Changes to Hall of Fame Eras Committees eligibility

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by jayshum

The larger the committees, the less likely that they select anyone.

I came up with what I thought was a beautiful solution to this problem as well as the unanimity issue as well as the roid guys.

Instead of binary votes, yes or no. Every eligible elector (committee or for the hall in general) scores each candidate on a scale from 1 - 10. Anyone receiving 75% of the possible points gets in. That way it's still the same threshold of 75% as the current system but allows for more nuance.

I can say Mariano Rivera is a HOF'er without, in effect, calling him the greatest player ever. I can punish Barry Bonds by giving him a 5, but a single 10, or a couple 9's from other voters balances out my disdain.

I think it actually works better for a large panel of voters, so it might not be a perfect answer in committee situations but I find it hard to believe sane voters are scoring Baines 7's and 8's, while in a yes/no scenario, appeals to emotion work much "better." However if there are candidates out there who legitimately WOULD score 7's and 8's it's probably an easier path than the yes/no system, especially if they don't have a champion on the committee.

[scotgreb]

I believe in the need for veterans / oldtimers / era committees as the BBWAA has many inexplicable oversights in electing worthy players. Two that quickly come to mind are Johnny Mize and Arky Vaughan.

I've said this before in prior threads, but I believe the structure of the voting [of the era committees] essentially requires collusion to get anyone 75% -- especially when there is a strong ballot, as there are only so many votes to go around. It can also result in someone questionable getting elected when the ballot sucks. It shouldn't be this difficult. Barring someone from future ballots [due to lack of votes] is nuts in my opinion. Why back yourself into a corner?

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I came up with what I thought was a beautiful solution to this problem as well as the unanimity issue as well as the roid guys.

Instead of binary votes, yes or no. Every eligible elector (committee or for the hall in general) scores each candidate on a scale from 1 - 10. Anyone receiving 75% of the possible points gets in. That way it's still the same threshold of 75% as the current system but allows for more nuance.

I can say Mariano Rivera is a HOF'er without, in effect, calling him the greatest player ever. I can punish Barry Bonds by giving him a 5, but a single 10, or a couple 9's from other voters balances out my disdain.

I think it actually works better for a large panel of voters, so it might not be a perfect answer in committee situations but I find it hard to believe sane voters are scoring Baines 7's and 8's, while in a yes/no scenario, appeals to emotion work much "better." However if there are candidates out there who legitimately WOULD score 7's and 8's it's probably an easier path than the yes/no system, especially if they don't have a champion on the committee.

It's an interesting idea, but I think it would make it almost impossible for a borderline candidate to get voted in, especially with a small number of voters (as you mentioned). Even with larger numbers of voters, a borderline candidate would most likely get mostly 8's (with few 9's and 10's) from people who felt they should be in, while voters who didn't support someone could give much lower scores that would make it almost impossible to get to 75% of the possible points. Trying to offset even 3's and 4's would probably require more 9's and 10's than would likely be given.

[packs]

My personal opinion is that the HOF should be spending more time on resurrecting attention for players long passed over from the 19th and early 20th centuries, along with Negro League players, and stop holding so many votes for guys whose careers were watched by a national audience. Nobody needs to debate someone like Keith Hernandez anymore. Let's let it go and talk about Jack Glasscock.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

My personal opinion is that the HOF should be spending more time on resurrecting attention for players long passed over from the 19th and early 20th centuries, along with Negro League players, and stop holding so many votes for guys whose careers were watched by a national audience. Nobody needs to debate someone like Keith Hernandez anymore. Let's let it go and talk about Jack Glasscock.

That may be right intellectually, but aside from a few hard core fans of the game like us, who really cares?

[bk400]

Originally Posted by packs

My personal opinion is that the HOF should be spending more time on resurrecting attention for players long passed over from the 19th and early 20th centuries, along with Negro League players, and stop holding so many votes for guys whose careers were watched by a national audience. Nobody needs to debate someone like Keith Hernandez anymore. Let's let it go and talk about Jack Glasscock.

