Link seems broken.

there's always this one, also at Change.org:

Baseball Hall of Fame: Follow Your Own Rules, Respect Integrity and Induct Dale Murphy

I think some specifics would make a more convincing case to the powers that be. They'd be less likely to brush it off as everyone being a critic.

There's also one to induct Dummy Hoy:

Hoy petition

Hoy hoy!

Here's the correct link:

Hall of Fame Petition

Members of SABR who have put in the effort to publish studies, books, etc. should have the greatest say in Hall of Fame voting. Maybe limit it to members who have published three items of research.

Let SABR do it, and let them figure out how they want to do it.

There's no better choice available.

Members of SABR who have put in the effort to publish studies, books, etc. should have the greatest say in Hall of Fame voting. Maybe limit it to members who have published three items of research.

That's not awful. I think any "membership" qualification is a bad thing - though that one is certainly better than the one currently being enjoyed.

Let SABR do it, and let them figure out how they want to do it.

This is almost as likely to happen as I am to win the 2013 NL Cy Young award.

Maybe limit it to members who have published three items of research.

They really have to keep the free publicity the media connection gives them.

Yeah, I don't see SABR getting it. More likely the writers keep it, next in line would be a panel the HOF puts together ala the various vet committees and if that is the alternative I say keep it with the writers. Maybe add in a few others - say, anyone who has been a ML GM (all of them would have more knowledge than 90% of the writers, even the bad GM's) and broadcasters with over 10 years experience with any ML team (yeah, probably as bad as writers but it would be more fair as they at least watch every game and that would get Vin Scully a vote). Mix in people the HOF feels are qualified due to research into MLB and reputation (ie: Bill James and the like) thus leading to hundreds more in the voting pool of mainly people who would feel more honoured than those writers who submit blank ballots or decide to quit voting. Also put a rule in place that if twice you submit a blank ballot or fail to submit it that you must appeal to the HOF to regain your vote. Another rule that could be used is if you fail to list any of the people inducted over a 3 year period (last 3 years it would mean you didn't list any of Larkin, Alomar, Blyleven, Dawson) you must appeal to keep your vote as you clearly do not understand the criteria for a HOF'er. Going over a few 3 year periods I find it hard to get a 3 year period that a reasonable person couldn't find one person who made it to vote in. Maybe the Sutton/Niekro/no one grouping (if one per year was mandatory it would've been Sutton/Niekro/Perez all of whom I could see someone arguing against) but then the voter could simply state why they couldn't make themselves vote for any of them but instead voted for, say, Ron Santo and as long as the argument made sense they'd keep voting.

1) Every accredited beat writer
2) Every BBWAA member
3) Every retired Major League player
4) Expand the number of candidates that you can choose on one ballot to 15.
5) Keep induction level @ 75%.

Let SABR do it, and let them figure out how they want to do it.

This is almost as likely to happen as I am to win the 2013 NL Cy Young award.

I can just picture hardcore steroid opponents and supporters spending thousands of dollars on dummy SABR memberships in order to stuff the ballot boxes. Actually that's kind of a nice thought, since it would be so 21st century.

You probably wouldn't see a whole lot of difference in HoF selections by SABR members than you see from the BBWAA. If anything, SABR members as a body are probably *more* opposed to seeing PED users in the HoF than the BBWAA voting community, and statistically-savvy members are still a relatively small minority of the group.

-- MWE

If anything, SABR members as a body are probably *more* opposed to seeing PED users in the HoF than the BBWAA voting community

Based on what I have seen I believe that to be the case - which is perfectly logical, given that the average SABR member is far smarter than the average sports journalist.

If we made SABR responsible for the Hall of Fame voting, that might ruin a perfectly good organization.

If we made SABR responsible for the Hall of Fame voting, that might ruin a perfectly good organization.

I agree. I've belonged to SABR for almost 30 years (I just renewed the other day), and SABR enjoys whatever status it's attained by being neutral on these issues. I'd hate to see it advocate HOF candidates, whoever they might be.

1) Every accredited beat writer
2) Every BBWAA member
3) Every retired Major League player
4) Expand the number of candidates that you can choose on one ballot to 15.
5) Keep induction level @ 75%.

This is a recipe for no one ever getting elected again. The electorate needs to be smaller, not larger. The more people you have, the less likely it is to get 75% of them to agree.

Based on what I have seen I believe that to be the case - which is perfectly logical, given that the average SABR member is far smarter than the average sports journalist.

The average 5 year old is far smarter than the average sports journalist, and serial rapists have more integrity and character. It's a very low bar to exceed as a human being.

I do not see any system that would put SABR in charge of electing the players, as a good idea. The players wouldn't get behind it, and the writers would actively resent and ridicule it. Sad to say, the writers are probably the best equipped to handle it, but I would hope that they open up the vote to more members as newspapers are a dying breed and I believe the number of new members being put into the BBWAA annually has shrunk.

