Hall of Fame changes criteria (again)
 

Per Jayson Stark on Twitter:

[I]A new wrinkle that will affect future Hall of Fame elections:

Starting with this December's election, players on an Era Committee ballot must get at least 5 votes to be eligible for a spot on the next ballot.

And players who don't get 5 votes in multiple elections will fall off those Era Committee ballots forever.[/I]

By sheer coincidence, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are due for consideration this year, and also received fewer than five votes last time around.

I am sure that there is no shortage of people on this board who are glad to see the Hall slam the door on those two (and others in the same boat).

Keep in mind though, that had this rule been in place, it would have also eliminated future Hall of Fame players such as Dick Allen, Dave Parker, and Minnie Minoso.

I’m ok with this. Needs to be limit on how many times a player can be considered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, Barry Bonds was my favorite player growing up, and I was infuriated when the voters didn't vote him into the Hall of Fame, but I'm glad the Hall is doing this. It means I can put the possibility of him getting voted in via a committee out of my mind. I don't need the Hall of Fame politics as part of my life -- I can focus on things about the game that bring me joy instead.

[QUOTE=JMStang;19836853]I’m ok with this. Needs to be limit on how many times a player can be considered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Yeah, there are too many steroid-era players being considered for the modern committee. This will help those who have been truly overlooked by the voters. It will give them a fair chance at consideration.

I'm thinking of guys like Kenny Lofton and Jeff Kent.

getting easier to ignore it

Also, this isn't the first time the Hall of Fame has changed their voting rules in an apparent attempt to keep both Bonds and Clemens out. They previously reduced the number of years of eligibility from 15 year to 10 in 2014, which was the 2nd year of voting for both Bonds and Clemens. They claimed at the time it was done to clear the backlog of candidates, but all it did was specifically reduce Bonds' and Clemens' chances of getting voted in.

I like this

Now you know why baseball is dying with anybody that isn't the most puritanical of fans.

I've seen many in Gen Z that don't give a crap about the steroid era players using. Many see it as them being used by MLB and dumped. It was actually pretty interesting having that discussion. Take it, they just see highlights of the players but its clear how great they were on both paper and on video. I'm curious if that's the goal here, to take it out of the hands of future voters. It's somewhat diabolical if you look at what's been done.

Seems to be a double edged sword
Records aside ….
We all enjoyed watching record homeruns and baseballs
Leaving orbit
And yes the athletes were paid well I guess
Does the viewing public have some responsibility here ?
If we were part of it viewing don’t we possibly have some responsibility ?
Or no ? It was just pure entertainment ?
Perhaps the public should have a say in hof voting
No offense but bonds or Clemons against some of the other members ?
Who would you pay to see again ?

This seems very arbitrary. The vet votes is supposed to give players who may have been missed a chance. So what if some players reappear. The committee picks the finalists anyways. Just pick different guys if you want to switch it up. The voters aren't obligated to vote on them.

[QUOTE=Scottish Punk;19836984]This seems very arbitrary. The vet votes is supposed to give players who may have been missed a chance. So what if some players reappear. The committee picks the finalists anyways. Just pick different guys if you want to switch it up. The voters aren't obligated to vote on them.[/QUOTE]

I think this change is meant to reduce the pool of candidates over time so that players with a stronger case can get more attention and support.

But ultimately, it seems to be a way to eliminate players like Bonds and Clemens from future consideration by committees that might be more inclined to vote for them.

[QUOTE=Archangel1775;19836982][B]I've seen many in Gen Z that don't give a crap about the steroid era players using.[/B] Many see it as them being used by MLB and dumped. It was actually pretty interesting having that discussion. Take it, they just see highlights of the players but its clear how great they were on both paper and on video. I'm curious if that's the goal here, to take it out of the hands of future voters. It's somewhat diabolical if you look at what's been done.[/QUOTE]

I don't care about them using just like I don't care about Tatis using. They're professional athletes, I'd be more surprised by them [I]not[/I] using something.

I don't believe this means Clemens and Bonds won't get in. I think the Era voters will take the new rules into account and be more likely to vote for them.

[QUOTE=Handsome Wes;19836843]Per Jayson Stark on Twitter:

[I]A new wrinkle that will affect future Hall of Fame elections:

Starting with this December's election, players on an Era Committee ballot must get at least 5 votes to be eligible for a spot on the next ballot.

And players who don't get 5 votes in multiple elections will fall off those Era Committee ballots forever.[/I]

By sheer coincidence, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are due for consideration this year, and also received fewer than five votes last time around.

I am sure that there is no shortage of people on this board who are glad to see the Hall slam the door on those two (and others in the same boat).

