Right now only members of the BBWWA can vote for HOF choices made from nominations by a 6 member committee of the BBWWA. That seems a very elitest group making big decisions. After all, they have kept Bert Blyleven out and voted in people like Jim Bunning. Dan Mattingly won't be in b/c of a shortened career but Dizzy Dean is? Mark McGuire won't make it b/c of 'suspected' steroid use & Tim Raines will probably make it in even though he admitted cocaine use early in his career?
So should both the nominating each year & the voting be made public similar to how the All-Star game is? Or do you have an even better &/or more fair system in mind? Or do we just keep it as is? I want to know what you think.
2007-12-20 10:01:19 · 12 answers · asked by IamCount 4 in Sports ➔ Baseball
There is no problem with the writers ballot nomination procedures. Many names make the ballot, some as obvious filler or deadwood. It takes a really uninspiring career (yet one that meets the minimum eligibility requirements) not to make the ballot cut.
The BBWAA does a very good job on the voting. Not perfect, no, and as a group there tends to be too many wood-filled heads among them. But my criticisms of the voting history of the BBWAA is pretty light, and they deserve some substantial credit for the job they have done over the decades. (Most of the really weak Hall inductees came through various incarnations of the Veterans Committee. Bunning is a VC inductee.)
As for Mattingly out yet Dean in -- that's not a very informative comparison to make regardless, but -- and this is important -- past mistakes are not license to repeat such in the future.
Geez, I hope Raines makes it.
Bill James proposed a revised, more inclusive voting method in his Hall Of Fame book (published under two different titles*, and well worth reading), which worked sort-of like the presidential election -- different voter blocs (states, if you will) put up their votes, each with different weighting (like the electoral votes per state). It was interesting -- fans were one component -- but, the Hall is a private institution and only has to play by its own rules, so don't look for any changes to the balloting procedures soon.
* The original title was "The Politics Of Glory", the second title was "Whatever Happened To The Hall Of Fame?". Pick up any edition, and enjoy.
2007-12-20 10:35:35 · answer #1 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. The public would vote by popularity, not who really deserves to be in it. I think it should be left as is for now.
Blyleven deserves to be in and I have no idea why he isn't. Bunning deserves to be a hall of famer although is he a very borderline one. Mattingly's stats just can't get up there and we all know McGuire used steroids. He pretty much admitted it himself in 2003. Dean could have been the greatets pitcher of all time if it were not for an unlucky shot he got from a ball in the 37 all star game. As for Tim Raines cocaine is not a preformance enhancing drug. People who have an addiction to cocaine need real help. They aren't trying to cheat. It did nothing to affect his career(statistically). He deserves to be in.
2007-12-20 10:53:02 · answer #2 · answered by red4tribe 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The public has no need to be involved in the voting process. You can see what happens when "fans" vote for all their favorite teams in big cities and you get half an All-Star roster of Yankees and Red Sox. Deserving players in small markets don't stand a chance. No, leave the ballots in the hands of the deserving.
2007-12-20 23:35:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The hall of fame comitte is fine the way it is. They have mistakenly put some players in like Kirby Pucket and have left people out for no reason exceot they don't like them ala Jim Rice. But for the most part they have done a good job. I think this year you will see Rice and Gossage get in. Both deserving. Next year you will have arguably the best leadoff hitter of all time go in in Ricky Henderson (class of 09)
2007-12-20 12:46:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No... The fans always screw stuff up too much... Just look at the pro bowl... The Yanks vans would vote so much that someone like Chuck freaking Knoublauch could get in...
2007-12-20 10:44:19 · answer #5 · answered by Reduviidae 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the public should have a say. It would become a popularity contest then, instead of skills. I think it should stay as is, for after all if should be an elite group elected in.
2007-12-20 10:05:15 · answer #6 · answered by Sharon S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but I think that current and former managers and players should do 100% of the voting not the writers.
2007-12-20 17:26:16 · answer #7 · answered by The Official Texting Pro 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Rock and Roll corridor of repute would not seem to love ingenious rock. i'm uncertain why, yet i assume it would not. As for section rock, it is often panned through critics, so as that must be a reason. i think of it is sweet expertise long gone to waste. in certainty, the only artist of the sector rock bands you indexed i admire is Foghat. yet i don't think of they have almost as plenty effect as different bands and acts interior the corridor of repute. it is not proper besides. The corridor of repute has a manner of inducting super artists that are truly linked with rock itself. There are some good bands in there, yet do not shrink your self to in basic terms them.
2016-12-11 10:24:28 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aw, just leave it the way it is: unsatisfactory, political, and fanless. Fans don't matter anyway, and who, after all, really cares EXCEPT for the fans? MLB is about money. Fans are only good for spending it.
2007-12-20 10:54:28 · answer #9 · answered by Sarrafzedehkhoee 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Please. If you let the voting be decided by the public we will be seeing very ridiculous inductions like Luis Sojo or Al Leiter in the Hall Of Fame.
2007-12-20 10:08:18 · answer #10 · answered by Scooter_loves_his_dad 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