Mike Schmidt and the HOF

[Big_E]

Mike and Mike were talking this morning that yesterday through an e-mail to Greenie that Schmidt thinks they should change the HOF voting....it's cruel to drag guys out for 15 years like Rice or 12 so far for Blyleven.

He thinks a simple yes or no, 5 years after you retire should be enough. Either you are in, or not, your statistics will not improve. What did Rice do this year to warrant election, 20 YEARS after he retired?

I don't want to hear that DiMaggio would not be in the Hall -- past votes might have gone differently had it been one-and-done.

Do you think baseball or other HOFs should be a one-shot deal? Or reduce it to 5 years from the 15 baseball has now...?

[DaPip1998]

I heard it too. It isn't a bad idea-I like Greenberg's suggestion that you give a guy 3 years on the ballot. 1 may be too few, especially if he's up against a particularly stacked class that year.
But 15 years is just ridiculous-either you are or you aren't....

[jeterdaman]

I still don't understand what makes someone a hall of famer in his 5th year of eligibility but not his first year.

[The Comic Book Guy]

I still don't understand what makes someone a hall of famer in his 5th year of eligibility but not his first year.

I think there needs to be some kind of safety net in place, considering the stupidity of many (most?) HOF voters

[Carbon Fiber]

I think there needs to be some kind of safety net in place, considering the stupidity of many (most?) HOF voters

Totally agree... if the voters were rational, then they could vote just once in year 5 --- but by dragging it out, it at least allows some of the voters with personal vendettas to drop out of the voting and some new voters who are (hopefully) more objective to join the ranks.

[RI Dawg]

I agree -- if your a HOF in year 15, you should be a HOF in year 1.

I also agree that the people that vote are morons sometimes, therefore a 2,3,4 or 5 year window should be given to players just in case...

[Yankee Tripper]

Schmidt is a cantancerous SOB who has always though the Hall was too water down if I remember right. If I have him mixed up with someone else sorry to Mike.

That said 15 years seems like a long time but one and done is also seems too short. A 5-year period would be a good comprimise in my opinion.

Oh and Schmidt would be my starting 3B if I made and all-time lineup.

[ieddyi]

I think there needs to be some kind of safety net in place, considering the stupidity of many (most?) HOF voters

They have the veterans committee

[murry27409]

They have the veterans committee

Is the veterans committee still needed for former players?

[BRNXBMRS]

15 years is a long time to wait, but Rice's numbers shrunk when compared to the steroid era. Now that we are removed (sort of) from the roid era he has good numbers Schmidt & Greeny should keep their mouths shut.

[bigjf]

They have the veterans committee

Are they really any better than the writers? Joe Morgan is on that...


I don't know if I would change the voting rules, or if it would really be fair to do so, but it is silly that someone could spend 15 years creeping closer and closer to being voted in and then get basically what amounts to an election out of sympathy. There are worse players than Rice in the HOF, he was dominant for his era, but the way he got in is a disgrace.

I liked that idea about having different tiers of the HOF though.

[penguin4]

15 years is a long time to wait, but Rice's numbers shrunk when compared to the steroid era. Now that we are removed (sort of) from the roid era he has good numbers Schmidt & Greeny should keep their mouths shut.

I think that's the key -- that sometimes five years is too soon after a ballplayer retires to put his career in context. Or sometimes you'll be the type of player who deserves to be there, but because of the timing -- a more flashy name on the ballot overshadowing everyone that year -- players can get lost in the shuffle. The year Gwynn/Ripken were on the ballot, for instance, I don't think anyone thought anyone else had a prayer, because no one would've been able to shout loud enough. But you'll get a "weak" year like 2006, when people will say, "Hey, that Bruce Sutter was pretty good -- we didn't notice before because we usually don't pay attention to relievers, but he was actually ahead of his time."

Or, going back to the Steroid Era, you'll get a guy like McGwire who many people refuse to recognize because he cheated, but who says that ten years from now people will look back on his time and say, "You know, we've been kind of unfair. Yes, what he did was wrong, but look how many other guys used PEDs, and still put up numbers nowhere near what he did." Barry Bonds will probably be held off a few ballots for that reason, as well -- even though he would've been a surefire HOFer had he retired in '98 rather than gone on the juice and played for another ten years.

And people often forget that the ballot has a built-in weeder-out for guys who probably have little business being there in the first place -- if there aren't 5% of the voters who think you should be there any given year, you're off. We saw that with all the first-timers but Rickey this year.

Schmidt was just one of the lucky ones whose feats *were* heralded in his time, so of course he's advocating the simplicity of "yes" or "no". For everyone else, it's all politics.

[jimmyclark]

This is stupid even for Mike Greenberg. What is the problem with 15 years? Did Rice die of excessive waiting?

[Bronson'sCornrows]

Edgar Martinez, Mike Mussina, and Curt Schilling are three good examples as to why 15 years is an important wait period. It'll give the voting committee 15 crucial years to rid itself of the old guard, stubbornly ignorant, cantankerous vessels of senility that would never, ever in a million years vote these guys in.

[penguin4]

Edgar Martinez, Mike Mussina, and Curt Schilling are three good examples as to why 15 years is an important wait period. It'll give the voting committee 15 crucial years to rid itself of the old guard, stubbornly ignorant, cantankerous vessels of senility that would never, ever in a million years vote these guys in.

Unfortunately, with the demise of newspapers, I don't know how much new blood will be replacing these Smug Old Men in their exclusive little club. (Covering baseball for a Web site isn't a good enough credential to get you into the BBWAA -- and you need to be recommended by someone already there, which means you have to at least share some of their old beliefs. Ugh.)

[yankeebot]

Unfortunately, with the demise of newspapers, I don't know how much new blood will be replacing these Smug Old Men in their exclusive little club. (Covering baseball for a Web site isn't a good enough credential to get you into the BBWAA -- and you need to be recommended by someone already there, which means you have to at least share some of their old beliefs. Ugh.)

No longer true. Rob Neyer, Keith Law, Will Carroll and Christina Kahrl have all been granted membership to the BBWAA and now that the door is open, more will follow. There will always be new blood.

[yankeebot]

As I've posted before, I much prefer the NFL's method for election members to the HOF. A 39 member selection committee actually meets and discusses each finalist. They review biographies and listen to a representative for each player lay out his qualifications. No, it is not perfect but at least that the voters all have the same information and make decisions based on their interpretations of that information. Here is a link that explains the process:

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/selectionprocess.jsp

[Sixty one]

Why not compromise and make it seven or eight years? Therefore, if a player is up against some outstanding groups it'll still give him time to get in if he is worthy.

[yankeeman61]

Roy Hobbs: "Did you ever play the game, Max?"

Max Mercy: "No. But I do make it more fun to watch. And whether or not you are a hero you will make a great story. I'll see you around"

I don't like the current structure of the voting process. It shouldn't be up to just sportswriters for 15 years followed by the Veterans Committee. How many times have we seen personal bias get in the way of voting? There were 28 writers who didn't have Rickey Henderson anywhere on their ballot. From day 1 of eligibility it should be an equal combination of writers and qualified "baseball people" who have been involved in the game for at least 20 years. The 75% vote is fine, but 15 years is too long. If you can't get in for a decade after you retire then you probably shouldn't be in.