Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

What changes would you like to see made to the HOF voting process?

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

Super Mario

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2009
18,242
85
Mushroom Kingdom
The change I would make would be to take the vote away from the BBWAA.


Why do a bunch of no-talent hack writers decide the fate of the NBHOF? It doesn't make sense to me, never has.

It's pretty clear that the writers hold grudges against players, and refuse to vote for players for various reasons, and some who are eligible don't even choose to vote at all.

The process is broken.


I'm okay with the ballot time being reduced from 15 years to 10. In my mind, you're either first ballot or not. If it takes someone (players) 15 years to get into the HOF, or you have to go to the Veterans Committee, you don't deserve to be in. I hold the HOF to a really high standard. I think it should be the elite of the elite. Not he Tim Raines and Fred McGriff's of the world getting in.



How do you guys think the process could be bettered?



I was thinking of just having the actual living HOF'ers doing the voting themselves. At least that way, if they're going to hold grudges with their votes, at least they're qualified to do it.
 

200lbhockeyplayer

Active member
Aug 10, 2008
11,049
2
HOF elected players often have an incredibly jaded bias, often looking at themselves and their generation through rose-colored glasses.

If I hear or read another player like Mike Schmidt give the "Let me go out on a limb and say that if I had played during that era I would have taken steroids," type of response or the polar opposite calling for the heads of players who used (or possibly used)...I'll puke.

Hey Mike, you played in a steroid era...just because Selig and the media haven't faced that head on yet is meaningless.

The late 60s were dirty.
The 70s were dirty.
The 80s were dirty.
The 90s were dirty.
The 00s were dirty.
The 10s are dirty.

Baseball is about eras, and each and every era needs to be judged alone.

If Bonds and Clemens don't enter the HOF...the entire legacy of baseball is manipulated and cheated and so is the HOF. The single best hitter and single best pitcher of the generation...not enshrined. Not because of positive tests, suspensions or banishment...posturing by the media that promoted it.

Face it head on. Accept the era and the unknown.

This is on the media and Selig. He whiffed at the chance to acknowledge and move ahead...instead, he postured himself as the great savior fixing a wrong that he never knew existed.
 

RStadlerASU22

Active member
Jan 2, 2013
8,881
11
Unless stats are erased from their records , I want players voted for what they produced. I don't care if they were taking something for x amount of years or whatever. If its not erased count then the stats are good. As stated above Bonds , Clemens , and I'll include ARod are some of the best ever and should be first ballot HOFers in my opinion. I hate how some of them handled it (in the press) but as a voter nothing should matter but the stats, and those guys out produced everyone

Ryan
 

maxe0213

New member
Oct 10, 2012
1,833
0
California and Oregon for school
Change who votes just like what you said. The writers shouldn't be the ones doing it.

Also, I know they cut the years to 10 but I would go even further and cut it to 2 years. If you can't make it in the first two years you don't deserve it.
 

michaelstepper

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2010
8,211
519
southeast Alaska
The writers and their agendas are at most fault in my opinion.
Maybe make all voting anonymous. And they can't talk about their ballot? how many would vote bonds or clemens then?
Also it's not the writers jobs to keep the "dirty" players out of the HoF but they've taken it upon themselves to do so. Plenty of Racists and bigots enshrined, why not a couple needle addicts?
As much as I hate the thought of putting a cheater into something like the HOF, their cases were made before the big boom (bonds, clemens ) arod I'm not so sure about
 

Musial Collector

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
5,671
2
HOF elected players often have an incredibly jaded bias, often looking at themselves and their generation through rose-colored glasses.

If I hear or read another player like Mike Schmidt give the "Let me go out on a limb and say that if I had played during that era I would have taken steroids," type of response or the polar opposite calling for the heads of players who used (or possibly used)...I'll puke.

Hey Mike, you played in a steroid era...just because Selig and the media haven't faced that head on yet is meaningless.

The late 60s were dirty.
The 70s were dirty.
The 80s were dirty.
The 90s were dirty.
The 00s were dirty.
The 10s are dirty.

Baseball is about eras, and each and every era needs to be judged alone.

If Bonds and Clemens don't enter the HOF...the entire legacy of baseball is manipulated and cheated and so is the HOF. The single best hitter and single best pitcher of the generation...not enshrined. Not because of positive tests, suspensions or banishment...posturing by the media that promoted it.

Face it head on. Accept the era and the unknown.

This is on the media and Selig. He whiffed at the chance to acknowledge and move ahead...instead, he postured himself as the great savior fixing a wrong that he never knew existed.

