Over-Hall of Rules

[G-Fafif]

On weekend Hall of Fame celebrates the last three managers whose managers eliminated the Mets from postseason play (meaning all five -- Williams, Lasorda, Cox, Torre, La Russa), its board of directors is taking a subtle shot at Ralph Kiner and Duke Snider.

Well, that's a parochial way of looking at a new rule announced today wherein the BBWAA ballot eligibility period has been reduced from 15 to 10 years. Current 11-15 year guys (Mattingly, Trammell, Smith) stay on but everybody else can take a hike, lest they make the Hall late the way Ralph and the Duke did.

Not so subtle message: Get off our ballot, steroid guys.

[Edgy MD]

That's just a terrible break. As a supporter of Trammell and Raines, I hates it.

On the other hand, I'd like to think that gets them into the long, slow cycle of Veteran's Committee review before their beards grow too long.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Happy Mother Torresa Day, everyone!!

[batmagadanleadoff]

I think that 10 years worth of ballot eligibility is way more than enough time. Off the top of my head, I'd guess that 10 deserving HOF'ers rarely, if even ever, retire after the same season. So the 10 votes per ballot rule is ample enough to prevent any logjams.

The problem is the voters, with their self imposed tiers of eligibility -- first year HOF'ers, second tier, etc. Also, any voter that needs more than 10 years time to figure out whether a candidate belongs probably isn't as knowledgeable as he or she ought to be.

On the other hand, though, letting candidates remain on the ballot for 15 years instead of 10 isn't hurting anybody, is it? The Dook and Ralph, for example, each needed more than 10 years to gain entry, as FAFIF reminds, us, and those two are no blemish on the Hall.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Guest

[Gwreck]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Off the top of my head, I'd guess that 10 deserving HOF'ers rarely, if even ever, retire after the same season. So the 10 votes per ballot rule is ample enough to prevent any logjams.

I agree with the first part of this statement. The second part, I believe, is demonstrably untrue, given this past year's hall of fame ballot.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Gwreck wrote: Off the top of my head, I'd guess that 10 deserving HOF'ers rarely, if even ever, retire after the same season. So the 10 votes per ballot rule is ample enough to prevent any logjams. I agree with the first part of this statement. The second part, I believe, is demonstrably untrue, given this past year's hall of fame ballot.

If there are truly more than 10 deserving candidates, the surplus should gain admission the following season. Another problem with the voters is that a portion of them, as a rule, won't use all 10 of their votes - though this might be a variation on their theme of "tiered HOF'ers".

I should've clarified what I meant by "logjam": Some HOF'ers might not get in right away, but the new 10 year eligibility rule shouldn't prevent a deserving candidate from gaining admission altogether. The problem is caused by the voters.

[Gwreck]

Got it. On that we agree.

The real rule change needed is to the composition of the voting pool.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Had some fun with this year's plaques. Seems like the Hall for the last couple of years has decided that common shortenings of common names needs to be counted as nicknames on plaques. So, Gregory Maddux needs "Greg" under his full name.

http://metsguyinmichigan.blogspot.com/2014/07/baseball-hall-of-fame-thinks-fans-are.html

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

So... they're anal-retentive about "Greg" and the like... but, like, "f*ck it" on the Oxford commas and "fewer"/"less"?

[G-Fafif]

Putting "Tom" in quotes for T#m Gl@v!ne is appropriate because when it comes to the National Baseball Hall of Fame, there is, of course, only one real Tom.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: So... they're anal-retentive about "Greg" and the like... but, like, "f*ck it" on the Oxford commas and "fewer"/"less"?

Yikes!

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Another interesting point, this one from SI's Jay Jaffe. Not inducting enough players from the modern era is bad for business.

"The Hall's rule change increased the likelihood of those trends continuing, a problem that could exacerbate the institution's decline in annual attendance, which according to the New York Times has fallen every year since 2005. Fewer players getting elected almost certainly means fewer visitors to the museum, fewer generations of fans sharing the stories of the Hall of Famers they watched to the next generation, something that won't help given the aging demographic base of the game�s television audience."

http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/07/26/baseball-hall-fame-rule-changes-mark-mcgwire-tim-raines

[Ceetar]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Another interesting point, this one from SI's Jay Jaffe. Not inducting enough players from the modern era is bad for business. "The Hall's rule change increased the likelihood of those trends continuing, a problem that could exacerbate the institution's decline in annual attendance, which according to the New York Times has fallen every year since 2005. Fewer players getting elected almost certainly means fewer visitors to the museum, fewer generations of fans sharing the stories of the Hall of Famers they watched to the next generation, something that won't help given the aging demographic base of the game�s television audience." http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/07/26/baseball-hall-fame-rule-changes-mark-mcgwire-tim-raines

Are we so sure the demographic is aging? or just the television audience? or ..

Why are we going to stop sharing stories of Barry Bonds just because he doesn't have a plaque in a room of a random NY museum? I'd argue that the world today creates way more story-telling avenues than years past. I'm still going to tell my kid about Barry Bonds, and that he was "one of the very very best that every played", that he dominates record books, that he's "inner circle" whether or not I use the phrase "Hall of Fame"

All they're succeeding in doing is ensuring that their Hall of best players is about as respected as your typical buzzfeed top-10 list. It's just a museum.

Also of note, dropping the years from 15 to 10 ensures a lot of the more progressive internet type voters that don't get a vote for 10 years after admission (how about we drop that?) won't get a chance to vote on Bonds, Clemens, etc.