Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   A modest proposal for the Baseball HOF (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=244519)

Aquarian Sports Cards 09-04-2017 06:30 AM

A modest proposal for the Baseball HOF
 
There is a simple fix to the myriad problems today's HOF voters face; PED suspects, ballot limitations, etc... but I imagine the HOF is too conservative to enact a sweeping change.

Every voter should score every eligible player one to 10, anyone who receives 75% of the available points is in. It is amazing how many sins a system like this fixes.

Think Bonds is a HOF'er but want to acknowledge he's not perfect? Score him an 8 or maybe a 7. It also forever changes the "unanimous" debate. Instead of worrying that someone may go unanimously whereas Hank Aaron (or any other all time great) did not. You now legitimately stand almost no shot at a perfect score without all the controversy. You may be able to craft a creditable argument that Randy Johnson is only a 9. Certainly a better argument than any for leaving him off the ballot altogether.

Finally, it will help clear any perceived back log of HOF worthy candidates, but I don't think it will be a more permissive system in the long run. Unless you get voters banding together to inflate a score there is almost no reason to not vote honestly.

Unfortunately in the current system people are playing games with their ballots (sometimes for noble reasons) so the ballot isn't "honest." But it will not be that much easier to accrue approximately 4000 points than it was to get named on about 400 Ballots, it may even be tougher in the long run, which may be a good thing!

bravos4evr 09-04-2017 11:59 AM

I reckon just mandating a "yes/no" vote for all listed players with the 75% yes requirement for entry would solve a ton of issues.

Aquarian Sports Cards 09-04-2017 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bravos4evr (Post 1697779)
I reckon just mandating a "yes/no" vote for all listed players with the 75% yes requirement for entry would solve a ton of issues.

Still leaves people voting "No" for someone who obviously belongs in just to keep them from unanimity.

bravos4evr 09-04-2017 03:27 PM

who cares about that? It's a ton better than being forced to keep a guy like Maddux off because you want to ensure a guy like Tim Raines stays on the ballot. Plus, it would clear the present logjam fairly quickly.

Snapolit1 09-05-2017 07:32 AM

I was in Cooperstown in January. While they are not "enshrined" in the hall, there are displays that discuss Bonds, Rose, Sosa, etc. I thought they were handled really well. Talked about their accomplishments and records but in the context of the scandals that enveloped their careers. It's not like you can't utter their names in the building or anything. I think it's actually perfect they way it is. These guys are all "in" the hall of fame, and acknowledged, but they are not given the ultimate honor. I'm perfectly fine with that.

dgo71 09-06-2017 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snapolit1 (Post 1697936)
I was in Cooperstown in January. While they are not "enshrined" in the hall, there are displays that discuss Bonds, Rose, Sosa, etc. I thought they were handled really well. Talked about their accomplishments and records but in the context of the scandals that enveloped their careers. It's not like you can't utter their names in the building or anything. I think it's actually perfect they way it is. These guys are all "in" the hall of fame, and acknowledged, but they are not given the ultimate honor. I'm perfectly fine with that.

+1

rats60 09-06-2017 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snapolit1 (Post 1697936)
I was in Cooperstown in January. While they are not "enshrined" in the hall, there are displays that discuss Bonds, Rose, Sosa, etc. I thought they were handled really well. Talked about their accomplishments and records but in the context of the scandals that enveloped their careers. It's not like you can't utter their names in the building or anything. I think it's actually perfect they way it is. These guys are all "in" the hall of fame, and acknowledged, but they are not given the ultimate honor. I'm perfectly fine with that.

Did you see the display when you walk in the Hof? Clemente, Jackie and Gehrig. Character and Courage. They make it pretty clear their stance on dopers and cheaters.

What should be done is anyone caught using should be permanently banned from the HOF like the did with Pete Rose. If they were in an Olympic sport, they would get a lifetime ban. MLB's weak stance on cheaters got baseball (and softball) removed from the Olympics for 2 Olympiads. MLB, because of the Union, is never going to do the right thing. The HOF should. Then there will be room on the ballot for deserving players to get appropriate consideration.

steve B 09-06-2017 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1698468)
Did you see the display when you walk in the Hof? Clemente, Jackie and Gehrig. Character and Courage. They make it pretty clear their stance on dopers and cheaters.

What should be done is anyone caught using should be permanently banned from the HOF like the did with Pete Rose. If they were in an Olympic sport, they would get a lifetime ban. MLB's weak stance on cheaters got baseball (and softball) removed from the Olympics for 2 Olympiads. MLB, because of the Union, is never going to do the right thing. The HOF should. Then there will be room on the ballot for deserving players to get appropriate consideration.

Lifetime ban? In what sport?

For most it's a year or two maybe less for the first time and depending on what was detected and the player and organization. For example, a brand new international competitor who has a bagel with poppy seeds will test positive for opioids. If their response is something like "oh c*** I totally spaced and had that darn bagel " They might get a much more minor penalty after appeal. Currently, if they're From Russia or another country with a lot of doping or in a sport that's been hit recently with a lot of it they won't get off as easily.

rats60 09-06-2017 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 1698471)
Lifetime ban? In what sport?

For most it's a year or two maybe less for the first time and depending on what was detected and the player and organization. For example, a brand new international competitor who has a bagel with poppy seeds will test positive for opioids. If their response is something like "oh c*** I totally spaced and had that darn bagel " They might get a much more minor penalty after appeal. Currently, if they're From Russia or another country with a lot of doping or in a sport that's been hit recently with a lot of it they won't get off as easily.

Lance Armstrong says hi.

FirstYearCards 09-06-2017 03:38 PM

Cap the number of HOF'ers at (100, 200 etc.) Once cap reached, if someone new is voted in, somoeone else gets booted. Keeps it to the best of all time not of their time.

Snapolit1 09-06-2017 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirstYearCards (Post 1698512)
Cap the number of HOF'ers at (100, 200 etc.) Once cap reached, if someone new is voted in, somoeone else gets booted. Keeps it to the best of all time not of their time.

Interesting idea.

Jim65 09-07-2017 07:25 AM

The problem with banning dopers is what do you do with guys who we all know cheated but never failed a test, Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens, etc.

glynparson 09-07-2017 05:04 PM

There are plenty of low lives and cheats already in
 
I say just put the best in juiced not juiced, people have always cheated in sports. if all it took were popping some pills to be barry bonds explain ozzie canseco or jeremy giambi.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:04 AM.