Baseball HOF Voting

Every year at this time, we have a HOF discussion. This year should be no different. But let's go a different course. Instead of talking about the travesty of great players who aren't in, let's talk about why - the process of voting for HOF members.

Currently, members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, comprised of beat writers for each MLB team only, are the select few that get to vote. Each year, each member can vote for up to ten people they select for HOF membership.
Each player must be retired for at least five years.
You must get appear on 75% of BWAA ballots to get in.
A Veterans Committee biannually considers those who are no longer under consideration by the BWAA. It's been several years since they have elected anyone (using the same 75% rule) and the VC is comprised of HOF members.

So here's the question: should the process be changed? Ron Santo thinks so http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3756458, as does Bill James. We'll talk about his proposal later. But for now, would you change this?

Let me get first impressions, then I'll offer some observations.

 

Bill James says Santo would be the first guy he put in, and I think he'd be in my top five. But that's another story.


I believe this system is horribly flawed. It just doesn't need tweaking - it needs an overhaul. It's worse than the ESPYs. It's so flawed, I wonder if NASCAR thought this up.

Only writers can vote for teams, and only if you're a beat writer (typically) for a team. So Bob Costas can't vote. Vin Scully can't vote. Bill James can't vote. Current players or managers can't vote. Al Michaels can't vote. Joe Buck can't vote. The chief baseball guy who writes for The Memphis Commerical-Appeal or the Nashville Tennesseean can't vote, despite the fact that they cover large media markets and cover MLB teams. It's just ridiculous.

If I'm not mistaken, only a select number of HOF voters can vote, and that's limited to the biannual Veterans Cmte (which also has BWAA writers on it)

Bill James's system is not the best I've seen. He proposes several committees (the Fan vote similar to AS balloting, the current players/mgrs, the media, and then the "scholars" (read, SABR)) who all vote and must nominate a player with a 75% vote. Then the next year, the remaining committees vote. 3 of 4 committees must ratify a player. A cap would limit the number of players per year.

I'm not wild about the system, because James states he doesn't want it SABR loaded, but then loads it with SABR members. He flip flops a bit much to my liking on other areas. But he is correct that the system we have is a joke, and there needs to be a massive overhaul.

Back off topic a minute - I hear that we shouldn't have too many in the HOF. Why? If someone's a HOFer, they should be in. They shouldn't be penalized because there's already someone going in that year. It's this type of grading on the curve that has helped make the HOF process the joke it is. If five HOF worthy guys are there, they should be in. If they go in the same year, so what? SOme see this as a travesty, a mockery, and a dilution. They have yet to prove how. It's like saying "I'm sorry Johnny. You got all the Algebra questions right on the final, but since two others did, too, you get a 90." One has nothing to do with the other.

How would I overhaul the system.....well....I'm thinking about that. I have some thoughts, but not enough time right now. More to come.........

 

A quick re-read of his book, followed by the Santo piece, got me thinking about this.

 

How do you mean?