Hall of Fame cuts eligibility on ballot from 15 to 10 years. Bad news for Bonds, McGwire, etc.

COOPERSTOWN, N.Y. -- Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire will have less time to remain eligible for the Hall of Fame ballot under changes made a day before the induction ceremony.

The Hall of Fame's board today cut a player's eligibility from 15 years to 10, which gives McGwire a maximum of two more appearances on the writers' ballot.

On their last ballot, Clemens received 35.4% of the vote, Bonds 34.7%, McGwire 11% and Sosa 7.2%.
A candidate must receive 75% to be elected.

The 15-year maximum was implemented in 1962.
Since then, six players have been elected to the Hall in their 11th-15th years of eligibility.

2011 Bert Blyleven 14th
2009 Jim Rice 15th
2006 Bruce Sutter 13th
1980 Duke Snider 11th
1976 Bob Lemon 12th
1975 Ralph Kiner 13th

Three players with 11-15 years will remain eligible under the old rules:
Don Mattingly (15th year in 2015), Alan Trammell (14th) and Lee Smith (13th).

About time

Sent from my HTCONE using Freedom Card Board mobile app

Austin said:

COOPERSTOWN, N.Y. -- Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire will have less time to remain eligible for the Hall of Fame ballot under changes made a day before the induction ceremony.

The Hall of Fame's board today cut a player's eligibility from 15 years to 10, which gives McGwire a maximum of two more appearances on the writers' ballot.

On their last ballot, Clemens received 35.4% of the vote, Bonds 34.7%, McGwire 11% and Sosa 7.2%.
A candidate must receive 75% to be elected.

The 15-year maximum was implemented in 1962.
Since then, six players have been elected to the Hall in their 11th-15th years of eligibility.

2011 Bert Blyleven 14th
2009 Jim Rice 15th
2006 Bruce Sutter 13th
1980 Duke Snider 11th
1976 Bob Lemon 12th
1975 Ralph Kiner 13th

Three players with 11-15 years will remain eligible under the old rules:
Don Mattingly (15th year in 2015), Alan Trammell (14th) and Lee Smith (13th).

Click to expand...

First off, it's about freaking time. Also, for the guys elected between these years (listed above), sorry but don't even know all those dudes. Sad but probably none of them should have got in.

MansGame said:

First off, it's about freaking time. Also, for the guys elected between these years (listed above), sorry but don't even know all those dudes. Sad but probably none of them should have got in.

Click to expand...

You're kidding right?

Welcome to the NEW hobby!

People know who the newest prospect is before they know who HOFers are!

ChasHawk said:

You're kidding right?

Click to expand...

If it weren't for the trend of reissuing retired players in sets, I bet many current collectors would have no idea about who played 5-10 years or more before today. To each their own, but I'd rather learn about a guy who becomes a star when it is happening rather than 5 years before he plays his 1st MLB game.

ChasHawk said:

You're kidding right?

Click to expand...

THIS

MansGame said:

First off, it's about freaking time. Also, for the guys elected between these years (listed above), sorry but don't even know all those dudes. Sad but probably none of them should have got in.

Click to expand...

You don't even know all those dudes. I'm only in my 20's and I still know each and every one. They aren't huge names but are fairly big names......

I would've expected most to know all of those especially on a baseball board.

ChasHawk said:

You're kidding right?

Click to expand...

+1

MansGame said:

First off, it's about freaking time. Also, for the guys elected between these years (listed above), sorry but don't even know all those dudes. Sad but probably none of them should have got in.

Click to expand...

Which ones don't you know?

i am sad

Good change. More needs to be done but good start. Surprised it took that long to elect a couple of those names. Think a committee should be put together to go over the current hof list and expel a few myself.

:benson::benson:

MansGame said:

First off, it's about freaking time. Also, for the guys elected between these years (listed above), sorry but don't even know all those dudes. Sad but probably none of them should have got in.

Click to expand...

If you honestly don't think ANY of the below should have gotten in, let alone you don't know every single one of this names, you get a huge BENSON on this one. :benson:

2011 Bert Blyleven 14th
2009 Jim Rice 15th
2006 Bruce Sutter 13th
1980 Duke Snider 11th
1976 Bob Lemon 12th
1975 Ralph Kiner 13th

MansGame said:

First off, it's about freaking time. Also, for the guys elected between these years (listed above), sorry but don't even know all those dudes. Sad but probably none of them should have got in.

Click to expand...

Are you serious?

It's hard to believe that a baseball collector doesn't know who any of those guys are, considering that a). some of them have been recent players, and b). they all have name value.

Also, you say that you don't know them, but then go on to say that they probably aren't worthy anyway? How could you possibly know this if you don't know who any of them are? IMO Rice and Sutter were mistakes, but the others are more than worthy.

Regarding the comments above, can someone explain to me why someone who is HOF worthy doesn't get voted in in the first 10 years?

MansGame said:

First off, it's about freaking time. Also, for the guys elected between these years (listed above), sorry but don't even know all those dudes. Sad but probably none of them should have got in.

Click to expand...

You're not normally dense. You feeling ok today?

Fandruw25 said:

Regarding the comments above, can someone explain to me why someone who is HOF worthy doesn't get voted in in the first 10 years?

Click to expand...

I'd say a portion of it has to do with who they are up against each year. Some of it has to do with writers spreading their votes elsewhere, because "Surely, other people will vote for that guy, anyway." Some of it just has to do with spending years and years coming up barely short just because of an a-hole voter or two.

Fandruw25 said:

Regarding the comments above, can someone explain to me why someone who is HOF worthy doesn't get voted in in the first 10 years?