Keep in mind though, that had this rule been in place, it would have also eliminated future Hall of Fame players such as Dick Allen, Dave Parker, and Minnie Minoso.[/QUOTE]

This is disappointing. Especially when you consider the limit of 3 votes per ballot. It's almost as if the Hall of Fame is missing the point of honoring its greats & rather toss them all in the graveyard of history. They are once again so worried about Bonds, Clemens, etc getting in, they aren’t even considering the impact outside of the PED era. Any time you create rules based on a select few you end up with unintended consequences.

It also would have eliminated Oliva. Tommy John too.

[QUOTE=JWBlue;19836995]I don't believe this means Clemens and Bonds won't get in. I think the Era voters will take the new rules into account and be more likely to vote for them.[/QUOTE]

It's possible, but they got less than four votes last time.

It'll probably come down to who is on the committee. If it's primarily guys from the 80s, I think they'll have a tough time getting enough votes. If it's guys from the 90s, they might have a shot of at least staying eligible.

[QUOTE=Skipscards;19837007]This is disappointing. Especially when you consider the limit of 3 votes per ballot. It's almost as if the Hall of Fame is missing the point of honoring its greats & rather toss them all in the graveyard of history. They are once again so worried about Bonds, Clemens, etc getting in, they aren’t even considering the impact outside of the PED era. Any time you create rules based on a select few you end up with unintended consequences.

It also would have eliminated Oliva. Tommy John too.[/QUOTE]

Skip, I think those running the Hall of Fame really, really don't want Bonds and Clemens in. They are willing to change the voting rules to ensure they don't have a shot down the line. Even if it hurts other players as a result.

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;19837009]It's possible, but they got less than four votes last time.

It'll probably come down to who is on the committee. If it's primarily guys from the 80s, I think they'll have a tough time getting enough votes. If it's guys from the 90s, they might have a shot of at least staying eligible.[/QUOTE]

With a 3 vote limit, it is impossible to have any consistency. McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Palmiero, Kevin Brown, Manny Ramirez, Sheffield, all have strong statistical cases. Even if some did survive, (I don’t think any will), there’s no way all of them do.

Keep in mind, Bonds will have zero support. He never played with a single Hall of Famer.

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;19837016]Skip, I think those running the Hall of Fame really, really don't want Bonds and Clemens in. They are willing to change the voting rules to ensure they don't have a shot down the line. Even if it hurts other players as a result.[/QUOTE]

Completely agree.

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;19836992]I think this change is meant to reduce the pool of candidates over time so that players with a stronger case can get more attention and support.

But ultimately, it seems to be a way to eliminate players like Bonds and Clemens from future consideration by committees that might be more inclined to vote for them.[/QUOTE]

This isn't like 5 years after retirement with a threshold to stay on for 10 years. The committee just picks 8 players. You don't need rules for staying on. If the committee feels like a player is being over looked than add him. At some point, you are just quibbling about the 9th or 10th "most eligible" player. I don't see many players not getting a fair shake.

Yes, i agree with you. This feels directed at Bonds and Clemens. They don't want them in and don't want to talk about it each vote.

[QUOTE=Skipscards;19837007]This is disappointing. Especially when you consider the limit of 3 votes per ballot. It's almost as if the Hall of Fame is missing the point of honoring its greats & rather toss them all in the graveyard of history. They are once again so worried about Bonds, Clemens, etc getting in, they aren’t even considering the impact outside of the PED era. Any time you create rules based on a select few you end up with unintended consequences.

It also would have eliminated Oliva. Tommy John too.[/QUOTE]

Of course this could create unintended consequences any kind of change or choice will. I think this creates two good things and is the reason why I am in support of it. It helps avoid ballot clogging, with it now limiting only three votes per ballot, I think the committees will have more focus and I think it will help limit the continuous debating of players who probably should not be on the ballot anyway. This brings me to my second one: it discourages debating the controversial candidates to death. At this point you are pro-bonds or anti-bonds, no middle ground. This should help to decide it more clearly. Maybe take it as a sign that they dont belong in the hall?

At the end of the day it will be interesting

It's utter hypocrisy for the HOF to keep steroid users out when one of these same "Veterans Committees" elected Bud Selig, the commissioner who presided over the steroid era and tacitly condoned their usage because of all the positive publicity McGwire & Sosa brought the game in 1998.

