why a player, who has long since been retired, gets more votes as the years progress? I can see being on the ballot twice. After that, you're through.

Because writers are idiots who seem to think they can control when someone gets in based on how good they think they are, even though there is nothing in the rules or the HoF to distinguish the difference.

That said, sometimes more time is needed to appreciate how good someone was. Seven years removed may not be enough to realize how good someone was compared to their peers at the time.

Also, the 10 votes per member limits who can get in. Without that limitation Biggio would be in. It's also one of the reasons Maddux didn't get in unanimously, some writers knew he'd get in so used their votes elsewhere.

Lots of problems with HoF voting, I'd put the 15 years on the ballot rule way at the bottom.

I can see it being tough to properly judge an era until enough time has passed. But if anything, I think they should wait 10 years before eligibility instead of 5. Maybe 5 for managers, since they may be old and have less time to enjoy their HOF reign.

And the axe should fall immediately if you don't get 20% at any time...not 5% or whatever it is now.

And if the vote is 99% and you are in the 1%, you should immediately lose your voting privileges. That would be my new rule if I could make one on the HOF. No excuse for not voting some players in other than complete incompetence or just being a ******.

that's why the veterans committee exists...to clean up the mess leftover by the voters

quote:

---

nd if the vote is 99% and you are in the 1%, you should immediately lose your voting privileges.

---

this doesn't work because of this:

quote:

---

It's also one of the reasons Maddux didn't get in unanimously, some writers knew he'd get in so used their votes elsewhere.

---

If you don't vote for a guy who got in, you should have to tell the BBWA why you didn't vote for him. If your answer is "because I knew he would get in so I voted for JT Snow instead" then you lose your vote.

You still use your vote on Maddux and cut your #10. That rule IS dumb, but really there are rarely or never 10 players that truly deserve consideration. I don't mind people voting on fringe players to give them some recognition, but not at the expense of voting someone who is once in a generation.

And I think most voters do it simply because a first ballot unanimous has never been done. I'm sorry there were moron voters who didn't vote for Babe Ruth or Willie Mays, but that's not a reason to do the same thing now.

quote:

---

but really there are rarely or never 10 players that truly deserve consideration

---

There has been more than 10 the last few years and that will continue for the next few.

They should just remove the limit.

I think the limit is as much the problem as the sanctimonious BBWAA

quote:

---

That rule IS dumb, but really there are rarely or never 10 players that truly deserve consideration.

---

I'm not saying all of the following are definite HOFers, but which of the following guys don't even deserve consideration:
Maddux
Glavine
Thomas
Biggio
Piazza
Morris
Bagwell
Raines
Clemens
Bonds
LSmith
Schilling
EMartinez
Trammell
Mussina
Kent
McGriff
McGwire
Walker
Mattingly
Sosa
Palmeiro

quote:

---

If you don't vote for a guy who got in, you should have to tell the BBWA why you didn't vote for him. If your answer is "because I knew he would get in so I voted for JT Snow instead" then you lose your vote

---

If you're going to have that rule, why allow someone like JT Snow on the ballot at all? Why not have a vote to decide who is even on the ballot in the first place?

quote:

---

I'm not saying all of the following are definite HOFers, but which of the following guys don't even deserve consideration:

---

Maybe all of those guys do, I don't know. I wouldn't vote for most of those guys, though.

So many products of the era- and I'm not just talking about steroids, but smaller ballparks, warmer weather, incredible legal nutrition supplements, modern technology, etc... whose numbers look very nice compared to the past 100 years of players but well, one of just a long list as we can see right here in front of us, of guys from contemporary times.

I hope this election is a wakeup to writers who thought they'd skip over a guy like Craig Biggio, that JT ****ing Snow, God bless him, isn't going to get elected. I wouldn't mind a more stringent screening process of both candidates and voters.

Still don't have a problem with the 75% threshold or the 10 maximum rule-

If not for all that I just don't want to watch a 17 hour induction ceremony.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 1/10/2014 12:37p).]

quote:

---

So many products of the era- and I'm not just talking about steroids, but smaller ballparks, warmer weather, incredible legal nutrition supplements, modern technology, etc... whose numbers look very nice compared to the past 100 years of players but well, one of just a long list as we can see right here in front of us, of guys from contemporary times.

