Tag Archives: Hall of Fame

Should the Baseball Hall of Fame Change Its Voting Rules?

A couple of days ago, three former MLB players were inducted into the hallowed halls of the National Baseball Hall of Fame. All three of these players weren’t able to attend the ceremony as they all had passed away more than 70 years ago. It’s unfortunate that these Hall of Famers weren’t able to receive the recognition (in person) that they earned.

There was an article on SB Nation about a week ago that argued for changing the way the Hall of Fame voted. That is, the Baseball Hall of Fame has some of the most strict guidelines (among pro sports) when it comes to voting people into the Hall of Fame. Part of the argument is that it’ll make the ceremony much more exciting for those who attend and for the sport of baseball. As someone who’s played baseball for a good part of his life, I can probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve watched the Baseball Hall of Fame induction ceremony. That’s not good for the Hall of Fame nor is it good for baseball.

Another argument is that, in some years, there isn’t even anyone elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. And while that may have been necessary when there were only 16 teams in the league (55 years ago), there are now almost double that amount (30). In baseball, a player needs to be voted into the Hall of Fame by more than 75% of the people voting (the Baseball Writer’s Association of America). The author used the example of Craig Biggio who appeared on the ballot for the first time this year (players have to wait 5 years before they can appear on the ballot). Biggio earned the most votes of those on the ballot, but he didn’t meet the 75% threshold.

~

The author made some practical suggestions for changing the way the Baseball Hall of Fame votes on players being inducted, but I thought that one of the commenters on the article had some rather intriguing ideas. Granted, I realize that some of them are probably very unlikely of coming to pass (given drastic a shift this would be to the current method of electing members), but I thought that it’d be entertaining to include the ideas:

The eligible players should be voted on individually, not as a group. It makes no sense that a vote for Mike Piazza is a vote that can’t be cast for Craig Biggio or Roger Clemens. They have nothing to do with each other. Their candidacies have nothing to do with each other. They should not be limited by a finite pool. They should not have to compete with each other for votes. They should stand on their own merits.

Like I said earlier, I haven’t been following the Baseball Hall of Fame that closely, so I don’t know if this idea’s been proposed in the past. It sounds pretty good to me. Of course, I’m sure there’s a good counterargument as to why it’s not done this way, right?

Here’s the plan:

Every year, around November, the BBWAA gets a vote, living HoFers get a vote, current and retired broadcasters get a vote, retired MLB coaches, managers and executives get a vote, retired players get a vote, and the FANS who pay the  FREIGHT get a vote to, by consensus, determine the 12 most eligible players to be considered for HoF induction. Then starting in January, the votes are done, one player per month, by the BBWAA, 75%, up or down, in or out. For four weeks there is a national debate. First up: Barry Bonds. In or out? Let the sides argue. At the end of four weeks, ESPN hosts a two hour special on Sunday night. The first hour is a retrospective of the player’s career. The next half hour is a debate among three or four BBWAA members, for and against the player’s induction. The final half hour is the actual vote, carried live and with names and votes tallied in real time, so we can see who the assholes are, as the player himself watches and comments on the voting.

Think you’d watch that?

No more of this making the announcement anonymously on a Tuesday afternoon.

If the player gets 75%, he’s in. If he doesn’t, he’s ineligible for another five years. If he doesn’t make the consensus final ballot in five years, that’s it. He’s done forever.

Again, some really interesting ideas. This could be a way for baseball to reclaim its fan-base (or maybe get some new fans?) It’d certainly be entertaining to watch what this commenter proposed. Of course, before making these kinds of drastic changes, questions would need to posed and answered about the purpose and virtue of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Is it meant to honor former players? And if so, is it sullying to use it as a way to draw in more fans?

Should PED Users Be Allowed into the Baseball Hall of Fame? Old Hoss Radbourn Thinks So

A couple of weeks ago, there was a retweet that came up in my feed from someone I don’t currently follow. As a brief aside: this is another cool thing about Twitter. Even though I don’t follow a person, their tweets may show up if someone else retweets them. The cool part: I get introduced to someone (by way of 140 characters, their Twitter handle, and their Twitter picture), that I wouldn’t have otherwise knew existed.