[QUOTE=awz50;19837025]Of course this could create unintended consequences any kind of change or choice will. I think this creates two good things and is the reason why I am in support of it. It helps avoid ballot clogging, with it now limiting only three votes per ballot, I think the committees will have more focus and I think it will help limit the continuous debating of players who probably should not be on the ballot anyway. This brings me to my second one: it discourages debating the controversial candidates to death. At this point you are pro-bonds or anti-bonds, no middle ground. This should help to decide it more clearly. Maybe take it as a sign that they dont belong in the hall?[/QUOTE]

Sure but imagine this ballot:
Kent, Whitaker, Murphy, Mattingly, Lofton, Edmonds, Delgado, Cone.
1 or 2 get in & the rest likely never even get on another ballot. That’s without PED guys, Schilling, or any relievers.

This rule change in concert with the 3 vote limit rule change they implemented a few years ago make this an awful idea. Worse yet will be the pre-1980 committee where there are no PED users, but they have to consider managers, Negro Leaguers, MLB players, Executives, all together on one ballot encompassing 100 years of baseball. Better not slip up and be on the wrong ballot.

These rule changes have all been reactionary to a very narrow moment in history.

[QUOTE=awz50;19837025]Of course this could create unintended consequences any kind of change or choice will. I think this creates two good things and is the reason why I am in support of it. It helps avoid ballot clogging, with it now limiting only three votes per ballot, I think the committees will have more focus and I think it will help limit the continuous debating of players who probably should not be on the ballot anyway. This brings me to my second one: it discourages debating the controversial candidates to death. At this point you are pro-bonds or anti-bonds, no middle ground. This should help to decide it more clearly. Maybe take it as a sign that they dont belong in the hall?[/QUOTE]


Exactly. Give some other guys a shot at the HOF such as Bill Freehan, Keith Hernandez, Lou Whitaker, Bobby Grich, Graig Nettles, Lance Berkman, Kenny Lofton, Jim Edmonds, Dwight Evans, Reggie Smith, David Cone, Bret Saberhagen and Dave Stieb. They are worth having a debate over and are all better than at least 20 guys already in the HOF.

It is pretty obvious that the current Hall of Famers want nothing to do with guys who cheated to put up their numbers and cheated them out of awards and bigger contracts. If you keep putting the same guys on the ballot that are never going to get elected, it just prolongs the wait for others. We don't need any more Ron Santos and Dick Allens being elected after they die.

So dumb. They are going to eliminate all sorts of real candidates.

[QUOTE=Poorboy;19836983]Seems to be a double edged sword
Records aside ….
We all enjoyed watching record homeruns and baseballs
Leaving orbit
And yes the athletes were paid well I guess
Does the viewing public have some responsibility here ?
If we were part of it viewing don’t we possibly have some responsibility ?
Or no ? It was just pure entertainment ?
Perhaps the public should have a say in hof voting
No offense but bonds or Clemons against some of the other members ?
Who would you pay to see again ?[/QUOTE]

If the general public had a say in the voting you would see much worse players than Harold Baines and other marginal players getting in the hall of fame.

In the class of 2026' the induction ceremony would include Jerry Remy and he would be further honered at Fenway "Pak"....

[QUOTE=mfw13;19837031]It's utter hypocrisy for the HOF to keep steroid users out when one of these same "Veterans Committees" elected Bud Selig, the commissioner who presided over the steroid era and tacitly condoned their usage because of all the positive publicity McGwire & Sosa brought the game in 1998.[/QUOTE]

+ 100 ⚾️

[QUOTE=rats60;19837053]Exactly. Give some other guys a shot at the HOF such as Bill Freehan, Keith Hernandez, Lou Whitaker, Bobby Grich, Graig Nettles, Lance Berkman, Kenny Lofton, Jim Edmonds, Dwight Evans, Reggie Smith, David Cone, Bret Saberhagen and Dave Stieb. They are worth having a debate over and are all better than at least 20 guys already in the HOF.



It is pretty obvious that the current Hall of Famers want nothing to do with guys who cheated to put up their numbers and cheated them out of awards and bigger contracts. If you keep putting the same guys on the ballot that are never going to get elected, it just prolongs the wait for others. We don't need any more Ron Santos and Dick Allens being elected after they die.[/QUOTE]Do you not see that this will likely result in all of these guys falling off the ballot permanently and never getting in?

[QUOTE=OhioLawyerF5;19837206]Do you not see that this will likely result in all of these guys falling off the ballot permanently and never getting in?[/QUOTE]
I will answer this only because it was attached to my original comment.

I think that it is entirely possible, and maybe that’s the point. If a player can’t even muster five votes from a panel specifically designed to reconsider overlooked candidates, then maybe their case for induction just isn’t strong enough.

The Hall of Fame is supposed to be exclusive, and while some deserving players may get lost in the shuffle, the reality is that if a candidate repeatedly fails to gain traction, it likely reflects the overall consensus that they don’t belong. This rule ensures that the committees focus on players with a real shot rather than continuously revisiting the same names without progress. That said, if the system truly values honoring overlooked greats, maybe the solution isn’t to keep rehashing the same candidates indefinitely but to improve the way worthy players are identified and evaluated in the first place.

