Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    840
    vCash
    1500

    Free Advice for the Hall of Fame

    These are the names of current Hall of Famers in the year of their major league debut. The names in bold are ones that I think should be given a one-time vote. Not all of them are players I would vote for...just players I would give one last shot to get in. Soak it in. More after the list...

    I'm keeping this post-WWII:
    1946- Yogi Berra, Ralph Kiner
    1947- Duke Snider, Jackie Robinson, Larry Doby, Nellie Fox, Gil Hodges
    1948- Richie Ashburn, Roy Campanella, Robin Roberts
    1949- Minnie Minoso, Don Newcombe
    1950- Whitey Ford
    1951- Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle
    1952- Eddie Mathews, Hoyt Wilhelm
    1953- Al Kaline, Ernie Banks
    1954- Hank Aaron, Harmon Killebrew
    1955- Roberto Clemente, Brooks Robinson, Jim Bunning, Sandy Koufax, Ken Boyer, Rocky Colavito
    1956- Frank Robinson, Luis Aparicio, Bill Mazeroski, Don Drysdale
    1957- Roger Maris
    1958- Orlando Cepeda
    1959- Willie McCovey, Billy Williams, Bob Gibson, Jim Kaat
    1960- Juan Marichal, Ron Santo, Joe Torre
    1961- Carl Yastrzemski, Lou Brock
    1962- Willie Stargell, Gaylord Perry, Tony Oliva
    1963- Joe Morgan, Pete Rose, Dick Allen, Tommy John
    1964- Tony Perez, Phil Niekro, Luis Tiant
    1965- Steve Carlton, Ferguson Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Catfish Hunter
    1966- Nolan Ryan, Don Sutton, Reggie Smith
    1967- Rod Carew, Johnny Bench, Reggie Jackson, Tom Seaver
    1968- Rollie Fingers, Ted Simmons, Bobby Bonds, Al Oliver
    1969- Carlton Fisk, Thurman Munson, Steve Garvey
    1970- Bert Blyleven, Bobby Grich
    1971-
    1972- Mike Schmidt, Goose Gossage, Dwight Evans
    1973- George Brett, Dave Winfield, Dave Parker
    1974- Robin Yount, Gary Carter, Jim Rice, Keith Hernandez, Fred Lynn
    1975- Dennis Eckersley, Ron Guidry
    1976- Andre Dawson, Bruce Sutter, Dale Murphy
    1977- Eddie Murray, Jack Morris, Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker
    1978- Ozzie Smith, Paul Molitor
    1979- Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, Kirk Gibson
    1980- Lee Smith
    1981- Cal Ripken, Ryne Sandberg
    1982- Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, Don Mattingly
    1983- Orel Hershiser
    1984- Kirby Puckett, Roger Clemens, Bret Saberhagen
    1985-
    1986- Barry Larkin, Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Fred McGriff, Greg Maddux, David Cone
    1987- Edgar Martinez, Tom Glavine
    1988- Roberto Alomar, Craig Biggio, Gary Sheffield, Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, John Smoltz
    1989- Ken Griffey, Jr., Larry Walker, Sammy Sosa, Omar Vizquel, John Olerud
    1990- Frank Thomas
    1991- Jeff Bagwell, Jim Thome, Ivan Rodriguez, Mike Mussina, Bernie Williams, Kenny Lofton
    1992- Mike Piazza, Jeff Kent, Pedro Martinez
    1993- Chipper Jones, Manny Ramirez, Trevor Hoffman, Jim Edmonds, Carlos Delgado

    My recommendations for the Hall:

    1) Thank the BBWAA for their years of service and let them know the process is changing. And discontinue Veteran's Committee's. This new electorate would be enough.

    2) Get a new electorate of 100 voters - broadcasters, columnists, stat heads--whomever---that will take the vote seriously, and under the following conditions:
    a) Pete Rose can be elected based on his playing career alone. He'll still be banned by MLB.
    b) The steroid era, while terrible, should be represented in the Hall. But with that understanding, if a player has had ties to PEDs, you are allowed to take that into consideration on whether the player was a creation of PEDs. Example--if you think Palmeiro, Sosa, and McGwire only have Hall-worthy numbers because of PEDs, that is a good enough reason not to vote for them.
    c) For the debut years of 1986-1993, you must choose at least 12 additional players - Alomar and Larkin are already in, and let's assume Maddux and Glavine are getting in. So, at least 16 players must be voted in from that time frame.

