On the list of bad ideas how does this rank? I would say it's a better idea than contraction and an unbalanced schedule, but worse than the dh, interleague play, a wild card, this time it counts...

why is this a bad idea? I think it is a good idea. They should knock it down to 2 years and knock down the back end to 5 years or so instead of 15 years. Either the writers think you are a HoF'er or you are not.

Now if they would just move the Hall away from the middle of nowhere. . . . .

Wow I hate this. For non-inner circle types I like the idea of a step back and some perspective. For inner circle players I love the aspect of a wait followed by a chance to once again rejoice in their careers.

No ones asking me but I vote no.

How to alleviate the BondsClemensBiggioPiazzaSosaSchillingMadduxThomasGlavineKentMussina problem: add Pedro, Unit, Smoltz, Sheffield, Delgado, Griffey, Hoffman, Pettitte, and Edmonds!

At least the One And Done Club will get lots of new friends.

I vote no. Why are we always in such a rush as a society? Five years is not that long of a period and allows some perspective.

How much more perspective are you going to get from two extra years of waiting? At this point in time every single player from now on that comes up for a Hall vote will have had every single one of their at bats recorded. Every single one of their pitches. Every single one of their catches and flubs. What more is there to find out about them that we can't find out within the three years after they retire?

Goes to show how much attention I pay to the Hall of Fame, I thought the wait period already was 3 years.

Now if they would just move the Hall away from the middle of nowhere. . . . .

I have had it up to HERE with people who have problems with Cooperstown. Yes, it has no legitimate claim to the "origin", but god damn it, it's the perfect place to have a Baseball Hall, it fits perfectly into that feeling of mythology that goes with parts of Baseball history. And in some ways, being in the middle of nowhere is a good thing: not just any schmo can go to Cooperstown. No, you have to be a pilgrim, you have to want to go there. That's part of the point.

why is this a bad idea?

Because it will automatically create more of a logjam. I also like the idea of getting perspective, especially if they are going to insists on the silly little 5% rule. Personally I think the real reason the hof is considering something like this is so that they don't have to confront the steroid issue and years where no one goes in.

2012 is going to be a wasteland, but 2013 you have Schilling and Biggio going in. (with holdovers of Clemens, Bonds) 2014 Maddux, Thomas and Glavine go in. 2015, Randy and Pedro go in, 2016 comes up and Griffey is the only rumor free guy... then you move the requirement up and you might get Rivera and others so they don't have to actually talk about roids.

Goes to show how much attention I pay to the Hall of Fame, I thought the wait period already was 3 years

The waiting period for the Hockey Hall of Fame is 3 years (except for when they waive it). Perhaps you were thinking of that.

When they cut the eligibility wait to 3 years, they should also physically move the museum one half-hour closer to Schenectady.

Goes to show how much attention I pay to the Hall of Fame, I thought the wait period already was 3 years.

I would have guessed 8, which seems a tad excessive. 5 seem good, and to me feels like a reasonable change from the number I would have imagined it to be.

That's part of the point.

For whom? Cooperstown would most definitely love more visitors. MLB would love more visitors. Businessmen would love more visitors. So whose point is this again?

How much more perspective are you going to get from two extra years of waiting? At this point in time every single player from now on that comes up for a Hall vote will have had every single one of their at bats recorded. Every single one of their pitches. Every single one of their catches and flubs. What more is there to find out about them that we can't find out within the three years after they retire?

I think the 5 years probably serves to try to distance the decision emotionally as much as analytically.

I guess the question I would ask is: what's wrong with the current process and waiting period that this solves? What's the need to change?

Because it will automatically create more of a logjam. I also like the idea of getting perspective, especially if they are going to insists on the silly little 5% rule.

This is kind of contradictory. The 5 percent rule limits logjams. I can see making a few changes (maybe two years on the ballot in combination with staggered vote levels to remain on the ballot, 15 percent after 5, 40 percent after 10), but if you give everyone 15 years on the ballot, it will make it even harder to actually elect guys.

At this point in time every single player from now on that comes up for a Hall vote will have had every single one of their at bats recorded. Every single one of their pitches. Every single one of their catches and flubs. What more is there to find out about them that we can't find out within the three years after they retire?

Well, it takes a while to review all that video.

Because it will automatically create more of a logjam

Only a short term logjam which can be easily remedied or simply waded through.

What's the need to change?