Click to expand...

One way I can see -- years of stacked ballots give other players voting priority - ballot quality then falls off for a few years giving those players years 11-15 more votes and of course you've had the player campaigning for themself for years which also leads to more awareness among voters when the ballot quality is thin in some years.

as for the steriod users, I'm not too worried for bonds, mcgwire, etc. Bonds will probably get in by veterans committee; McGwire and others will probably get in an as manager if they will make it to the hall at all.

Fandruw25 said:

Regarding the comments above, can someone explain to me why someone who is HOF worthy doesn't get voted in in the first 10 years?

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

Fandruw25 said:

Regarding the comments above, can someone explain to me why someone who is HOF worthy doesn't get voted in in the first 10 years?

Click to expand...

It takes a long time for some players to get in because what makes them HOFers is not immediately recognized by some writers. There are still plenty of half-dead, dried up old husks who vote for the HOF, guys who can't (or won't) understand stats that aren't RBI, W, or HR. There are plenty of deserving defensive players who never made the Hall because of these biases.

There's also the fact that some players' careers just need a few extra years to be put into the proper context. Jim Rice never looked like a true HOFer in the steroid era, since any juicer could make his numbers look average by comparison. Same with Dale Murphy, who probably should be in the Hall as well.

Maybe limiting the length of time on the ballot will mean the Hall voters will get their **** together and actually vote players in, instead of playing games like they have been with Biggio.

MansGame said:

First off, it's about freaking time. Also, for the guys elected between these years (listed above), sorry but don't even know all those dudes. Sad but probably none of them should have got in.

Click to expand...

A quick history lesson

Bert Blyleven
· 287 wins (27th on the All-Time list)
· 250 losses (10th on the All-Time list
· 3.31 Career Earned Run average
· 4,970 innings pitched (14th on the All-Time list)
· 3,701 Strikeouts (5th on the All-Time list)
· 685 career starts (11th on the All-Time list)
· 242 Complete games
· 60 shutouts (9th on the All-Time list)
· 15 1-0 wins (3rd on the All-Time list)
· One of only three pitchers to ever win a Major League game before his 20th birthday
and also win a Major League game after his 40th birthday.
· 7th on the All-Time homeruns allowed list

Jim Rice
· One of the most feared right-handed hitters of his era, Rice clubbed at least 20 homers in 11 of his first 12 full seasons
· Led the American League in total bases four times, homers three times and RBI and slugging percentage twice each.
· The powerfully built eight-time All-Star amassed 2,452 hits, a .298 batting average, 382 home runs and 1,451 RBIs.
· Rice captured the Junior Circuit's Most Valuable Player Award in 1978, when he collected 406 total bases -- the most in the AL in more than 40 years.
· Eight time all star
· 1978 AL MVP


Bruce Sutter
· He was arguably the first pitcher to make effective use of the split finger fastball
· The sport's dominant relievers in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
· The only pitcher to lead the National League in saves five times (1979–1982, 1984).
· In 1979, Sutter won the NL's Cy Young Award as the league's top pitcher.
· 2.83 ERA
· 300 saves in a period where relievers were not specialists
· World Series winner with the Cardinals
· Six time All Star


Duke Snider
· Eight-time All-Star (1950–56, 1963)
· Six-time Top 10 MVP
· .540 slugging percentage (37th all-time)
· 919 OPS (50th all-time)
· 3,865 total bases (87th all-time)
· 407 home runs (41st all-time)
· 1,333 RBI (77th all-time)
· 1,481 runs scored (74th all-time)
· 850 extra-base hits (65th all-time)
· 17.6 at-bats per home run (59th all-time)
· Dodgers career leader in home runs (389), RBI (1,271), strikeouts (1,123), and extra-base hits (814)
· Only player to hit four home runs (or more) in two different World Series (1952, 1955)
· One of only two major leaguers with over 1,000 RBI during the 1950s. The other was his teammate Gil Hodges


Bob Lemon
· Seven time All Star
· Seven time 20-plus wins in a season
· Five time AL leader in complete games
· Led MLB in shutouts
· 3× finished fifth in MVP voting (1948, 1950, 1954)
· World Series Champion, player (1948)
· Led AL in strikeouts (170, 1950)
· 3x AL Pitcher of the Year (1948, 1950, 1954
· 2× MLB leader in wins (1950, 1954)
· Major league record for pitcher 15 double plays in one season (1953)
· Led AL in wins in 1955
· World Series Champion, manager

Ralph Kiner
· Six time all star
· Seven time National League home run champion. He is the only player to lead the league in home runs each of his first seven seasons in the league.
· National League RBI champion (1949)
· 369 career home runs
· Twice hit 50+ home runs in a season
· Averaged better than 100 RBI’s in a season
· For every 100 at-bats, he averaged 7.1 home runs. That percentage is second only to Babe Ruth.
· For his 10 year career, he averaged 37 home runs and over 100 RBI a season.
· He was the first National League player to ask for a salary of $100,000.
· Kiner holds the National League record for most consecutive seasons as the league’s home run king (7).
· He is the only person to hit home runs in three consecutive All-Star games (1949, 1950, 1951).

Kiner did all this in only ten seasons as he was forced to retire after ten seasons due to sever back issues. Look at his nimbers and project out how different they would be if he had played another five to ten year.

These are just some quick cut and pastes from various web sites that might give you an idea about these players Hall worthyness. I ask you to look at these players again and make a case for them NOT being in the hall.

Does anybody think the voters should alternate year to year. Like one year a group of people vote and the next year it's a completely different group and so on and so forth? And if you leave your ballot blank you lose your vote forever. Might end some of these games....