[QUOTE=awz50;19837223]I will answer this only because it was attached to my original comment.

I think that it is entirely possible, and maybe that’s the point. If a player can’t even muster five votes from a panel specifically designed to reconsider overlooked candidates, then maybe their case for induction just isn’t strong enough.

The Hall of Fame is supposed to be exclusive, and while some deserving players may get lost in the shuffle, the reality is that if a candidate repeatedly fails to gain traction, it likely reflects the overall consensus that they don’t belong. This rule ensures that the committees focus on players with a real shot rather than continuously revisiting the same names without progress. That said, if the system truly values honoring overlooked greats, maybe the solution isn’t to keep rehashing the same candidates indefinitely but to improve the way worthy players are identified and evaluated in the first place.[/QUOTE]

First, you and I both know that wasn't the point. We all know what the real point was, and it wasn't to limit Keith Hernandez's consideration.

Second, if a player has no real shot, because they aren't truly worthy, then their being an option to be considered won't take away from looking at more worthy players anyway. If they are taking votes and consideration from who you consider more worthy, that means they must be seen as worthy by some, and therefore have a valid place on the ballot. The reality is, there are many instances of clearly hallworthy players needing many years before they get the recognition they deserve. This eliminates that. I am simply not buying the argument that borderline players are taking away from slam dunk HOFers. Being on a veterans committee ballot already means you are borderline, or you would've been voted in by the writers. Permanently removing potential candidates after 2 times on the ballot is a terrible approach to considering borderline candidates. The committees are so small that 2 times and done is an injustice to potentially worthy candidates whose careers were overlooked and underappreciated. Which is the whole point of the committees, right?

But regardless, my comment was to Rats, who clearly wants those borderline guys to get more consideration. So your entire premise has nothing to do with my comment.

[QUOTE=awz50;19837223]
I think that it is entirely possible, and maybe that’s the point. If a player can’t even muster five votes from a panel specifically designed to reconsider overlooked candidates, then maybe their case for induction just isn’t strong enough.
[/QUOTE]

I agree - but only to a point. As mentioned earlier, there are plenty of players who've been enshrined -- deservedly so! -- who would have been forever eliminated from consideration had this rule been in place.

Additionally, as mentioned earlier, you can easily stack an eight-player ballot with eight players who easily deserve consideration. Given the vote limits, you will have a Minnie Minoso-type player who will be removed from future ballots.

And that also fails to take into account how players may be viewed differently as time goes on. Bobby Grich, for example, was a one-and-done on the HOF ballot. And yet he is a cause de celebre among the stat community these days. While he hasn't been considered by the vet committee yet, what's to say that someone like him will be permanently removed years before his career is appreciated?

--

I would make three changes that I think would at least satisfy most people:
- For the BBWAA ballot, the threshold for staying on goes up 5% each year. On your first ballot you need to clear 5%; second, 10%, etc. That would at least eliminate players who clog up the ballot while getting stuck at 20 - 25% of the vote every year.
- We revert back to the "era committees" and rotation of a few years ago. I thought we had a good system with the "early baseball every ten years", "golden era every five", and "todays game / modern baseball twice every five." We had good delineations as well. Let's go back to that.
- The era committees -- people can vote for as many candidates as they want. However, only the top two will be inducted during that cycle.

[QUOTE=awz50;19837223]I will answer this only because it was attached to my original comment.

I think that it is entirely possible, and maybe that’s the point. If a player can’t even muster five votes from a panel specifically designed to reconsider overlooked candidates, then maybe their case for induction just isn’t strong enough.

The Hall of Fame is supposed to be exclusive, and while some deserving players may get lost in the shuffle, the reality is that if a candidate repeatedly fails to gain traction, it likely reflects the overall consensus that they don’t belong. This rule ensures that the committees focus on players with a real shot rather than continuously revisiting the same names without progress. That said, if the system truly values honoring overlooked greats, maybe the solution isn’t to keep rehashing the same candidates indefinitely but to improve the way worthy players are identified and evaluated in the first place.[/QUOTE]

The problem is, when you have a lot of candidates worthy of consideration, you are going to permanently block some from ever getting in. I’d agree with you if there were just one or two candidates missing from the Hall, but with each voting member limited to 3 votes, it is impossible to avoid permanently eliminating worthy candidates with this new rule. There are literally dozens of players worthy of consideration.

Also, the Veterans Committee process is a small group and the members change within the committees fairly regularly. Players aren’t getting revisited by the same voters each time. Some committees have different perspectives.