Mike hit this nail on the head
If anyone really believes that there are not players in the HOF that cheated at some point in their careers, you are blind
How Bonds or Clemens not being in the HOF is justifiable to anyone is beyond me
Did they cheat? Probably. Did their peers cheat? Probably
If thats the case why are some let in and others not? Purely based on speculation? Thats BS.
I remember the summer of 1998, the great HR chase between McGwire and Sosa
I also remember the summer of 2001, Bonds chasing the new mark set by McGwire
Both summers, just looking at their bodies and how they had evolved, one had a suspicion that they were all on something
Them AND many many MANY other baseball players. Did I care? Not really, nothing I can do about it as a fan but watch and enjoy the great game of baseball
If Selig was going to turn a blind eye, why did I have to live to higher standards? I didnt, therefore I loved being in Denver on September 9th and watching Bonds bomb #s 61, 62 and 63.
There have been cheaters generations past, generations present and generations future, that have been inducted to the HOF, I refuse to let it bother me.
You let one in, you let them all in, you cannot pick and choose at your convenience.
 

ccouch (Chad)

Member
Aug 8, 2008
444
6
I want NOTHING changed.

The BBWAA gets it right 95% of the time. As for the steroid issue, they've been placed in a tough spot not by their own doing. Don't blame the writers for not knowing how to handle it. Maybe they share some blame by not questioning the ridiculousness of the numbers being put up and circumstantial (at the time) evidence of rampant PED usage, but they certainly don't have more blame than the players union and the executive leadership of the game.

Putting the vote in the hands of the players would be just as big of a joke (and FWIW, the steroid guys wouldn't even be close to getting in with that group voting either). And don't even suggest putting it to the vote of the fans. If you think the writers are biased...
 

BBCgalaxee

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2011
6,475
59
Good question.

One of the changes just happened by reducing it from 15 years to 10.

The next would be a bitch to enforce but I can't stand pure stupidity.

If any voter admits "I won't vote for anyone on the ballot for the first time" or something similar (like that voter who recently said he won't vote for anyone who played during the 90s yet voted for morris) they deserve to losetheir PRIVILEGE.
 
Last edited:

gpenko826

New member
Feb 15, 2011
252
0
The writers and their agendas are at most fault in my opinion.
Maybe make all voting anonymous. And they can't talk about their ballot? how many would vote bonds or clemens then?
Also it's not the writers jobs to keep the "dirty" players out of the HoF but they've taken it upon themselves to do so. Plenty of Racists and bigots enshrined, why not a couple needle addicts?
As much as I hate the thought of putting a cheater into something like the HOF, their cases were made before the big boom (bonds, clemens ) arod I'm not so sure about

Oh dear lord do I hate this argument. It's the same one people make for Pete Rose. "Well Ty Cobb was a racist and killed a guy, and Rogers Hornsby was a racist, and they're in the hall!" That's great, but killing a dude and hating minorities didn't help their performance on the field. Injecting illegal performance enhancing drugs DID help, and DID skew the numbers unfairly. Wagering money on your own team or on the team you're playing DID affect the outcome.

Are there bad guys in the Hall? Absolutely. But the bad things they did NOT affect the outcomes on the field. They just made them a-holes.

And yes - I know the 60's and 70's were loaded with greenies and amphetamines. The biggest difference here is you could buy a lot of that stuff legally. Housewives and diet fanatics bought that stuff at drug stores constantly to lose weight. Truck drivers bought then at rest stops to stay awake. No one's buying freaking Winstrol at the local CVS without a heavily guarded prescription and strict medical supervision.

Greg
 

smapdi

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
4,397
221
First off, having 500+ people voting is ridiculous, and there are more every year. The credentials for at least a few of them are extremely shaky, and it's almost impossible to get them revoked. Have 100 writers who are vetted through their own requirements or election process, who commit to doing the job for 5 years at a time with serious repercussions for flaking out (don't know what they may be, but immediately losing voting rights is one). Better than the fans, players old and current, or managers, all of whom bring a lot less study and a lot more personal feelings, on the whole. Other notedly knowledgeable people (GMs, SABR guys, writers who aren't necessarily newspaper beat writers) may be included.

Have the voting be in the form of an essay question, not just checkboxes. Come up with a couple paragraphs arguing for each of the 3 or 4 guys you are picking. You may re-use your paragraphs each year for your guy. So you have to come up with maybe 4 or 6 new paragraphs per year. Did I mention you have to take the job seriously? These writings will be published publicly.

Another thing this brings into account is the PED issue. One way or other, it should be dealt with. Having voters explain in complete sentences why they are voting for one person over another is useful here. If you make a rule that players cannot be disqualified from voting because of suspicion of PED use, that would basically force voters to reason out why Bonds and Clemens, et al, are not going to be elected through other means. Certainly Bonds had a very strong case for election before 1998 or whenever he started using. And Clemens was a mortal lock for the Hall since 1992 or so. If they never failed a test, and I realize testing is minimal and relatively recent, then everything is speculation, no matter how "obvious" it might be. On the other hand, if you make a clear rule that "conventional wisdom" says this guy used or that guy used, then that can be used to keep someone off your ballot. But then you get into a grey area about what "conventional wisdom" is. Did this guy use for a season or two? What effect did it have? Is someone like Bonds excluded on these grounds but Ivan Rodriguez not because Ivan Rodriguez didn't hit 70 home runs in a season? This is a murky area, and having clarifications on this behavior, like the gambling rules from a century ago, would help cut through a lot of the morass. Having a "morals clause" like conviction of a crime allows you to circumvent this if you wish.