It should be knowledge.

Which leads immediately to the question of who determines who has the knowledge and the right kind of knowledge and the minimum qualifying level of knowledge and ...

I mean you really shouldn't vote for President if you don't have knowledge of the US budget ... and there are, what, maybe 2000 people in the US who understand the US budget? :-)

Murray Chass may be a cranky old loon but he's got knowledge of baseball. Somebody the other day posted that our Montreal political cartoonist is a major baseball fan. The assumption that the BBWAA, even its more farflung members, are "unknowledgable" about baseball is ... well, an assumption with very little fact behind it.

Obviously it is the ethical responsibility of a BBWAA voter who hasn't watched baseball in the last 20 years to not return their ballot ... just as it would be for SABR or any other group.

Another rule that could be used is if you fail to list any of the people inducted over a 3 year period (last 3 years it would mean you didn't list any of Larkin, Alomar, Blyleven, Dawson) you must appeal to keep your vote as you clearly do not understand the criteria for a HOF'er.

There's no chance such a rule would ever be instituted so no need to discuss it at length but, even just using JAWS:

Alomar: 12th among 2B
Larkin: 13th among SS
Dawson: 13th among CF (and he spent a good chunk in RF which JAWS credits to CF)

Blyleven: OK, JAWS loves Blyleven putting him the #18 SP of all time which I find pretty hard to believe. Just behind Carlton and Pedro, just ahead of Perry and reasonably well ahead of Jenkins and Roberts, far ahead of Schilling, Glavine and Mussina. But he did start at under 20% of the vote.

Any reasonably small hall voter might well have not voted for any of these guys and it would be hard to make a case that they were wrong. Certainly it's hard to distinguish among Alomar/Larkin/Dawson so a voter should generally be either "all in" or "all out". And bear in mind that there has never been a single standard for what an HoFer is. There has always been the BBWAA standard (which varies some over time but is generally quite high) and the standards of various committees that have varied all over the freaking place but have generally been a lot lower than the BBWAA standard (except maybe the 19th c committees).

Many folks here seem to want a bright, clear line of what is and isn't an HoFer -- yet we rankle when we are accused of wanting automatic selection of MVPs and HoFs based on WAR.

I understand what John's going for with his idea and, in most eras of HoF voting it would probably work fine because over any 3-year period you'd generally have one or two candidates who created a large consensus. But when you hit lulls, the standard would throw out tons of voters. Eventually all you accomplish is lowering the standards and encouraging "overvoting". If you want to lower the standards, then lower the standards and put the cutoff at 65%.

Also say you're a 2013 voter who didn't vote for Larkin, Alomar or Blyleven. You've got to vote for this year's winner when (a) there might not be one and (b) the most likely candidate coming in seemed to be Morris. Anyway, you'd guarantee a bunch of Bagwell, Biggio, Morris ballots purely because the voter didn't vote for previous "borderline" candidates. Under this rule, I suspect Morris would have been elected already.

OK, I've already violated my own edict but ... part of our issue with the BBWAA is the election of Rice, the possible election of Morris, and (for some of us) the past elections of Puckett, Perez, Sutter and Gossage. The sort of rule proposed would encourage more elections of guys like that. It would potentially punish the voters who held the line against those guys while it's not clear to me that it would help Bonds & Clemens at all.

Yeah, I don't see SABR getting it. More likely the writers keep it, next in line would be a panel the HOF puts together ala the various vet committees and if that is the alternative I say keep it with the writers.

How do other Halls do it? I think football is just 20 guys in a room and they vote privately. I assume other Halls are like that.

I have serious problems with the BBWAA, especially now. But my main reform would be to jettison the character clause. Let someone else take care of the good character Hall of Fame. Many guys in Cooperstown aren't known for that at all. And I certainly do see sportswriters - whether it be a big group of 500+ or 20 sitting in a room - are the right guys to judge character and morality.

I think football is just 20 guys in a room and they vote privately.

Actually, it's 46 guys.

AFAIK, Hockey is the only other HOF that mentions character and sportsmanship in their instructions to the electors. The board of trustees of the Basketball HOF removes candidates from consideration if they are deemed to have "damaged the integrity of the game." IOW, the people who run the joint decided to take that responsibility away from the electorate.

Top guy gets in regardless of pct. Everyone else over 75% too. With the current pile-up, it's going to be a long time before we see an iffy guy get in.

Having the Hall pick the voters seems like a better system. BBWAA writers would be eligible as well as people like John Thorn and Bill James. Restricting the voting pool to the BBWAA alone does not produce the most knowledgeable voting body.

