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.