I think the sports writers shouldn't be allowed to vote in the Mlb Hall Of Fame anymore. Who else agrees?

Question

Too many of them use their voting power as a way to be biased & spite those who weren't media friendly. One example of that is Jim Rice who shouldv'e been in the Hall Of Fame a long time ago but b/c the writers want to be spiteful they keep denying him. I think they should let the Hall of famers who are alive to vote for future Hall Of Famers instead of the writers who obviously are biased & have their own agenda.

Unlike some obsessed fans i don't live with hating teams & people just b/c they are loyal to another team. just b/c i think Jim Rice deserves to be in the Hall Of Fame doesn't make me less of a Yankee fan.

Answer 1

The writers are a sorry bunch of old women. But any SINGLE group doing the voting would eventually become biased. A triangular voting scheme would be best. I'm not sure which three groups should be involved, but it would go something like: writers, old timers, fans. It is not certain to me how the votes should be weighted, but exactly equal would work for me. Then there would be fewer bandwagon votes (or votes against) and a more satisfying result.

Answer 2

I think the BBWAA has done a very good -- not perfect, mind -- job of gatekeeping the Hall's roster.

Complaints about Rice's candidacy are hollow; he has received over 50% several times, over 60% at least once. That's majority approval -- it's just not the 75% supermajority necessary for induction. There aren't THAT many voters out there holding some imaginary grudge against Rice because he may have barked at them during his career. And he was, no doubt, a good player for many seasons. It's not a conspiracy nor a broken system, it's just that Rice wasn't All That for long enough to win over 75% of a herd of cats.

As for letting the living HOFers vote -- well, that's the current Veterans Committee system, and in three cycles it has elected no one. So they're pretty stingy already, and if it keeps up for another few cycles I think we'll see the VC, or at least THIS edition of the VC, go away, which won't be a bad thing. Electing no one is a valid result, but never electing anyone is the same result that would be produced by having no committee at all, and having no committee is a simpler state of affairs.

I could see expanding the Hall's primary electoral college -- a cautious selection of long-term announcers (team, radio, teevee) and non-print media writers (why the hell doesn't Bill James get to vote?) -- but the BBWAA has not been derelict in their responsibilities here.

Answer 3

Let's throw Rice out of the argument for a moment. I'm not convinced his numbers make him a Hall of Famer, mostly because he fell apart quickly at the end of his career and didn't post great career numbers.

Can you name one player who you can honestly say was left out of the Hall of Fame because of personality? The follow-up to that is -- Has there ever been a player who was more of a jerk to the media than Steve Carlton? Yet, he went in right away because he was clearly qualified. There may have been a few voters who didn't cast ballots for him, but he still got in. The system still worked.

The veterans committee is generally acknowledged as the group that has let in the most questionable people into the Hall (Travis Jackson? Rick Ferrell?). That's why the system was changed.

The system isn't perfect. If Cal Ripken wasn't qualified to get every single vote for the Hall of Fame, who is? And he didn't, because a few writers don't think anyone should be the first unanimous player. Overall, though, it works pretty well.

Answer 4

I agree that Jim Rice was never a media favorite (putting it mildly). That makes it hard for him to have a fair vote from the writers. I am not too sure how it would be to have the current hall of famers do the voting though because I am sure a lot of them do not know the stats of players and would need to do lots of research on that. Maybe it could be a combination of both? I dont know the perfect solution but, I do think some players get left out because the writers dont like them.

Answer 5

Yeah, and the Hall of Famers would be unbiased?

The old Veteran's committee (basically what you're talking about) was abolished because of cronyism. They were letting in people who weren't anywhere near HOF calibur because they were their friends. The national media is the closest thing to an unbiased system as we are going to get. The fact is, if someone doesn't deserve to be in the HOF, then they won't be in the HOF, no matter how many of their fans think that they should be. The HOF is the highest honor that the sport of baseball can bestow on a player, and it shouldn't be diluted just because the current members want to let their buddies in.

Answer 6

I do not agree. Jim Rice is close but not quite good enough for the Hall (imo)

The best folks to decide who gets in are the ones that see a lot of games every year and travel to the various cities every season. The writers which make their livings covering the sport are the best group outside MLB to decide.

We don't need to change the system.

Answer 7

I don't agree that Jim Rice belongs in the HOF. His numbers are just on the cusp, but not quite good enough. Guys Jim Rice, Dale Murphy & Dave Parker come to mind as guys just not quite there, but almost.

As for his unfriendliness, he is no comparison for HOFers Eddie Murray or Steve Carlton. They are in because their numbers merit it.

As for letting Hall of Famers vote, there are a group of HOFers that Frankie Frisch, a HOFer himself, help get inducted while he was a member of the Veterans Committee. Jesse Haines, Chick Hafey & Dave Bancroft, et al. who, frankly, just don't belong. They were selected because they were teammates and friends of Frankie's.

You are going to have controversies when the human element is involved whether it's journalists or former players.

I have never been a fan of the "one unqualified player is in so why shouldn't this unqualified player be in."

Answer 8

Writers vote so the hall of fame and baseball get positive publicity. Plus writers do see many games throughout the year. It's as if they have season tickets. As far as Jim Rice, a excellent leftfielder with the Bosox, yet not quite good enough for the hall of fame. I would put Rice in the same category as Gary Carter, but Carter got in because he's a catcher. Tougher position than leftfield.

Answer 9

I think they should be allowed to vote, as long as they actually vote for players. This year, a "sportswriter" from Chicago, did not vote for ANY player, saying he will no longer vote for any players who played in the "steroids" era. Fair enough. The he should just give up his vote to a writer who will actuallly vote for people. Also, who is he to determine if any player took steroids, then to assume all players are under the same umbrella?

I think most sportswriters do a very good job when voting, but some of these guys are too judgemental, and make up their own rules and guildelines when voting. They are there to vote, and if they aren't going to do their job, then step aside and let other writers vote.

Answer 10

I agree wholeheartedly. A player should be in the Hall of Fame based on their performance statistically or impact to the game.

There are players in the Hall of Fame whose statistics are not as good as Jim Rice.