PDA

View Full Version : Schmidt wants to remove BBWAA from HOF Voting



Ron Madden
01-10-2011, 04:06 PM
http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/index.html

RedsBaron
01-10-2011, 07:24 PM
I don't know whose ideas on HOF voting are worse, Schmidt's or McCoy's. :thumbdown

kaldaniels
01-10-2011, 07:25 PM
Is it common for writers to write about themselves in the 3rd person as McCoy does in that article/post. Just seemed odd.

Brutus
01-10-2011, 07:28 PM
Is it common for writers to write about themselves in the 3rd person as McCoy does in that article/post. Just seemed odd.

I think, in reading that, the first three paragraphs were meant to be a separate entry on the blog and somehow was included in the Scmidt piece. It seems like they were to be writte as separate pieces, but no one caught the mistake.

kaldaniels
01-10-2011, 07:29 PM
I think, in reading that, the first three paragraphs were meant to be a separate entry on the blog and somehow was included in the Scmidt piece. It seems like they were to be writte as separate pieces, but no one caught the mistake.

Probably seemed strange to me since McCoy often inserts himself into his stories, in the first person though.

Brutus
01-10-2011, 07:33 PM
Probably seemed strange to me since McCoy often inserts himself into his stories, in the first person though.

Does he have an editor? Sometimes editors will include notes such as that in the natural third person, so it would make sense given his inclusion of "I" to speak about himself in the story.

It seems like someone perhaps inserted the first three grafs as a note on McCoy's accomplishments, but didn't put any special emphasis or separation on it to distinguish being apart from the entry.

top6
01-10-2011, 07:36 PM
Is it common for writers to write about themselves in the 3rd person as McCoy does in that article/post. Just seemed odd.

top6 agrees with you. top6 thinks it's pretty odd.

GADawg
01-10-2011, 07:43 PM
i don't think Schmidt is way off at all...maybe he's going to the extreme with his thoughts but imo the system is kinda outdated. McCoy makes the argument that players would vote for buddies or not vote for people they don't like but that's so hypocritical in general. You think writers don't hold past "occurances" against the players? An untimely snub here, a hateful glare there and all of a sudden a player has lost a vote for life(or at least for alot of their 15 year ballot life).

Bud should form a committee(which he is marvelous at)to amend this process. I realize MLB supposedly has nothing to do with the Hall of Fame(a seperate entity)but I'm sure they would heed the recommendation of Bud's crew. Some combo of writers, hall members, and maybe even a collection of other in the know baseball types(announcers, executives, etc..)would probably be a more fair test....no fan influence please(past all-star votes should eliminate us all from consideration).

RedsManRick
01-10-2011, 08:48 PM
I could only support what Schmidt is suggesting if there was a minimum number of people who had to be elected each year. Otherwise, you're going to see a whole lot of what Schmidt described -- players keeping it ever more exclusive to protect their own legacy.

Even then, I imagine the player voters would place an inordinate amount of value on those things which players see within their control -- attitude and effort.

You know what would be a fun exercise? Give each constituency their on vote -- media, players/coaches, fans. You only get elected if you make it on 2 of the 3 ballots. Or maybe you get in if ANY of the 3 choose you.

GADawg
01-10-2011, 09:02 PM
You know what would be a fun exercise? Give each constituency their on vote -- media, players/coaches, fans. You only get elected if you make it on 2 of the 3 ballots. Or maybe you get in if ANY of the 3 choose you.

if the fans had a vote you might as well go ahead and make a bust for every RedSox and Yankee player...well except for A.J. Burnett:D

Ron Madden
01-11-2011, 03:31 AM
I don't know whose ideas on HOF voting are worse, Schmidt's or McCoy's. :thumbdown

Sad but true.

I doubt we can trust the Players with the vote and I'm pretty sure we couldn't trust the Broadcasters. We sure don't want the fans to vote.

I do believe the BBWAA have put more thought and research into their balotts the past few years.(thanks to that organizations newest members)

Other than that I'm not sure what else to say.

.

RedsBaron
01-11-2011, 07:45 AM
If Hal McCoy's "solution" had been in effect, he could now be writing a column lamenting that Barry Larkin had not been elected in his only two years on the ballot.
Tony Perez would not be in the Hall of Fame.
Other than Johnny Bench, Yogi Berra is perhaps the greatest catcher of all time, but he wasn't elected in his first two years on the ballot, so he wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame either.
Eddie Matthews wouldn't be in the HOF. Duke Snider wouldn't be in the HOF.

RedsBaron
01-11-2011, 08:28 AM
The Hardball Times has pointed out that one BBWAA voter, Barry Stanton, only voted for five players in this year's ballot: Jack Morris, B.J. Surhoff, Don Mattingly, and the Martinez duo of Tino and Edgar. He didn't vote for Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Barry Larkin, Jeff Bagwell, etc.
In his 1994 book on the Hall of Fame, "The Politics of Glory," Bill James advocated a revised voting procedure whereby five different groups would be able to nominate and then ratify the nomination of HOF candidates: The media, the fans, the players, baseball executives and other professionals, and baseball scholars. Four of the five groups would have to approve of the induction of a player in order for him to make the HOF.

RedFanAlways1966
01-11-2011, 08:50 AM
Leave it as it is. Nothing is perfect. I'd have to say the HoF selections are pretty good and hard to argue. There are not that many questionable selections IMO.

BCubb2003
01-11-2011, 08:58 AM
Why not just let Bill James pick them?

George Anderson
01-11-2011, 12:15 PM
The Hardball Times has pointed out that one BBWAA voter, Barry Stanton, only voted for five players in this year's ballot: Jack Morris, B.J. Surhoff, Don Mattingly, and the Martinez duo of Tino and Edgar. He didn't vote for Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Barry Larkin, Jeff Bagwell, etc.
In his 1994 book on the Hall of Fame, "The Politics of Glory," Bill James advocated a revised voting procedure whereby five different groups would be able to nominate and then ratify the nomination of HOF candidates: The media, the fans, the players, baseball executives and other professionals, and baseball scholars. Four of the five groups would have to approve of the induction of a player in order for him to make the HOF.

This writer thinks B.J . Surhoff is more worthy of the HOF than Roberto Alomar ??:rolleyes:

I think a committee needs to be formed to quiz clowns like this writer as to why they voted like they did and possibly revoke their voting priviledges if they can't give a decent case for why they voted like they did . Either that or they really need to do a better job of screening the voters.

camisadelgolf
01-11-2011, 12:20 PM
This writer thinks B.J . Surhoff is more worthy of the HOF than Roberto Alomar ??:rolleyes:

I think a committee needs to be formed to quiz clowns like this writer as to why they voted like they did and possibly revoke their voting priviledges if they can't give a decent case for why they voted like they did . Either that or they really need to do a better job of screening the voters.
The writer voted for Surhoff to fulfill a promise he had made when Surhoff was a kid.

George Anderson
01-11-2011, 12:23 PM
The writer voted for Surhoff to fulfill a promise he had made when Surhoff was a kid.

Nice to see HOF writers using their votes to appease an 8 year old. :rolleyes:

REDREAD
01-12-2011, 03:03 PM
Nice to see HOF writers using their votes to appease an 8 year old. :rolleyes:

Yes, if anything, this proves the current process is a joke.

Hal has a good point on keeping a player on the ballot for 15 years.
That creates this whole mentality that a player has to somehow "earn" it
all over again. Why is there a need to make a player wait another 14 years to get into the HOF? Some writers thought Blyleven was a marginal candidate so they waited until the last minute to vote for him. Just like some writers think that getting elected in your first year is something special :rolleyes:

If voting was fair and just, Hal's idea of putting everyone on the ballot once would work. But we are dealing with humans here, so that change wouldn't work. I think a compromise of keeping the player on the ballot for only 5 years would work though. The writers apparently now think that Larkin has not "paid enough dues" and needs to sit on the ballot a few more years to be "worthy" of the HOF.. what a joke.

Honestly, since the HOF is basically just a tourist attraction, I would rather the fans or the players vote on it. I really don't care about who makes the hall and who does not now.. as the whole thing has become a joke. I have my own memories of my favorite players, that's a better HOF to me.

George Anderson
01-12-2011, 03:39 PM
Yes, if anything, this proves the current process is a joke.

Hal has a good point on keeping a player on the ballot for 15 years.
That creates this whole mentality that a player has to somehow "earn" it
all over again. Why is there a need to make a player wait another 14 years to get into the HOF? Some writers thought Blyleven was a marginal candidate so they waited until the last minute to vote for him. Just like some writers think that getting elected in your first year is something special :rolleyes:

If voting was fair and just, Hal's idea of putting everyone on the ballot once would work. But we are dealing with humans here, so that change wouldn't work. I think a compromise of keeping the player on the ballot for only 5 years would work though. The writers apparently now think that Larkin has not "paid enough dues" and needs to sit on the ballot a few more years to be "worthy" of the HOF.. what a joke.

Honestly, since the HOF is basically just a tourist attraction, I would rather the fans or the players vote on it. I really don't care about who makes the hall and who does not now.. as the whole thing has become a joke. I have my own memories of my favorite players, that's a better HOF to me.

Oh God no!!

I can see how some people see it as just a museum but to me it is a shrine/monument to the very best that played the game. Having fans vote for the HOF would turn into what the AS game is today, a complete joke. I have been to Cooperstown several times as a kid but haven't been back since Bench was inducted. I am chomping at the bit to go back but if they started doing things like having fans vote I would lose interest in going back

With few exceptions I think the writers generally get it right. Writers though that do insane things like promise guys like BJ Surhoff votes but ignore Roberto Alomar really need to be shown the door. Writers that do things like this are taking away the integrity of their vote.

westofyou
01-12-2011, 03:42 PM
The Fans?

Because of the stellar job they do with the AS game?

Do we really want 9 year olds pulling the lever on the HOF members?

edabbs44
01-12-2011, 04:37 PM
Honestly, since the HOF is basically just a tourist attraction, I would rather the fans or the players vote on it. I really don't care about who makes the hall and who does not now.. as the whole thing has become a joke. I have my own memories of my favorite players, that's a better HOF to me.

I think the debate has become more lively with the advent of stats which has made it somewhat easier to compare across eras, but to say that the whole things has become a joke is a little over the top.

Yachtzee
01-12-2011, 05:09 PM
I think the problem with shortening the amount of time one spends on the ballot leads to the problem where 1-5 years may not be enough time for people to truly appreciate a player's accomplishments. For example, imagine a great player who has put together a HOF-worthy career retires at a time when there are a bunch of young guns playing his position putting up numbers that look to blow away the candidate's numbers. These guys are putting up strong numbers early in their careers, but begin to tail off around age 30 due to injuries or slumps, yet they're still considered great because everyone expects them to return to form and put in another 8-10 years. The HOF candidate isn't getting enough votes because the projected numbers for these other guys still look to easily surpass his. Unfortunately, things work out where the young guns end up out of baseball a few years after the candidate's eligibility is up. Their actual numbers fall far short of the candidate's and there is no one else on the horizon who compares favorably to the candidate. What I'm saying is, sometimes it takes time for people to truly appreciate a player's contribution to the game.

I'd say Blyleven is probably the classic example. I suspect a reason why it took so long for him to make it is that, even though he had incredible strikeout numbers and one of the best curveballs in the game, there are always hot starting pitchers who put up big win and K numbers that made Blyleven's single season accomplishments look good but not great. Add to that Blyleven's failure to reach the magic number of 300 wins and the writers fail to vote him in year after year. But then you factor in that Blyleven was able to pitch as long as he did, putting up numbers and not blowing his arm out. Each year, the writers watch as pitchers they thought would one day catch up and surpass Blyleven's numbers get hurt, have surgery, rehab, get hurt again and retire. Every year a great pitcher retires, but falls short of Blyleven's numbers. He starts looking better and better until, eventually, enough writers come around to appreciate how difficult it was for him to pitch as many years as he did and strike out all those guys.