for Bonds a trillion times.

Oh, by the way guys ... what did Bonds do in that game? Hahaha!

Answer 6

WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

did you want some cheese to go with your whine???