    3) Take a one-time vote for all of the players in bold. It's a Yes or No for everyone. This will be a private vote, and the results will be kept secret until the player's induction year is announced. Voters cannot discuss their individual votes until the player has been announced as in.

    If the player gets 60 out of 100 votes, they're going in the Hall eventually.
    If the player gets 50-59 votes, they will go back on the ballot in 5 years, when they do the next election.
    If the player gets under 50 votes, they will no longer be considered for future elections.

    Once again, the results would be kept secret to everyone but the Hall itself. The Hall would choose from the players elected who they want to go in that year, and would announce it every January as they do now.

    The Hall can set up the schedule however they like. Example, if it would get a big Houston crowd for Bagwell and Biggio, maybe they would put them in the same year. If Minnie Minoso gets elected, they could put him in the first year since he won't be around a long time to enjoy it. It's at the Hall's discretion on when the player will be inducted.

    So why am I doing this? Because I love the history of Baseball, but I'm sick of the Hall and how they do things. It's time to change and make it a more positive thing for the game. The annual PED talk and stupidity of the current electorate is an embarrassment. If they get it down to one vote of Yes or No, they can make the January announcement a positive, joyful thing for the players and their families. And the fans would be spared the negativity, which is the majority of what they have now. Hall of Fame stuff is 95% negativity, and 5% positivity for the players that get in. That has to change.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    4,984
    vCash
    1500

    The HOF is broken. How would you fix it?

    As we have seen today the HOF is broken and needs to be fixed…

    My two ideas

    Drop the 10 man limit.

    make ALL votes PUBLIC. the votes for MLB awards are public, so should the HOF votes… These people voting are writers and should be held accountable for who they vote/not vote for, for the HOF… Another thing making votes public is it limits (or could even end) people sending in blank/incomplete cards.

    how would you fix the HOF PSD?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    9
    vCash
    1500
    HoF changes should include but not be limited to the following:

    1) All BBWAA voters must be younger than 90. This will eliminate 1/3 of the voters. If we make the limit at age 80 it will eliminate over 50% of the obviously addled voters. If the new voting age were 65 then there would only be 3 writers left to vote and we might see better votes.

    2) Make all votes public. Secrecy begets dishonesty. Which age addled fool would dare even argue this? Oh. all of them you say?

    3) Publish RULES about who can or cannot be voted in. If Bud Selig promoted steroids for 20 years to boost attendance then those players should be given a chance to be recognized. Keep Bud out of the HoF for ruining the game.

    4) for that matter remove Bud from the game at once... "in the best interest of the game"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    23,649
    vCash
    1500
    -drop the 10 limit-if your a hofer,your a hofer.sometimes(like this year),there are more than 10 deserving guys

    -phase out writers who have moved on from baseball writing,it shouldnt be a lifetime appointment.if you havent followed closely since the 80's,you arent going to be expert judges of those who played after.

    -get a more diverse group of voters,add stat geeks like bill james or brain kenny and sports commentators like bob costas and keith olbermann;i respect these guys baseball opinions more than most of the voters i've heard from this past week...or do like lebatard did and open it to us,the fans.its suppose to be our museum right? we'd get people in there that the majority of us want to see(and feeling more ownership in the process it would drive up attendance)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    10,695
    vCash
    1500
    - Drop the 10 player limit.
    - Make it a rule that you must be currently covering baseball to have a vote.
    - All ballots must be made public.
    - Open up the ballots to non writers. Broadcasters, coaches, GM's ect. I'd even like a single fan vote, ala Deadspin.
    - No lifetime voting rule.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    840
    vCash
    1500

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,885
    vCash
    1500
    once a baseball player gets into the HOF, he should then too have a vote going forward. I think baseball players themselves would know more than any writers.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    38,017
    vCash
    1000
    Have new people run the BWAA

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    18,242
    vCash
    5000
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Have new people run the BWAA
    First order of business in getting with the times, baseball is now commonly referred to as a single word
    The Michigan team bus was stuck outside Notre Dame stadium for hours after somebody painted a 20 yard line in the parking lot