---

Those guys are the best of the era.

I always hate comparing stats from different eras. Pitcher wins now compared to even the 80's is dumb (well, pitcher wins is dumb). HR comparisons are dumb.

Yes, the guys on that list had big numbers due to steroids and the era (ballparks, pitching, technology), but they were still the best in that era and deserve consideration.

quote:

---

Those guys are the best of the era.

---

That wasn't the point.

The point was there are a lot of "bests" from this era, compared to how many "bests of the _________ era" there were.

quote:

---

The point was there are a lot of "bests" from this era, compared to how many "bests of the _________ era" there were.

---

I disagree. I don't think there are any more now than in other eras if adjusting for the number of players.

They've been playing with at least MLB 24 teams for nearly 50 years now, and the Hall of Fame spent half of their time playing catch-up for missing decades of white and negro baseball.

Yep, I know, Fangraphs pointed out the numbers look a little harsh so far for the flower children's children of the '60s compared to the 1930s. Steroids messed it up for 'em. They shouldn't have used them, I guess.

I disagree with Fangraphs on the theory that if you don't think Barry Bonds should get in that you're supposed to vote in a replacement for him. That's nonsense.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 1/10/2014 1:05p).]

In my opinion, complaining about the max 10 rule is really just shifting the blame from the real problem. The voters. There aren't 10 worthy players that become eligible every year. If they would just vote people in and not play all of these voting games, it would never be a problem. They could have voted more players in the past few years if they didn't want a backlog. The backlog is entirely the result of the voters.

So, nothing is wrong with this?



And agree the voters are in large part to blame for not just putting guys in when eligible.

I don't see much wrong with it, no.

The gap is a little smaller now since they made that graph, and it'll continue to get a little smaller as time goes by.

If guys weren't getting smacked for their steroid use and their lies about steroids use, the gap would decrease quickly. You then consider increased roster sizes, the DH, etc... and the gap gets even smaller.

(p.s. I'm assuming they've not included Negro Leaguers or they included sizes of negro league roster in their calculations?)

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 1/10/2014 1:20p).]

It is still going to remain way below the norm.

quote:

---

We can basically round those numbers and say that the historical standard suggests that there should be something like 30 to 50 Hall of Famers born in those years, if we’re upholding the historical standard of election.

So, at the minimum, the BBWAA needs to elect something like 28 more guys from that decade. Let’s check off the names of the guys we’re fairly certain will get elected at some point in the not too distant future.

1. Greg Maddux, 1966
2. Ken Griffey Jr, 1969
3. Randy Johnson, 1963
4. Mariano Rivera, 1969
5. Tom Glavine, 1966
6. Craig Biggio, 1965

I’d say those six are a virtual lock, given their careers and Biggio’s vote totals from last year. So, electing those six players will get us to a total of eight players born in that decade, or 0.3% of the population of players born between 1961-1970. That’s still ~20 players short of the minimum historical standard, and ~45 players short of a similar proportion to the eras most heavily represented in Cooperstown.

---

Any link to that frangraphs article?

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-hall-of-fames-standard-and-its-biggest-problem/

quote:

---

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/a-follow-up-thought-on-the-hall-of-fame-standard/

---

Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin were already in. 2/27

Maddux, Glavine, and Thomas just made it in. 5/27

Biggio, Griffey Jr, R. Johnson, and Rivera are shoe-ins per the article. 9/27

Piazza will most likely get in after a few years, and would have had it not been for steroids. 10/27

Can we say Bonds and Clemens would be in? 12/27

Could I make a guess on Smoltz? 14/27.

Out of the sea of the other names I've left off, we'd start moving up that way.

Maybe they've become a little stingy, I think they have become a little stingy, so many folks are paranoid and maybe rightfully so. I do have a few qualms over guys like Mussina, but there's also the real possibility that that decade just wasn't a good decade and that, at least in part, has effected the voting.

Below is Baseball-Reference's catalogue of players by birth year. I've linked to 1969, where a blight of talent is extremely evident. 1966 is failru similar. 1964 is the poster child of steroid use.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/1969-births.shtml

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 1/10/2014 3:46p).]