Another benefit of having a smaller voting pool with complete justification required is to shorten the voting period. Fifteen years seems interminable. Yes, fashions change, things happen, and you have your Suttons and Blylevens. But really, a small, knowledgeable group of people should be able to make this decision a lot faster and more decisively. I'd be in favor of going real short. Three years, in or out. Just like, you know, strikes. Or maybe have a longer eligibility period but a 40% or 50% cutoff. If you get 50 guys to vote for you, but not 75, OK, there's some obvious value to your candidacy. But some guys hang around for 4 or 5 seasons with 10-20%. What's the point of that? Yes, groundswells happen. This just gets them to happen a lot faster, so they don't have to wait for the years where there's a dearth of whatever position someone is in limbo at.

Then another nice thing this would lead to occasionally is bigger classes. I like football where 6 or 8 guys get in, they're all wearing these ugly gold jackets, 300-pound guys getting up and crying. It's amusing to me. These years in baseball where 1 or 2 guys get in, or even none, would likely go away. Having a bigger event with 5 or 6 guys at a time going in sometimes would be exciting. Sure, you'll still have years where you have 1-2 guys, but I think they'd be rare.

While I appreciate wanting the Hall to be the Elite of the Elite, it hasn't been that since 1945 when Roger Bresnahan and Hughie Jennings were elected. The fact is that it's not been a true pantheon of the best of the best in quite a while, and a large part of it is a Hall of Impressions, Connections, and Notoriety. The trouble with that is that if you don't elect people who are demonstrably better than people already elected, even if they aren't as good as some other players, doesn't that make it even more hollow? You could blow it all up and have a "Golden Tier" for the Ruths, Cobbs, (W) Johnsons, etc., but sooner or later someone controversial goes gold and it's all over.

OK, that's all I got. I'm in kind of a pissy mood, may reconsider later.
 

rsmath

Active member
Nov 8, 2008
6,086
1
As I said in another thread a day or two ago:

-- QUOTE--

I'm thinking more and more I want MLB executives, front office staff, and current and retired players who have ever been placed on an active MLB roster in their career vote for the Hall of Fame so that the Hall is filled with whoever can get 75% of their peers' votes.

If you have to keep voting to BWAA members, then make it BWAA members who have covered the game on a national basis, as they are most likely to have covered the big picture of baseball, not just covered the subsets of just the team whose chapter they were in, the division the team was in, or just the league their team was in.

--END--
 

u2me57

Well-known member
Mar 21, 2014
3,234
63
Hendersonville, Tn.
I want NOTHING changed.

The BBWAA gets it right 95% of the time. As for the steroid issue, they've been placed in a tough spot not by their own doing. Don't blame the writers for not knowing how to handle it. Maybe they share some blame by not questioning the ridiculousness of the numbers being put up and circumstantial (at the time) evidence of rampant PED usage, but they certainly don't have more blame than the players union and the executive leadership of the game.

Putting the vote in the hands of the players would be just as big of a joke (and FWIW, the steroid guys wouldn't even be close to getting in with that group voting either). And don't even suggest putting it to the vote of the fans. If you think the writers are biased...

I agree.
 

rsmath

Active member
Nov 8, 2008
6,086
1
Then another nice thing this would lead to occasionally is bigger classes. I like football where 6 or 8 guys get in, they're all wearing these ugly gold jackets, 300-pound guys getting up and crying. It's amusing to me.

Football is how NOT to do it - I hate how there is a required number of inductees every year. It turns the Hall of Fame into the "Hall of Good" or "Hall of we needed some fillers to induct to meet the requirement".

Baseball does it right - a reasonable percentage required for induction and it's full of people who entirely deserve to be there, not most who deserve to be there with a few fillers required to meet the election laws.
 

RiceLynnEvans75

Active member
Feb 9, 2010
3,264
3
NOVA
Good question.

One of the changes just happened by reducing it from 15 years to 10.

The next would be a bitch to enforce but I can't stand pure stupidity.

If any voter admits "I won't vote for anyone on the ballot for the first time" or something similar (like that voter who recently said he won't vote for anyone who played during the 90s yet voted for morris) they deserve to losetheir PRIVILEGE.

This is the one thing that came to my mind. Completely asinine........
 

smapdi

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
4,397
221
I didn't say I wanted to mandate class size, just that I like bigger classes.
 
Top