My guess would be butts in the seats. A 5 year wait and possibly a few years on the ticket probably dulls the desire for people to come out for the induction. Obviously I'm not saying the diehards won't come out but people by and large do move on.

why is this a bad idea?

I think the better question is, what problem is this going to solve? Five years, three years ... it's pretty arbitrary either way, but I don't see any reason to make a change unless there's some obvious benefit, the dubiously vague need for it to be more "immediate" aside.

EDIT: I see that McCoy addressed some of this in the immediately preceding post. Still, though, I think the question remains. Would this change make any difference in terms of attendance? I don't see any reason to think so. The players who would presumably be affected the most by this change - first-ballot guys - are the guys that are the biggest draws anyway.

The waiting period for the Hockey Hall of Fame is 3 years (except for when they waive it). Perhaps you were thinking of that

Actually I think I was thinking of my fictional strat league Hall of Fame. Which means the 2nd ever ballot is coming up this off-season! Though to be fair I thought I was modeling it on Cooperstown, I guess I was copying Toronto all along.

For whom? Cooperstown would most definitely love more visitors. MLB would love more visitors. Businessmen would love more visitors. So whose point is this again?

His. And mine. Why should I give two hoots about museum curators, MLB officials and some businessmen?

For whom? Cooperstown would most definitely love more visitors.

How is Cooperstown going to get more visitors if the Hall is moved away from Cooperstown?

The best way to attract visitors would be to induct Justin Bieber. Let's hope they're not that desperate yet.

Personally I think the real reason the hof is considering something like this is so that they don't have to confront the steroid issue and years where no one goes in.

Bingo. Yeah, the switch puts somebody on the podium in 2012. But the anabolic voting war to come (2013-20??) is already coinciding with a high wave of incoming options. Adding another 6-12 qualified players will splinter the vote further, thereby increasing the "steroid effect" on everyone's totals. It would brutalize candidacies like Morris' and Larkin's and Raines' and Edgar's and possibly Bagwell's. And it won't accomplish the purpose of tamping down the steroid controversy; people will be growling and cheering about Clemens' non-election whether there are 0 players going in the same year, or five. I wouldn't want to be Kenny Lofton reading this today.

How is Cooperstown going to get more visitors if the Hall is moved away from Cooperstown?

It won't. I was addressing his view that the point of the hall of fame was to be so out there in the middle of nowhere that only the true diehards will come. I'm stating that isn't the business model that Cooperstown or the Hall has or wants. They want people to come to their town and to the musuem. The Clarks never created the Hall so that it would be some pilgrimage that only a few would make. They created it as a tourist attraction during the depression to help a dying resort town earn some revenue.

His. And mine. Why should I give two hoots about museum curators, MLB officials and some businessmen?

Because they create and control the product that you are interested in.

Given that the Post is a piece of crap, I still don't want to react like an old man to indications of change. I don't quite get the reason for this, but I'm willing to hear them. What's the argument? This?

We’re much more of a quick-response world, and a three-year waiting period would fit the bill. This five-year waiting period was first enacted in the 1950s. Times have changed. There were 50 Hall of Famers on stage.

Having read the article, I see that's the whole of the argument. Not compelling.

EDIT: I went to get lunch in the middle of this post, so thanks to those who attempted to answer, but I have to say, the article itself offers pretty much nothing.

It won't. I was addressing his view that the point of the hall of fame was to be so out there in the middle of nowhere that only the true diehards will come. I'm stating that isn't the business model that Cooperstown or the Hall has or wants. They want people to come to their town and to the musuem. The Clarks never created the Hall so that it would be some pilgrimage that only a few would make. They created it as a tourist attraction during the depression to help a dying resort town earn some revenue.

I don't think anyone's arguing about the founders intentions. This is where the whole "mythology" thing comes in. Who cares what some dude named Clark intended to do decades ago, Cooperstown is a fun pilgrimage location (at least it was for me). I don't see why I should prioritize the interests of the founders, museum gate receipts, or the desires of MLB over my enjoyment of baseball nostalgia.

Personally I think the real reason the hof is considering something like this is so that they don't have to confront the steroid issue and years where no one goes in.

Bingo. Yeah, the switch puts somebody on the podium in 2012.

Well, it could be even more than that. The switch could put a ton of players on the podium for 2012. The hall has been losing money for several years now and attendance has been down for several years as well. They might be hurting a lot more than they let on and could be hoping for a huge induction weekend to put them back in the black. In otherwords they might not be able to wait for 2013 and 2014 to come.