Personal foul, flag on the play! Why do you have to do Keith Hernandez like that? He's the best defensive first baseman of all time. If the Yankees had a guy like Keith Hernandez in Game 5, maybe Mookie Betts doesn't make it to first base. And here's a card for the thread.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by packs

My personal opinion is that the HOF should be spending more time on resurrecting attention for players long passed over from the 19th and early 20th centuries, along with Negro League players, and stop holding so many votes for guys whose careers were watched by a national audience. Nobody needs to debate someone like Keith Hernandez anymore. Let's let it go and talk about Jack Glasscock.

I'm pretty sure people won't be flocking to Cooperstown for the Jack Glasscock induction while Keith Hernandez would definitely bring in more people (which is what the Hall of Fame wants to see happen).

[bk400]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I'm pretty sure people won't be flocking to Cooperstown for the Jack Glasscock induction while Keith Hernandez would definitely bring in more people (which is what the Hall of Fame wants to see happen).

You know, if the 86 Sox had Keith Hernandez instead of Bill Buckner...

You're absolutely right -- the party at Cooperstown would be awesome if Keith Hernandez got inducted.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

You know, if the 86 Sox had Keith Hernandez instead of Bill Buckner...

You're absolutely right -- the party at Cooperstown would be awesome if Keith Hernandez got inducted.

That is just a cruel gratuitous reference.

[packs]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I'm pretty sure people won't be flocking to Cooperstown for the Jack Glasscock induction while Keith Hernandez would definitely bring in more people (which is what the Hall of Fame wants to see happen).

I didn’t say Glasscock had to be the only player inducted. Did they induct Harold Baines for the fanfare?

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by packs

I didn’t say Glasscock had to be the only player inducted. Did they induct Harold Baines for the fanfare?

They inducted Baines because a bunch of his friends were on the committee, but at least he was alive for the ceremony and probably did bring a few more people to Cooperstown. Inducting Glasscock or any others from the 19th century who have been dead for decades and who 99+% of baseball fans have never heard of isn't bringing anyone to see a speech by some random relative of theirs.

[packs]

But why isn’t there room to induct him or other 19th century players with the rest of the players being inducted? Dick Allen isn’t alive for his ceremony but he will be inducted with four living players. Doesn’t this happen all the time?

In 2022, four of the seven players inducted were dead.

In 2013 all of the players elected were dead.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by packs

My personal opinion is that the HOF should be spending more time on resurrecting attention for players long passed over from the 19th and early 20th centuries, along with Negro League players, and stop holding so many votes for guys whose careers were watched by a national audience. Nobody needs to debate someone like Keith Hernandez anymore. Let's let it go and talk about Jack Glasscock.

Why? The people who saw 19th and early 20th century guys play decided they weren't worthy of the Hall of Fame. Someone today would have nothing to add. As far as the Negro Leagues, those players received an up or down vote in 2006. I see no need to keep voting on them, just like players who can't get support from the Veteran's Committee. They should be dropped to debate other players.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

Why? The people who saw 19th and early 20th century guys play decided they weren't worthy of the Hall of Fame. Someone today would have nothing to add. As far as the Negro Leagues, those players received an up or down vote in 2006. I see no need to keep voting on them, just like players who can't get support from the Veteran's Committee. They should be dropped to debate other players.

If we drop players from long before the HOF existed (many 19th century players have never had an honest consideration - incomplete or unknown statistics and playing ~50 years before the hall left the early committees voting in record holders, milestone thresholds, and those credited with an innovation at the time in the 1940's and 50's), and negro leaguers, and more modern players who the vets committee has previously rejected, who are the other players that would be considered? It's a tiny list of guys who do not fall into any of those three buckets.

[packs]

Originally Posted by rats60

Why? The people who saw 19th and early 20th century guys play decided they weren't worthy of the Hall of Fame. Someone today would have nothing to add. As far as the Negro Leagues, those players received an up or down vote in 2006. I see no need to keep voting on them, just like players who can't get support from the Veteran's Committee. They should be dropped to debate other players.

I don't think that's a fair assessment of things. There are so many advanced metrics at play and a different appreciation of skills now that weren't considered or thought about in earlier iterations of the game, or the voters.

I think the HOF exists in large part to remember and honor the game's past. Why would it not reconsider the players of the past as well?