[QUOTE=Skipscards;19837347]The problem is, when you have a lot of candidates worthy of consideration, you are going to permanently block some from ever getting in. I’d agree with you if there were just one or two candidates missing from the Hall, but with each voting member limited to 3 votes, it is impossible to avoid permanently eliminating worthy candidates with this new rule. There are literally dozens of players worthy of consideration.

Also, the Veterans Committee process is a small group and the members change within the committees fairly regularly. Players aren’t getting revisited by the same voters each time. Some committees have different perspectives.[/QUOTE]

Well they can just change the rules again. This is all made up. People treat the hof rules like they were on a third tablet Moses brought down from the mountain.

[QUOTE=JRX;19837361] People treat the hof rules like they were on a third tablet Moses brought down from the mountain.[/QUOTE]

Isn't the third tablet the one that Mel Brooks dropped

[QUOTE=Handsome Wes;19837378]Isn't the third tablet the one that Mel Brooks dropped[/QUOTE]

That had the hof rules lol

Let's face it, a lot of people now alive are going to need to die before Bonds and Clemens get in the HOF, including Bonds and Clemens. Pretty much everybody knows this, so the BBWAA realized it might be for the best to stop wasting everyone's time. Regardless of your position on Bonds and Clemens, you have to admit this is an elegant solution to make this problem go away without needing to ban these guys outright like Rose and Shoeless Joe.

It's kinda like when Kanye ran for president. That scared the crap out of people on all sides because everybody had to assume there was a chance he could actually win. But the answer there wasn't to try to campaign against him or otherwise treat him like a legitimate candidate. People just focused on enforcing rules to remove him from enough state ballots so he had no shot.

I'm half expecting someone to create a separate hall of fame and induct all the players that should be in based solely on their performance on the field.

[QUOTE=OhioLawyerF5;19837206]Do you not see that this will likely result in all of these guys falling off the ballot permanently and never getting in?[/QUOTE]

No, this is the same committee that elected Rick Ferrell because the head of the HOF asked committee members to vote for him so he didn't receive 0 votes. These elections don't happen in a vaccuum. If a player doesn't receive 5 votes the first time on the ballot, committee members will know it. When they come up again, members know that if they don't vote for them, they won't ever get in.

If a player can't get more than 25% multiple times, maybe they don't belong in the HOF. Why should certain players get rejected over and over again while others never get a chance with the Veterans Committee? This will keep ballots from being stale with the same rejects. It is good to give more players an opportunity at election from their fellow players.

[QUOTE=rats60;19837414]No, this is the same committee that elected Rick Ferrell because the head of the HOF asked committee members to vote for him so he didn't receive 0 votes. These elections don't happen in a vaccuum. If a player doesn't receive 5 votes the first time on the ballot, committee members will know it. When they come up again, members know that if they don't vote for them, they won't ever get in.

If a player can't get more than 25% multiple times, maybe they don't belong in the HOF. Why should certain players get rejected over and over again while others never get a chance with the Veterans Committee? This will keep ballots from being stale with the same rejects. It is good to give more players an opportunity at election from their fellow players.[/QUOTE]

I missed the part where nobody had a chance to get in the hof. The problem has always been that you've had different groups gate keeping it with no defined rules

[QUOTE=Handsome Wes;19837345]I agree - but only to a point. As mentioned earlier, there are plenty of players who've been enshrined -- deservedly so! -- who would have been forever eliminated from consideration had this rule been in place.

Additionally, as mentioned earlier, you can easily stack an eight-player ballot with eight players who easily deserve consideration. Given the vote limits, you will have a Minnie Minoso-type player who will be removed from future ballots.

And that also fails to take into account how players may be viewed differently as time goes on. [B] Bobby Grich[/B], for example, was a one-and-done on the HOF ballot. And yet he is a cause de celebre among the stat community these days. While he hasn't been considered by the vet committee yet, what's to say that someone like him will be permanently removed years before his career is appreciated?

--

I would make three changes that I think would at least satisfy most people:
- For the BBWAA ballot, the threshold for staying on goes up 5% each year. On your first ballot you need to clear 5%; second, 10%, etc. That would at least eliminate players who clog up the ballot while getting stuck at 20 - 25% of the vote every year.
- We revert back to the "era committees" and rotation of a few years ago. I thought we had a good system with the "early baseball every ten years", "golden era every five", and "todays game / modern baseball twice every five." We had good delineations as well. Let's go back to that.
- The era committees -- people can vote for as many candidates as they want. However, only the top two will be inducted during that cycle.[/QUOTE]

Under the current system, Bobby Grich is never getting a second chance. By eliminating guys who can't get more than 25% on multiple ballots, players like Grich will have their second chance with the Veterans Committee.