Top guy gets in regardless of pct. Everyone else over 75% too. With the current pile-up, it's going to be a long time before we see an iffy guy get in.

Agreed. I don't see how this could hurt. In years where no one was selected (see 1996), the top few vote getters all got in within a few years anyway, so it's not like the quality of selections will be lowered any.

Having the Hall pick the voters seems like a better system. BBWAA writers would be eligible as well as people like John Thorn and Bill James. Restricting the voting pool to the BBWAA alone does not produce the most knowledgeable voting body.

Only problem I have with that is a minor quibble. The hall would eventually look at the upcoming ballots and try to tailor the elections to what would be most beneficial for them. If they see a lull coming up, they could delay enshrinement of a player to get him in on a slow year. Or they could even try to maximize the attendance by selecting the candidates which would bring in the most amount of people instead of worrying about the best eligible each year.

Mind you that is a minor quibble as I said (although if someone dies in between the elections then it would have been a minor tragedy) but I could see someone saying "Well we won't get a lot of people from Detroit coming out here to see Trammell, but it's possible that a Trammell/Morris pairing will get the people to come"

You probably wouldn't see a whole lot of difference in HoF selections by SABR members than you see from the BBWAA. If anything, SABR members as a body are probably *more* opposed to seeing PED users in the HoF than the BBWAA voting community, and statistically-savvy members are still a relatively small minority of the group.

I've been a SABR member for over 30 years in order to receive their publications, and FWIW pretty much all the SABR members I've known (admittedly not that many at this point) are far more hard core about steroids than I am.

--------------------------------------------

Having the Hall pick the voters seems like a better system. BBWAA writers would be eligible as well as people like John Thorn and Bill James. Restricting the voting pool to the BBWAA alone does not produce the most knowledgeable voting body.

Only what do you mean by "baseball knowledge", and how do you weigh its many components? Joe Morgan likely knows more about baseball from the inside than every Primate put together, and yet would you want to rely solely on people with that kind of knowledge?

Some people are highly adept at pulling up BB-Reference and using it to make micro-judgments about players who died long before they were born, without any sense of humility or realization that there may be more to a player than his WAR or EqA. I'm not sure I'd want to leave Hall of Fame picks solely to people like that, either.

I strongly suspect that Murray Chass has seen more baseball games than 90% of his critics, and can tell you more about players from first hand viewing and experience with them than those critics can. Does that make Chass more "knowledgeable" in the sense that it makes him more qualified to pick HoF candidates than Bill James? I don't think so.

And that's just "knowledge". What about values? Are we supposed to pre-screen potential voters to make sure that only steroid so-whatters can pass judgment on steroid users? Should a tendency to nod one's head in approval at comparisons between steroids and amphetamines be considered a qualifying factor? That seems to be the implicit opinion of many people here.

I'll say it again: The only way that you're going to get "better" HoF selections (translation: HoF selections that you approve of) is to educate the existing and future BBWAA membership and convince them that your perspective on Hallworthiness is superior to theirs. The problem is that you know that this isn't something that can be achieved overnight, and many of you obviously feel that such a long range effort is beneath you, since you're so much smarter than those stupid writers. Which pretty much mirrors those writers' opinions of you**, so where does that put you?

**Not meaning any individual, but if the shoe fits....

There's also one to induct Dummy Hoy:
Hoy petition

Wow, I hadn't heard a peep about that one.

@jolly: it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, we ARE smarter than those writers. On the other hand, this is nothing at all to brag about.

@jolly: it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, we ARE smarter than those writers.

Which ones? The ones who agree with your HoF choices or just the ones who don't?

What does everyone think the HOF is actually going to do?

Personal opinion is they expand the ballot to 15-20 but take no drastic measures. This is considered a fluke year and while no one was voted in. Five players should be near or over 60%. With the names coming in the next few years the Hall will decide against any major changes.

I'll say it again: The only way that you're going to get "better" HoF selections (translation: HoF selections that you approve of) is to educate the existing and future BBWAA membership and convince them that your perspective on Hallworthiness is superior to theirs. The problem is that you know that this isn't something that can be achieved overnight, and many of you obviously feel that such a long range effort is beneath you, since you're so much smarter than those stupid writers. Which pretty much mirrors those writers' opinions of you**, so where does that put you?

You are assuming a lot, Andy. I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me. I also don't have a problem with the BBWAA, in general.

I do have a problem with an outdated process. Restricting the voter pool to BBWAA disqualifies many experts. How does disqualifying people like John Thorn and Bill James make the process better? The process should be big enough to allow people like Thorn in along with people like Chass.

i am not understanding why people think that anyone on this year's ballot is getting in next year, seeing as how the voters get 100% guaranteed always steroid-free people, such as maddux and clemens

oops

maddux and griffey (seeing as how he didn't hit home runs and

sigh

nevermind

what newspaper do bill james and that other guy take pictures for?