Anyway, this tweet was from @OldHossRadbourn. For those who don’t know, “Old Hoss” is the nickname for Charles Radbourn who was a MLB pitcher in the late 1800s. Radbourn was elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1939. He was one of the first 25 players elected to the Hall of Fame. Radbourn passed away before the dawn of the 20th century, so it’s safe to say that the person behind the Twitter account is someone else. The tweet:

Obviously, the person who is behind this account is being sarcastic. In fact, one of the people who replied to this tweet made an even more salient point:

Like Radbourn, Ty Cobb was elected to the Hall of Fame very early on. In fact, Ty Cobb was part of the first class of players elected to the Hall of Fame. A bit of baseball trivia for you: Ty Cobb was elected to the Hall of Fame with a higher percentage of the vote than Babe Ruth (98.23% to 95.13%). While Ty Cobb was probably one of the greatest baseball players — ever — he’s also know for being one of “bad boys” of baseball.

From one of the reviews of a biography of Cobb:

Stump, Ty Cobb’s ghostwriter for the 1961 autobiography My Life in Baseball, fleshes out the story in this bare-knuckle, shocking biography. Born in Georgia in 1886, Cobb began his baseball career with the Detroit Tigers in 1905 and stayed in the big leagues until 1928-all the time hated by his rivals and teammates alike because of his meanness and combativeness. The author portrays the highlights of Cobb’s career: his first batting championship in 1907; his 96 stolen bases in 1915; and his three .400 seasons in 1911, 1912 and 1922. Stump also looks at Cobb’s involvement in game-fixing in 1919, his time as a manager and his activities after retiring. He died in 1961. The most sensational aspects of the book deal with Cobb’s personal life: his mother’s murder of his father, millionaire Cobb’s cheapness (no electricity or telephone in his house), wife beating, alcoholism and racial bigotry.

So, we’ve got meanness/combativeness, game-fixing, wife beating, alcoholism, and racial bigotry. Not exactly the upstanding qualities of a person you’d expect to be elected to a Hall of Fame, right? It’s worth noting that some of the severity of these claims have been challenged, but from what I’ve read/seen, I’m inclined to think that there’s at least some truth to them.

I suppose there’s the argument that Cobb’s transgressions don’t immediately relate to his ability to play the game. That is, those players who have dabbled in Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs), are immediately affecting their ability to play the game by using these drugs. I can totally understand that point.

Although, as I look down the list of players who have been suspended for using PEDs, there aren’t more than a handful of players that the casual MLB fan would recognize. Similarly, there are only a handful of all-stars. My point here is that even though players use PEDs, it doesn’t automatically skyrocket them to the top of the list of the best players in baseball. The player still has to play at an extremely high-level and for an extended period of time. No easy feat.

As the 2013 baseball hall of fame balloting starts to wind down (voting closes in January of 2013), there will probably be much ink spilt opposing the inclusion of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and there will probably be much ink spilt supporting their inclusion. I found these two cases, one from the San Jose Mercury and the other from NBCSports to seem well-rounded. In particular, the NBCSports article specifically addresses 3 common arguments you hear in opposition to players like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

If I were casting a ballot for the 2013 baseball hall of fame class, I’d almost certainly tick the box for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. The conclusion from the NBCSports article puts it succinctly:

In the final analysis, I hope we can all agree that there is no baseball reason whatsoever to keep Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens out of the Hall of Fame. Their baseball accomplishments — both those which can be measured by statistics and those which cannot — are so far beyond sufficient for induction that it’s almost laughable to list them.  To oppose their candidacy, then, one must make a moral or ethical case based on their drug use and the voter’s opinion of their character. And that case will almost certainly be made from a great distance and with imperfect information.

You may feel comfortable doing such a thing.  I do not.  And I believe that any Hall of Fame that does not include two of the best players to ever swing a bat or throw a ball, no matter what their flaws, is an utter joke.