If Bobby Grich is the hill people are dying on at this point, then I think the HOF rules are totally fine. Nothing to see here, it is time to move on to something worth arguing about.

I absolutely don't think they need to limit it in this way, and the change serves little practical purpose other than allowing the current committee to say f-u to certain PED players. I also think it doesn't matter because as soon as there is a committee that is sympathetic to the PED players, they'll just change the rules again.

[QUOTE=rats60;19837414]No, this is the same committee that elected Rick Ferrell because the head of the HOF asked committee members to vote for him so he didn't receive 0 votes. These elections don't happen in a vaccuum. If a player doesn't receive 5 votes the first time on the ballot, committee members will know it. When they come up again, members know that if they don't vote for them, they won't ever get in.

If a player can't get more than 25% multiple times, maybe they don't belong in the HOF. Why should certain players get rejected over and over again while others never get a chance with the Veterans Committee? This will keep ballots from being stale with the same rejects. It is good to give more players an opportunity at election from their fellow players.[/QUOTE]

That's an awful lot of faith you are putting into committees, that change regularly, to keep people you strongly feel should be enshrined from being permanently inelgible.

I sense there is another motivation to your support of this rule change, because the argument that it will help your list of candidates doesn't hold water. I wonder what that motivation might be? :coffee:

[QUOTE=JRX;19837361]Well they can just change the rules again. This is all made up. People treat the hof rules like they were on a third tablet Moses brought down from the mountain.[/QUOTE]

That's fair, but the problem is, you can't predict which rule will get revised and which will become sacrosanct. The Hall operates in a vacuum.

[QUOTE=Handsome Wes;19837345]For the BBWAA ballot, the threshold for staying on goes up 5% each year. On your first ballot you need to clear 5%; second, 10%, etc. [/QUOTE]

That's a great idea!

I also think there needs to be some clarity and revision in how people are selected for consideration by these committees. For example, how did Steve Garvey end up on the most recent committee ballot instead of Keith Hernandez? Why was Dave Parker considered but not Dale Murphy?

I would suggest that the first qualification for being on a committee ballot should be a minimum level of support over time on the BBWAA ballot....maybe at least one year at 50%, or five years at 40%, or all ten years at 25%+.

Then a separate preliminary ballot for the "one & done" guys like Grich or Johan Santana that would let them advance to the main ballot.

[QUOTE=OhioLawyerF5;19837520]That's an awful lot of faith you are putting into committees, that change regularly, to keep people you strongly feel should be enshrined from being permanently inelgible.

I sense there is another motivation to your support of this rule change, because the argument that it will help your list of candidates doesn't hold water. I wonder what that motivation might be? :coffee:[/QUOTE]

I don't have a list of candidates. I just listed some names of players who haven't been on the Veterans ballot or in the case of Evans, a guy who got a lot of support and then was dropped. I don't think it is fair to have the same guys on the ballots over and over, whether it is Garvey and John, who I'd like to see elected, or Bonds and Clemens, guys I don't think deserve it.

I don't make the rules and I don't have a vote, so in the end whatever they do is fine. I am not the one crying because a favorite player may never get elected to the HOF.

A lot of the problem can be traced to the fact that there are no minimum statistical qualifications other than having played ten seasons in the majors, either for the BBWAA ballot, or for the committee ballots.

Therefore you get a huge amount of inconsistency, not just in the voting, but also in who is eligible for consideration.

For example, for position players, you could establish the following minimum qualifications....400 HR, or 500 SB, or 50 WAR, or a 125 OPS+, or 2 MVPs, or 5 Gold Gloves....if you meet any one of those qualifications, you become eligible.

For pitchers it could be something like 2000 IP or 250 quality starts, or 50 WAR, or a career 125 ERA+, or a career WHIP of 1.20 or less, or 500 saves.

[QUOTE=rats60;19837690]. I am not the one crying because a favorite player may never get elected to the HOF.[/QUOTE]

Neither am I. I'm not a fan of any of those people you listed. But this change will screw them over, along with many other worthy candidates. Shame you can't understand that.

[QUOTE=mfw13;19837712]A lot of the problem can be traced to the fact that there are no minimum statistical qualifications other than having played ten seasons in the majors, either for the BBWAA ballot, or for the committee ballots.

Therefore you get a huge amount of inconsistency, not just in the voting, but also in who is eligible for consideration.

For example, for position players, you could establish the following minimum qualifications....400 HR, or 500 SB, or 50 WAR, or a 125 OPS+, or 2 MVPs, or 5 Gold Gloves....if you meet any one of those qualifications, you become eligible.