I do have a problem with an outdated process. Restricting the voter pool to BBWAA disqualifies many experts. How does disqualifying people like John Thorn and Bill James make the process better? The process should be big enough to allow people like Thorn in along with people like Chass.

To me, the question isn't what disqualifies them, but what method do you use to qualify them? How do you select the experts? The system as it exists now is not ideal, but it works for the Hall. There is a barrier to entry for the BBWAA (covering the game), plus a further barrier for HoF voting (10 years in the organization, and you're supposed to be covering it during that time). SABR is the only realistic alternative, and there seems to be issues with turning it over to them (from what I'm reading from SABR members or others familiar with the organization).

I've belonged to SABR for almost 30 years (I just renewed the other day), and SABR enjoys whatever status it's attained by being neutral on these issues. I'd hate to see it advocate HOF candidates, whoever they might be.

As would I. And while I think that viewpoint is held by the majority of the organization, there's a fairly noisy subgroup - that includes at least one Board member - that thinks SABR *should* be doing this. I wouldn't be surprised to see the organization try.

-- MWE

I'll say it again: The only way that you're going to get "better" HoF selections (translation: HoF selections that you approve of) is to educate the existing and future BBWAA membership and convince them that your perspective on Hallworthiness is superior to theirs. The problem is that you know that this isn't something that can be achieved overnight, and many of you obviously feel that such a long range effort is beneath you, since you're so much smarter than those stupid writers. Which pretty much mirrors those writers' opinions of you**, so where does that put you?

**Not meaning any individual, but if the shoe fits....

You are assuming a lot, Andy. I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me. I also don't have a problem with the BBWAA, in general.

That was my fault for not explicitly saying that "you" didn't mean you personally, but to the sort of blanket opinions about the stupidity of writers that we see bandied around here, such as in #19 and #29 above. I thought my footnote made that point clear, but I guess not.

I do have a problem with an outdated process. Restricting the voter pool to BBWAA disqualifies many experts. How does disqualifying people like John Thorn and Bill James make the process better? The process should be big enough to allow people like Thorn in along with people like Chass.

Again, just to be clear, I'd have no problem in expanding the pool of voters to include non-writers like Thorn, James, and for that matter you or Sean, if we could figure out a way to do so that wouldn't seem to amount to ill-disguised ballot stuffing. But unless this were accompanied by a wholesale purging of the sort of writers who give their ballots little or no thought and obviously no research, I'm not sure that it would have all that much effect on the results.

How is the Veterans Committee selected? How many members does it have?

To me, the question isn't what disqualifies them, but what method do you use to qualify them? How do you select the experts?

I think some kind of committee that elects the voters is the way to go with some general limit (500?) in the voting pool. This would hopefully allow for more active writers and take away people like the golf columnists and the political cartoonist that have votes. I'm not quite sure how you'd do it but I think that's the process. Any other alternative I can think of involves creating a voting pool so vast that I think it would keep people out.

How is the Veterans Committee selected? How many members does it have?

There's a nominating committee, selected by baseball writers, and a Vets committe, a combination of former players, officials and media members.

I still think any fix needs to start there. Stop letting the baseball writers vote a second time on guys they passed over the first time.

Yeah, I don't see SABR getting it. More likely the writers keep it, next in line would be a panel the HOF puts together ala the various vet committees and if that is the alternative I say keep it with the writers.

This discussion seems to be of the variety of "something isn't perfect, we must DO SOMETHING!" variety, wherein no one really thinks through the "something" in their zeal to think about the children.

I don't see a real structural problem with the voting process for the baseball HOF. I see singular, point in time disagreement between HOF voters of a certain age and HOF voters of a younger generation, and the fans of those younger voters. This disagreement is exacerbated by the steroids brouhaha which coincides and elevates the philosophical distinctions between the older "Jack Morris was gritty" voters and the younger "Bret Saberhagen had a better career WAR" voters.

The issue has come to a head right now, because this is the third year of "steroid era" players and the first with a glut of them.

The HOF voting process will sort itself out in due course, to the preferences of the younger, stat-friendly crowd, the way all generational arguments eventually resolve; one funeral at a time.

The only structural changes I'd make to the HOF process would be to change the ballot from 10 lines to no less than 20, preferrably unlimited, and open the voting up to expand from only BBWAA "writers" to cover other obvious "baseball people" like Bill James, Vin Scully and Sean Foreman. Fix those two anachronisms - the limited ballot from a bygone era of 16 professional teams, and the limited definition of a "baseball writer" as a newspaper employee who hangs around half-naked athletes asking them stupid questions which they answer with rote memorized pablum - add in a little patience from the "its not FAIR!!!" younger crowd, and the problem comes out in the wash.