Changes to Hall of Fame Eras Committees eligibility

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

At least some of the names cycling through will end up getting removed. In the system before this change, basically anyone on the ballot would eventually have to be elected.

However, a guy who vets 4 votes twice in a row and removed from the ballot may well be replaced with players worse than him, and so in a few cycles they'll be electing people worse than those banned from the ballot.

Really, the entire system should be redesigned. We have like 50-60 years of these veterans/experts committees making consistently bad selections. A closed room with a very small number of insiders, many of whom have/had personal relationships with those on the ballot is very unlikely to produce consistently good or fair results.

Agreed. The committees should be larger in size and drawn from different constituencies.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Agreed. The committees should be larger in size and drawn from different constituencies.

The larger the committees, the less likely that they select anyone. Some people would consider that good news, but it's bad news for others. I think the Hall of Fame probably wants more inductees because it brings people to the induction weekend and to the museum so I would be surprised if they made any changes that would make it less likely that new inductees are selected.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by jayshum

The larger the committees, the less likely that they select anyone. Some people would consider that good news, but it's bad news for others. I think the Hall of Fame probably wants more inductees because it brings people to the induction weekend and to the museum so I would be surprised if they made any changes that would make it less likely that new inductees are selected.

You'd THINK the Hall of Fame would be in favor of more inductees, but everything they do seems to be working towards the opposite. I can't comment on whether that is by design or incompetence.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

You'd THINK the Hall of Fame would be in favor of more inductees, but everything they do seems to be working towards the opposite. I can't comment on whether that is by design or incompetence.

I think they're trying to limit how often and how long the PED guys can appear and stay on the ballot with the hope being that once none of them are eligible to be on any more ballots, the focus can turn to other players who should be considered. Whether or not it ultimately works out that way remains to be seen.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I think they're trying to limit how often and how long the PED guys can appear and stay on the ballot with the hope being that once none of them are eligible to be on any more ballots, the focus can turn to other players who should be considered. Whether or not it ultimately works out that way remains to be seen.

Perhaps. I don't think ignoring the PED guys is the right answer. I mean, how long can a hall of fame without the all-time HR leader (single season and career), a top-5 all time pitcher, and other greats of the 1980's-2000's remain relevant?

That being said, I think leaving them off ballots for a few cycles is a good start. There's plenty of less controversial candidates to consider.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Perhaps. I don't think ignoring the PED guys is the right answer. I mean, how long can a hall of fame without the all-time HR leader (single season and career), a top-5 all time pitcher, and other greats of the 1980's-2000's remain relevant?

That being said, I think leaving them off ballots for a few cycles is a good start. There's plenty of less controversial candidates to consider.

I think they dropped the number of years on the writers ballot from 15 to 10 to get the PED guys off sooner. I think this change is to prevent them from continuously showing up on committee era ballots if there is no evidence of their support growing. Their achievements are certainly recognized in the Hall of Fame even if they don't have plaques in the gallery so I think the Hall of Fame will survive without them ever being inducted, which looks like the most likely outcome right now.

[G1911]

The more people that vote, the less likely it is people get elected for reasons of friendship, which has been a huge problem for a long time. Baines being the most recent one, but how many of Frankie Frisch's pals are in just because he and his boys liked them? Other kinds of corruption would occur, but the current process is about as bad as can possibly be chosen if the goal is to have some kind of reasonable basis for selections. A dozen insiders with a closed ballot all but guarantees BS results.

I would hope rules would be redesigned to try and combat the blatant corruption rather than being rewritten to try and keep out the known steroid guys, except for David Ortiz, who is exempt from such an implied policy. Put them in or keep them out, a non-corrupt voting basis should take priority over any individual selection. None of us will agree with every choice, but a fairly large number of people have been selected for purely corrupt or political reasons that don't really have any kind of sincere, honest argument for meriting inclusion. If we must have names added every year, they should reasonably be either the best players not in, or the most significant and important players not in, rather than whoever has the most pals on the tiny insider committee that doesn't reveal their votes. Of course, an honest process not designed for corruption will never happen

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I think they dropped the number of years on the writers ballot from 15 to 10 to get the PED guys off sooner. I think this change is to prevent them from continuously showing up on committee era ballots if there is no evidence of their support growing. Their achievements are certainly recognized in the Hall of Fame even if they don't have plaques in the gallery so I think the Hall of Fame will survive without them ever being inducted, which looks like the most likely outcome right now.

I think the reduction did help reduce the logjam. I mean this year Manny will have his last year on the ballot, but we still have what, another 5 years of Arod on the ballot? Those two guys getting 34 & 37% of the vote is a real ballot clogger.

Maybe the HOF's goal is to keep these guys out. I don't know.

[KJA]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Perhaps. I don't think ignoring the PED guys is the right answer. I mean, how long can a hall of fame without the all-time HR leader (single season and career), a top-5 all time pitcher, and other greats of the 1980's-2000's remain relevant?

That being said, I think leaving them off ballots for a few cycles is a good start. There's plenty of less controversial candidates to consider.

I say let the PED guys in, if Bud Selig is in then there is no reason why they shouldn't be. It happened on his watch, he benefited from those guys, that home run chase between Sosa and McGwire was huge, it got me back into baseball after that 94 strike.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by KJA

I say let the PED guys in, if Bud Selig is in then there is no reason why they shouldn't be. It happened on his watch, he benefited from those guys, that home run chase between Sosa and McGwire was huge, it got me back into baseball after that 94 strike.

I'm with you on the McGwire/Sosa chase and that being a big draw back to the game. I also think that the PED guys should probably be in the Hall of Fame, but with mention of their transgression on their plague. That allows the Hall to be complete as a museum of baseball history, but call out the ills of that era.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

The larger the committees, the less likely that they select anyone. Some people would consider that good news, but it's bad news for others. I think the Hall of Fame probably wants more inductees because it brings people to the induction weekend and to the museum so I would be surprised if they made any changes that would make it less likely that new inductees are selected.

If what you say is true, that suggests people are getting in who maybe shouldn't be in. "I can only get in if a small group of my friends vote" isn't exactly an impressive credential. Those groups also make Type 2 errors (keeping deserving players out). The system sucks IMO.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If what you say is true, that suggests people are getting in who maybe shouldn't be in. "I can only get in if a small group of my friends vote" isn't exactly an impressive credential. Those groups also make Type 2 errors (keeping deserving players out). The system sucks IMO.

Harold Baines seems to be the most recent example of the former. As for the latter, I think there may be more worthy candidates who aren't even getting on the ballots than people on the ballots who are deserving but not being voted in. I think the changes made to ballot eligibility are trying to address that issue.

[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.

[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?

[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?