Change Coming for HoF Voting Pool

[shysocks]

Bill Shaikin ‏@BillShaikin 35m35 minutes ago

Hall of Fame decides BBWAA members more than 10 years removed from actively covering the game can no longer vote for Hall of Fame.

 

Hard to see this as anything but good news.

[Texsox]

Bill Shaikin ‏@BillShaikin 35m35 minutes ago

Hall of Fame decides BBWAA members more than 10 years removed from actively covering the game can no longer vote for Hall of Fame.

 

Hard to see this as anything but good news.

 

I'd rather see a more selective removal.

 

If you believe this is a good idea, then anyone here also would not have a clue in voting because they did not cover the game. And we know that is false. You don't have to cover the game to vote To have to actively study the game. There is a difference. Making a blanket policy like that may get rid of some terrible voters, but you also may lose some good ones.

[Buehrle>Wood]

I never get the complaints about the hall of fame voting process. At the end of the day, it's BY FAR the most prestigious and selective hall of fame. The voting has kept it that way. Complain all you want but it's worked.

[LittleHurt05]

Bonds or bust!

[lasttriptotulsa]

I never get the complaints about the hall of fame voting process. At the end of the day, it's BY FAR the most prestigious and selective hall of fame. The voting has kept it that way. Complain all you want but it's worked.

 

It is the most exclusive but I still think the voting does a fairly poor job. I really need some of these voters to explain to me how John Smoltz is a 1st ballot guy while Mike Mussina can't get 25% of the vote.

[southsider2k5]

I never get the complaints about the hall of fame voting process. At the end of the day, it's BY FAR the most prestigious and selective hall of fame. The voting has kept it that way. Complain all you want but it's worked.

 

The steroid era, and lack of direction from the HOF associated with it, has really f***ed things up. There is this giant block of players right now with suspicions over there head, there is no clear guidance on how to handle them. Honestly after seeing how poorly Selig handled this era, it is kind of fitting to see the HOF process get blown up as a fitting annual black eye to the biggest disaster during his tenure.

[Texsox]

I agree with your comments from a baseball purist perspective.

 

Selig was selected by the owners. The steroid era brought fans back to the game and made money for the owners. Was Selig a disaster to his bosses? I don't think so. MLB is a business and it is run for the benefit of the owners. Most of the time everyone's priorities and ethics are lined up. But not always.

 

I'm not certain if it because baseball is my favorite sport of the big 4, but the baseball HoF has managed to be the only one I really care about beyond seeing if my favorite players get in. For the stats heads the old LPGA formula was the cleanest and most difficult to achieve to be in a HoF.

LPGA Tour golfers were eligible through a point system. Since 1999, LPGA members automatically qualified for World Golf Hall of Fame membership when they meet these three criteria:

 

Must be/have been an "active" LPGA Tour member for 10 years.

Must have won/been awarded at least one of the following - an LPGA major championship, the Vare Trophy or Player of the Year honors; and

Must have accumulated a total of 27 points, which are awarded as follows - one point for each LPGA official tournament win, two points for each LPGA major tournament win and one point for each Vare Trophy or Rolex Player of the Year honor earned.

 

Before 1999, players had to win 30 tournaments, including two majors; 35 tournaments with one major; or 40 tournaments in all to automatically qualify. At one time, players had to win two different majors to qualify with 30 wins, but this was changed earlier in the 1990s.

 

This point system is still used for selection to the LPGA Hall of Fame.

 

 

[Chisoxfn]

I agree with your comments from a baseball purist perspective.

 

Selig was selected by the owners. The steroid era brought fans back to the game and made money for the owners. Was Selig a disaster to his bosses? I don't think so. MLB is a business and it is run for the benefit of the owners. Most of the time everyone's priorities and ethics are lined up. But not always.

 

I'm not certain if it because baseball is my favorite sport of the big 4, but the baseball HoF has managed to be the only one I really care about beyond seeing if my favorite players get in. For the stats heads the old LPGA formula was the cleanest and most difficult to achieve to be in a HoF.

It also was an era that was ushered with great peace in terms of strikes (you had 94 and since then I believe this has been the longest stretch with no strikes (and I certainly hope that continues). Selig brought the wild card into the game (and the expansion of the post-season) including the 2nd wild card. When you look back on his legacy, some really great things happened.

 

I also think it was his time to go away and I'm excited at some of the stuff Manfred has done early one. However, I do think they need to do more to "speed" up the game. I also don't want some guys to get put in because statistically they were amazing but were underappreciated because of the common perception of the time. The hall is for the true elites and people that were special and dominant during respective era's. Baseball's hall is the only true shrine of a hall in professional sports.

[Rowand44]

I never get the complaints about the hall of fame voting process. At the end of the day, it's BY FAR the most prestigious and selective hall of fame. The voting has kept it that way. Complain all you want but it's worked.

Selective it is but that's not necessarily a good thing when it comes to the baseball hall.

[Texsox]

Along with the steroids causing issues for the HoF, I wish the NL would finally add the DH and somehow allow that to be considered at least in the same way as pitchers. We do not argue that a pitcher shouldn't be in the HoF because of their hitting, we shouldn't hold a DH accountable for not contributing with his glove.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I wish the NL would finally add the DH and somehow allow that to be considered at least in the same way as pitchers. We do not argue that a pitcher shouldn't be in the HoF because of their hitting, we shouldn't hold a DH accountable for not contributing with his glove.

 

Of course we should. A player who hits AND plays defense is better than one who only hits. DHs absolutely deserve to be penalized for being awful at something.

[lasttriptotulsa]

Of course we should. A player who hits AND plays defense is better than one who only hits. DHs absolutely deserve to be penalized for being awful at something.

 

I kind of agree with both of you. Yes, a player that plays good defense is more valuable, but a player should not be penalized for not contributing something that is not a requirement of the position. That's his point. If they don't penalize pitchers for not hitting (not a requirement of the position), why should they penalize DH's for not fielding (not a requirement of the position)?

[southsider2k5]

I kind of agree with both of you. Yes, a player that plays good defense is more valuable, but a player should not be penalized for not contributing something that is not a requirement of the position. That's his point. If they don't penalize pitchers for not hitting (not a requirement of the position), why should they penalize DH's for not fielding (not a requirement of the position)?

 

I feel the same way about closers.

[CrimsonWeltall]

That's his point. If they don't penalize pitchers for not hitting (not a requirement of the position), why should they penalize DH's for not fielding (not a requirement of the position)?

 

A pitcher's overwhelming value is through pitching, which no position player does. The DH's duties are literally a subset of the other position players. He does less, and that has to be noted.

 

To put it a different way: a pitcher pitches because he's awesome at pitching. A DH DHs because he sucks at defense.

[Quin]

A pitcher's overwhelming value is through pitching, which no position player does. The DH's duties are literally a subset of the other position players. He does less, and that has to be noted.

 

To put it a different way: a pitcher pitches because he's awesome at pitching. A DH DHs because he sucks at defense.

 

Adam LaRoche may not be hitting right now, but he sure doesn't suck at defense and is a DH.

[AlSoxfan]

I feel the same way about closers.

I can agree with you about closers. The save stat is the most bogus stat of all. They sit out there knowing the only inning they have to worry about is the 9th. I think the inherited runners stat is by far the most important stat for a relief pitcher. A closer more often then not gets a fresh inning with no one on base, and it may only be the 7th, 8th and 9th hitters. At least thats how it seems today vs. the days when guys like the Goose were pitching the 8th and 9th innings.