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    18,242
    vCash
    5000
    Here are a few of the flaws I think in the current system:

    Jackball requirements and eligibility rules for voting. I don't think any of these individually are particularly bad but all of them combined create a foolish & messy dynamic that helps fuel the next issue, politics.
    - Limiting votes to 10. This is one of the things that stops unanimous votes, some writers will leave off a player guaranteed to get in to save a vote for another.
    - No minimum votes. This I understand, but when combined with the 10 player limit doesn't make sense. You're giving the voter freedom on the bottom but a cap on the other end, its a lack of balance.
    - 15 years or 5% until you're kicked off. The vote always trails the consensus because voters PUNT on players they are unsure about until they feel like their vote actually makes a difference. This is especially true for Bagwell/Piazza. A lot of writers have said they would rather defer this decision down the road and be right than vote them in now and be wrong. That is why I think these two guys will ultimately get in if their names stay clean.

    The politics of it are batshit crazy. The system is convinced that its specific results reflect some kind of hierarchy within the hall. This is created by announcers/writers calling guys "first ballot HOFers" and it snowballs from there. This player cant be unanimous because Babe Ruth wasn't. Player X can't be first ballot because Player Y wasn't. The system needs to be shaken up a little bit so that it can stop trying to compare these players like that.

    Personally I think we need to find some way to be lenient to the guys from the 90s where the culture was different, but we don't need to be lenient to the guys like Braun and A-Rod who have mocked the game. I'm not sure where Bonds and Clemens lie in that (no pun intended) because they were caught somewhere between, or where Piazza/Bags fall in because they're apparently guilty by association.

    I think the key is emphasizing that these guys won't be blackballed from the Hall of Fame or erased from history like the picture some radio hosts are trying to paint. There will undoubtedly be sections in the museum with jerseys, bats, balls and other sections with records written on the wall w/o asterisks. The magnitude of their accomplishments will be recorded in the museum.

    That doesn't mean you need to honor the player. In the room with the plaques, we don't need to glorify anybody that has disrespected the game. I don't think anything a lot of the 90s players did w/ PEDs disrespected the game.

    I really don't know how to separate the two. The writers have an impossible job but I think it reflects the way the public feels about the subject: some of them belong regardless of whether they used, we can't prove it either way, some of them are scumbags for lying about it, and after Lance Armstrong nobody is fooled by any facade.
    Last edited by Sandman; 01-09-2014 at 08:52 PM.
    The Michigan team bus was stuck outside Notre Dame stadium for hours after somebody painted a 20 yard line in the parking lot

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,816
    vCash
    1500
    Along with some of the very good suggestions from above

    I'd remove LaVelle E. Neal III from overseeing the hall.

    His decision to strip LeBatard of his voting rights while allowing Gurnick and Chass to vote is a joke.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    T.O., Canada
    Posts
    14,720
    vCash
    1500
    Beyond dropping the absurd 10 player limit thing, I really don't know. It's easy to answer from one singular perspective of what you think the HOF should be, but that doesn't really solve the entire problem.
    2013

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,751
    vCash
    1500
    Worry about it less. It's a ceremonial institution of absolutely zero real-world consequence.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    38,017
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by JeremiahWing View Post
    Worry about it less. It's a ceremonial institution of absolutely zero real-world consequence.
    That's the equivalent of telling people to be less of baseball fans.

    We care, because we care about the game.

    Doesn't have to compare to real world consequences or anything else. For most, their fandom is an escape from their real world lives to get to dive into something bigger than the rest of us.

    It's entertainment, it's enjoyable. And we care, because we care about the game....and this is a mark for or against the game itself.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,751
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    That's the equivalent of telling people to be less of baseball fans.

    We care, because we care about the game.

    Doesn't have to compare to real world consequences or anything else. For most, their fandom is an escape from their real world lives to get to dive into something bigger than the rest of us.

    It's entertainment, it's enjoyable. And we care, because we care about the game....and this is a mark for or against the game itself.
    Now you sound like the traditionalists who won't vote in steroid era players because of the "soul of the game," or some other nonsense like that. Don't give in to hyperbole; it doesn't suit you.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •