Concepcion included on Expansion Era ballot for Hall of Fame

[REDREAD]

I can't disagree with you more. This is why I love the way MLB does it. If there are no qualified players in a given year, none go in. I think it's ridiculous that 6 players must be elected per year for the NFL, no matter what.

I will agree with your point that the whole "1st ballot" issue is asinine. You are either a HOFer or you are not. It's silly that guys aren't good enough to get in 5 years after they retire, but do become good enough 10, 15, 20 years later.

What's really silly is that Concepcion might get it now. I'll use him as an example. Guy retired in the early 80's (maybe mid 80's).. So roughly 30 years later, he might finally get his recognition, at a time where only diehard and old fans are even going to remember him. Way to market yourselves, baseball HOF. Wait until the player is forgotten and pretty much irrelevant. Wait until absolutely no buzz will be generated when the player gets in.

If it was up to me, I'd stop putting owners, broadcasters, etc in the HOF and focus just on the players (maybe the managers too). I mean, do they seriously think someone is going to go to the HOF to see a Steinbrenner display (if he's elected)? Or some old commissioner?

I don't want to force the HOF to elect someone every year, but there were plenty of worthy candidates last year (even if you exclude everyone with a steroid cloud on them).

[Norm Chortleton]

^ I agree. Davey was my favorite player growing up. But he was either a HOFer 5 years after he retired or he was not. That was the time to make the decision to induct him. Not now.

[M2]

I can't disagree with you more. This is why I love the way MLB does it. If there are no qualified players in a given year, none go in. I think it's ridiculous that 6 players must be elected per year for the NFL, no matter what.

There was somewhere north of 15 players good enough to be in the HOF on last year's ballot.

And I much prefer a HOF that honors the players I got to see play than one which treats them with disdain. The double-standard being applied to modern players is shameful.

If you go by the standards of how the Hall treated Golden Era players, there's roughly 10 more players from the 1960s who should be there, 15-20 from the 1970s and 30 from the 1980s. As Yachtzee and RedsBaron commented earlier, unless you're into relatively ancient baseball history why go to Cooperstown? It's made a judgment that the game I grew up watching and fell in love with was substandard. I don't see why I'd waste my money on a place like that.

[RedsBaron]

There was somewhere north of 15 players good enough to be in the HOF on last year's ballot.

And I much prefer a HOF that honors the players I got to see play than one which treats them with disdain. The double-standard being applied to modern players is shameful.

If you go by the standards of how the Hall treated Golden Era players, there's roughly 10 more players from the 1960s who should be there, 15-20 from the 1970s and 30 from the 1980s. As Yachtzee and RedsBaron commented earlier, unless you're into relatively ancient baseball history why go to Cooperstown? It's made a judgment that the game I grew up watching and fell in love with was substandard. I don't see why I'd waste my money on a place like that.

Amen.
I cannot recall a year in the last several decades when there was not a single player on the ballot who was qualified for the HOF.

[westofyou]

Amen.
I cannot recall a year in the last several decades when there was not a single player on the ballot who was qualified for the HOF.

IIRC the last empty year was in 1960 or so

[Yachtzee]

There was somewhere north of 15 players good enough to be in the HOF on last year's ballot.

And I much prefer a HOF that honors the players I got to see play than one which treats them with disdain. The double-standard being applied to modern players is shameful.

If you go by the standards of how the Hall treated Golden Era players, there's roughly 10 more players from the 1960s who should be there, 15-20 from the 1970s and 30 from the 1980s. As Yachtzee and RedsBaron commented earlier, unless you're into relatively ancient baseball history why go to Cooperstown? It's made a judgment that the game I grew up watching and fell in love with was substandard. I don't see why I'd waste my money on a place like that.

Part of the problem is that a lot of players from the '70s and '80s came onto the ballot during the steroid era of the '90s. So although they might have been considered potential Hall of Famers in their time, suddenly they didn't look so good when compared to the muscley guys of the late '90s-2000s. Of course now we have the issue that a lot of these guys dropped off the ballot because they had their 15 years, and some failed to get their 5% to stay on the ballot. Now their only way in is to rely on the revamped Veterans Committee process, which hasn't been the best at recognizing players from the '70s-00s either. Ironically, no one seems to want to vote in the steroid era guys either, even though they were using those inflated numbers to justify not voting in more players from the '70s and '80s.

I like the idea of including fans into the process, such as allowing fans to nominate players for consideration like they do for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Now they would still have to go through a vetting process, so that the ballot isn't loaded with absurd choices like Dickie Thon or Don Mossi. But if fans want Kenny Lofton or Dale Murphy to be reconsidered, they can get these guys back on the ballot. I would also open up voting to members of new media to reflect changes in how baseball is covered. I think relying only on members of the Baseball Writers' Association is a big reason for the Baseball Hall losing touch with the younger generations.

[George Anderson]

I think relying only on members of the Baseball Writers' Association is a big reason for the Baseball Hall losing touch with the younger generations.

This is what I disagree with. I am 45 and for the vast majority of my life I have known very few people that really care about the HOF. I don't think if tomorrow they opened the doors and let Gil Hodges and Steve Garvey into the HOF that all of a sudden a younger generation of Dodger or baseball fans would suddenly have great interest in the HOF. Look at Reds fans when Barry Larkin was inducted. Yes, everyone was proud, happy and excited when he was inducted, but it is not like because of his induction a new wave of Reds fans have suddenly a great interest in the HOF that they didn't have before the Larkin induction. I think regardless of who gets inducted, either you like the HOF or you don't.

I personally like it that they have tightened things up and are more strict with who they let in. Bill Mazeroski, Phil Rizzuto, Jim Bunning and Richie Ashburn were guys that have been inducted somewhat recently who IMO should not have been. The last thing I want to see is Cooperstown turn into a joke like what the Reds HOF has become by bowing to the fans and giving them whatever inductee they want regardless of how undeserving that player is. Cooperstown to me is almost a holy place that needs to be treated with great reverence. It should be a place where the very best who played the game are enshrined and not just popular players that the fans want to see in there.

[M2]

Cooperstown to me is almost a holy place that needs to be treated with great reverence. It should be a place where the very best who played the game are enshrined and not just popular players that the fans want to see in there.

Well, we certainly wouldn't a fan-friendly HOF.

[George Anderson]

Well, we certainly wouldn't a fan-friendly HOF.

Good point.

I think we should elect Sean Casey to Cooperstown. Reds fans by the gazillions will make the treck for that well deserved induction ceremony.

[M2]

Good point.

I think we should elect Sean Casey to Cooperstown. Reds fans by the gazillions will make the treck for that well deserved induction ceremony.

Or we could elect the slew of players who aren't in, but are better than any number of current HOFers. Just a thought.

[redsmetz]

^ I agree. Davey was my favorite player growing up. But he was either a HOFer 5 years after he retired or he was not. That was the time to make the decision to induct him. Not now.

Of course, that would suggest he (and everyone) be elected on their first year of eligibility. I'm sure that's not what you're saying, but over the course of his years of eligibility he wasn't. Many of us believe that's a mistake. HOF voting is not done in a vacuum.

It's a flawed system, but other variables come into play. Who else was eligible at the time, how long had they waited, etc. And as one poster has since mentioned, Concepcion's eligible years coincided with the beefier, power-hitting shortstop era, something little seen prior to that. Ozzie Smith went in solely on his defensive skills and, IMO, it's a huge oversight to not recognize Davey who was Ozzie before Ozzie was (sans the flips). Until Smith came up, Concepcion was pretty much without peer.

Someone else later noted they see the Hall as "almost holy" - a shrine to the very, very best. I don't disagree, but see it a bit more expansively. The moment I walked through the Hall's doors, I had goosebumps. But it's there to tell the story of baseball and its greats. Without Concepcion, that story is incomplete, IMHO.

[RedsBaron]

I personally like it that they have tightened things up and are more strict with who they let in. Bill Mazeroski, Phil Rizzuto, Jim Bunning and Richie Ashburn were guys that have been inducted somewhat recently who IMO should not have been. The last thing I want to see is Cooperstown turn into a joke like what the Reds HOF has become by bowing to the fans and giving them whatever inductee they want regardless of how undeserving that player is. Cooperstown to me is almost a holy place that needs to be treated with great reverence. It should be a place where the very best who played the game are enshrined and not just popular players that the fans want to see in there.

The HOF has not been so restrictive so as to keep out players as great as Bunning, Ashburn and Rizzuto since the mid-1940s. They are not even close to being the least qualified members of the HOF.

[George Anderson]

The HOF has not been so restrictive so as to keep out players as great as Bunning, Ashburn and Rizzuto since the mid-1940s. They are not even close to being the least qualified members of the HOF.

I am well aware of the many players that were undeservingly elected by Frankie Frisch and his cronies back in the 60's and 70's. But just because Frisch and his cronies screwed up by basically inducting their undeserving friends and teammates means that we should keep the bar lowered.

IMO Mazerowski and Rizzuto especially are awfully close to being the least qualified players inducted. Its debatable if they were as underserving as players like Jim Bottomley, Jesse Haines and Freddie Lindstrom but they were very undeserving IMO.

[Norm Chortleton]

Of course, that would suggest he (and everyone) be elected on their first year of eligibility. I'm sure that's not what you're saying, but over the course of his years of eligibility he wasn't. Many of us believe that's a mistake. HOF voting is not done in a vacuum.

It's a flawed system, but other variables come into play. Who else was eligible at the time, how long had they waited, etc. And as one poster has since mentioned, Concepcion's eligible years coincided with the beefier, power-hitting shortstop era, something little seen prior to that. Ozzie Smith went in solely on his defensive skills and, IMO, it's a huge oversight to not recognize Davey who was Ozzie before Ozzie was (sans the flips). Until Smith came up, Concepcion was pretty much without peer.

Someone else later noted they see the Hall as "almost holy" - a shrine to the very, very best. I don't disagree, but see it a bit more expansively. The moment I walked through the Hall's doors, I had goosebumps. But it's there to tell the story of baseball and its greats. Without Concepcion, that story is incomplete, IMHO.

That is exactly what I'm saying. 5 years is plenty of time to debate whether a player is HOF-worthy. It's senseless for guys like Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven, Goose Gossage, Jim Rice, etc., to be on the ballot year after year and not get in. Then, when they reach their last year or two of eligibility, the voters say, "uh, oh, we better decide what to do with them."

[redsmetz]

That is exactly what I'm saying. 5 years is plenty of time to debate whether a player is HOF-worthy. It's senseless for guys like Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven, Goose Gossage, Jim Rice, etc., to be on the ballot year after year and not get in. Then, when they reach their last year or two of eligibility, the voters say, "uh, oh, we better decide what to do with them."

I would respectfully disagree. Since the HOF has a flawed system (in my opinion), it's important to have the means rectify the inequities brought on my those flaws. And, frankly, there needs to be times where a keener eye can be given for those overlooked.

Obviously you and I are not going to agree, but I think there are players who are not given their due and a subsequent look, IMO, is a good thing.