For pitchers it could be something like 2000 IP or 250 quality starts, or 50 WAR, or a career 125 ERA+, or a career WHIP of 1.20 or less, or 500 saves.[/QUOTE]

There's never been a standard. It started with the best players then expanded to their friends then to who the media is friends with then to the guys they weren't after they refused to vote for ped guys and newer players they weren't friends with and now the new veterans committee is back to voting in their friends.

I wonder if Milli Vanilli will ever get into the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame. Yeah, they cheated but you could dance to their music.
Hmmm,
Vinny :D

[QUOTE=mfw13;19837031]It's utter hypocrisy for the HOF to keep steroid users out when one of these same "Veterans Committees" elected Bud Selig, the commissioner who presided over the steroid era and tacitly condoned their usage because of all the positive publicity McGwire & Sosa brought the game in 1998.[/QUOTE]

100%

The moment he was elected should've opened the flood gates for all players.

[QUOTE=mfw13;19837031]It's utter hypocrisy for the HOF to keep steroid users out when one of these same "Veterans Committees" elected Bud Selig, the commissioner who presided over the steroid era and tacitly condoned their usage because of all the positive publicity McGwire & Sosa brought the game in 1998.[/QUOTE]

That's a great point. Plus, as long as people like Ortiz, Bagwell, and Pudge are in, there really isn't a good reason in keeping Bonds and Clemens out.

[QUOTE=Lonewolf;19837946]That's a great point. Plus, as long as people like Ortiz, Bagwell, and Pudge are in, there really isn't a good reason in keeping Bonds and Clemens out.[/QUOTE]Apparently, steroids are fine if they make a mediocre player into a HOFer. But they really anger people when they make a HOFer into a better HOFer. :rollseyes:

[QUOTE=rats60;19837414]No, this is the same committee that elected Rick Ferrell because the head of the HOF asked committee members to vote for him so he didn't receive 0 votes. These elections don't happen in a vaccuum. If a player doesn't receive 5 votes the first time on the ballot, committee members will know it. When they come up again, members know that if they don't vote for them, they won't ever get in.

If a player can't get more than 25% multiple times, maybe they don't belong in the HOF. Why should certain players get rejected over and over again while others never get a chance with the Veterans Committee? This will keep ballots from being stale with the same rejects. It is good to give more players an opportunity at election from their fellow players.[/QUOTE]

If only it were that simple. There are 16 voters on the Contemporary Era Committee. Each voter has only 3 maximum votes, totaling 48 possible votes. 8 candidates are eligible each time. If all or most of the candidates are deserving, it's very unlikely all candidates will receive the requisite 5 votes needed to be considered in the future.

This rule change is clearly intended to reduce the pool of candidates over time. It seems specifically targeted toward Bonds and Clemens, who each received less than 4 votes in their first time being voted on by the Contemporary Era Committee.

[QUOTE=Lonewolf;19837946]That's a great point. Plus, as long as people like Ortiz, Bagwell, and Pudge are in, there really isn't a good reason in keeping Bonds and Clemens out.[/QUOTE]

Where’s there any kind of proof with Bagwell?

Bonds and Clemens both also likely fail the character clause even if you toss the PEDs. Clemens may or may not have had an affair with a teenaged Mindy McCready while Bonds had multiple DV allegations.

Man, I have always been confident the veterans committee would fix the injustice and put Kenny Lofton I in the Hall. I was certain. Now with this new rule it seems like he might get shafted again.

Bonds and Clemens will eventually get it. I would almost bet my life on it.

Everyone in here knows it but likes to argue about it.

[QUOTE=JWBlue;19838141]Bonds and Clemens will eventually get it. I would almost bet my life on it.[/QUOTE]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/VsXkkt3.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=JWBlue;19838141]Bonds and Clemens will eventually get it. I would almost bet my life on it.

Everyone in here knows it but likes to argue about it.[/QUOTE]

Sadly, this is not the Football Hall of Fame, where on - and off - field behavior is laughed away (and no one cares). Bonds, and Clemens, won't get in because A) baseball feels the need to be sanctimonious, B) perhaps most egregiously, those two rubbed too many shoulders the wrong way.

In football you can help murder a guy, but as long as you're buddy-buddy with ESPN hosts, you'll get a Canton bust and get invites to be on "Dancing with the Stars"

So does this new rule doom a player that fails on the ballot but later has a successful managerial career? For example Torrre. They can't be reconsidered?

[QUOTE=ottobord;19838315]So does this new rule doom a player that fails on the ballot but later has a successful managerial career? For example Torrre. They can't be reconsidered?[/QUOTE]

I would have to imagine that a player such as Torre would be classified as a managerial candidate, and as such, get a second chance.

What I don't get is why baseball players are considered on either a managerial basis OR a playing career one - as opposed to taking both into consideration.

[QUOTE=Noles939913;19838111]Where’s there any kind of proof with Bagwell?

Bonds and Clemens both also likely fail the character clause even if you toss the PEDs. Clemens may or may not have had an affair with a teenaged Mindy McCready while Bonds had multiple DV allegations.[/QUOTE]

There's no proof with bagwell just a lot of suspicion. He just lifted weights constantly and turned into Scott Steiner. People forget there were so many stories about the workout regiment guys would have and the idiot writers just marveled at it rather than being real reporters and showing some skepticism like "how come these guys are able to workout 8hrs a day everyday"

[QUOTE=VinnyH;19837723]I wonder if Milli Vanilli will ever get into the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame. Yeah, they cheated but you could dance to their music.
Hmmm,
Vinny :D[/QUOTE]

[IMG]https://www.tfw2005.com/boards/attachments/okay-sounds-good-gif.30120486/[/IMG]

[QUOTE=corndog;19838358][IMG]https://www.tfw2005.com/boards/attachments/okay-sounds-good-gif.30120486/[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Girl, You Know It's True...still a banger.

[QUOTE=JRX;19838328]There's no proof with bagwell just a lot of suspicion. He just lifted weights constantly and turned into Scott Steiner. People forget there were so many stories about the workout regiment guys would have and the idiot writers just marveled at it rather than being real reporters and showing some skepticism like "how come these guys are able to workout 8hrs a day everyday"[/QUOTE]

But he stayed the same size for the remainder of his career and is still the same size today. It’s not like he turned into a mutant freak like Bonds and then shriveled up like a raisin when he got off the sauce.

[QUOTE=Noles939913;19838501]But he stayed the same size for the remainder of his career and is still the same size today. It’s not like he turned into a mutant freak like Bonds and then shriveled up like a raisin when he got off the sauce.[/QUOTE]

Working in his favor, he did fall apart at 36

[QUOTE=JRX;19838522]Working in his favor, he did fall apart at 36[/QUOTE]

I think it’s crazy he somehow only made 4 All-Star teams.

[QUOTE=Noles939913;19838501]But he stayed the same size for the remainder of his career and is still the same size today.[/QUOTE]

Uh, you might want to look at him his rookie season compared to '94 and the late 90s. Yes, he didn't come into the league skinny, but he bulked up quite a bit.

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;19838558]Uh, you might want to look at him his rookie season compared to '94 and the late 90s. Yes, he didn't come into the league skinny, but he bulked up quite a bit.[/QUOTE]

That’s what I meant dumb dumb. Once he bulked up he remained that same size to this day. He didn’t shrivel up like a 80 year old like Bonds did.

[QUOTE=Noles939913;19838618]That’s what I meant dumb dumb. Once he bulked up he remained that same size to this day. He didn’t shrivel up like a 80 year old like Bonds did.[/QUOTE]

That really doesn't mean anything. It could just mean he's still on stuff like TRT.

[QUOTE=Noles939913;19838501]But he stayed the same size for the remainder of his career and is still the same size today. It’s not like he turned into a mutant freak like Bonds and then shriveled up like a raisin when he got off the sauce.[/QUOTE]

Huh?

He shrank a ton, similar to how juicer's shrink when he they get off gear. Look at what he looked like at his induction press conference. He looked like he either never lifted or was sick and as far as I know he wasn't sick...

[QUOTE=Retired hobbist;19838672]Huh?

He shrank a ton, similar to how juicer's shrink when he they get off gear. Look at what he looked like at his induction press conference. He looked like he either never lifted or was sick and as far as I know he wasn't sick...[/QUOTE]

I’m not seeing it, doesn’t look sick to me.

[IMG]https://baseballhall.org/sites/default/files/_30A2189_0.jpg[/IMG]

Bonds on the other hand probably lost over 100 pounds.

[IMG]https://i.redd.it/f464vmrwojmb1.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Noles939913;19838952]I’m not seeing it, doesn’t look sick to me.

[IMG]https://baseballhall.org/sites/default/files/_30A2189_0.jpg[/IMG]

Bonds on the other hand probably lost over 100 pounds.

[IMG]https://i.redd.it/f464vmrwojmb1.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

I'm surprised Bonds got close to his original physique. Usually when guys dope they look like a typical 65 year old because their hormones are out of whack.

Yes this isn't the photo I saw of Bagwell. Maybe it was years earlier here he looks a typical man his age who doesn't hit the gym.

Hall of Fame changes criteria (again)
 

Just throwing this out there but Bonds got heavy into Cycling in his retirement years. Being big & bulky isn’t congruent with cycling and so I’d expect him to look the part.