Correct me if I am wrong but these would be all of the guys going on the ballot next year if they do this.

2012: Edgardo Alfonzo, Pedro Astacio, David Bell, Jeromy Burnitz, Vinny Castilla, Scott Erickson, Carl Everett, Jeff Fassero, Alex S. Gonzalez, Danny Graves, Rick Helling, Dustin Hermanson, Jose Hernandez, Brian Jordan, Matt Lawton, Javy Lopez, Bill Mueller, Terry Mulholland, Jeff Nelson, Phil Nevin, Brad Radke, Joe Randa, Tim Salmon, Ruben Sierra, Jose Vizcaino, Bernie Williams, Eric Young

2013: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Craig Biggio, Curt Schilling, Sammy Sosa, Mike Piazza, Kenny Lofton, David Wells, Julio Franco, Shawn Green, Steve Finley, Roberto Hernandez, Jeff Cirillo, Jose Valentin, Reggie Sanders, Jeff Conine, Jose Mesa, Royce Clayton, Bob Wickman, Ryan Klesko, Aaron Sele, Woody Williams, Rondell White, Mike Lieberthal, Tony Batista, Mike Stanton, Sandy Alomar Jr., Damian Miller, Todd Walker

2014: Moises Alou, Armando Benitez, Sean Casey, Jose Cruz Jr., Ray Durham, Damion Easley, Jim Edmonds, Keith Foulke, Eric Gagne, Tom Glavine, Luis Gonzalez, Scott Hatteberg, Jacque Jones, Todd Jones, Jeff Kent, Jon Lieber, Esteban Loaiza, Paul Lo Duca, Greg Maddux, Matt Morris, Mike Mussina, Trot Nixon, Hideo Nomo, Jay Payton, Kenny Rogers, Richie Sexson, J.T. Snow, Shannon Stewart, Frank Thomas, Mike Timlin, Steve Trachsel, Jose Vidro

Why the hell can't people leave well enough alone?

Cooperstown is a fun pilgrimage location

Do you do it on a yearly basis? How often have you done it and when are you going next? If you don't do it on a yearly basis and you are not planning on going again or going again any time soon then why should the Hall give a fig about you?

I don't see why I should prioritize the interests of the founders, museum gate receipts, or the desires of MLB over my enjoyment of baseball nostalgia.


Well, you are asking them (or is it demanding?) to prioritize your needs over their business needs. Your needs are purely entertainment based while their needs actually have people's careers and jobs riding on the line.

In fairness to McCoy, I visited the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto when I was there. If it had been out in, I don't know, Kingston or someplace random like that I would have never gone.

I still haven't been to Cooperstown and don't know when I will get the chance, and I don't think it makes me less of a baseball fan just because I find the place prohibitively inconvenient to get to.

Because they create and control the product that you are interested in.

Well yes, they could up and move it if they chose to. But until they actually do that I don't see how they view Cooperstown has any effect at all on how I view it.

The switch could put a ton of players on the podium for 2012. The hall has been losing money for several years now and attendance has been down for several years as well. They might be hurting a lot more than they let on and could be hoping for a huge induction weekend to put them back in the black. In other words they might not be able to wait for 2013 and 2014 to come.

Could be.

Attendance estimates:
For Alomar and Blyleven: 12,000
For Henderson and Rice: 14,000
For Gossage: 10,000
For Ripken and Gwynn: 70,000

This is kind of contradictory. The 5 percent rule limits logjams. I can see making a few changes (maybe two years on the ballot in combination with staggered vote levels to remain on the ballot, 15 percent after 5, 40 percent after 10), but if you give everyone 15 years on the ballot, it will make it even harder to actually elect guys.

Not really, in one sense I guess, but the number of names on the ballot doesn't create a logjam, it's the number of worthy names that creates a logjam. changing it from one year or three year or five year by itself doesn't create a logjam, but adding a few more worthy names to the vote, before you had a chance to clear out the other worthy names, does create a log jam. Only way I could see this making sense is to have two elections for the first year they try to do this, one with all the eligible names under the five year rule, clear out the winners and have a second election with the remaining players and the added players under three year eligibility rules.

We are about to hit a massive influx of great names, I doubt outside of the initial creation of the hof, that there has ever been such an influx of great players all hitting eligibility near the same time, and historically the system they use almost never has 3 or more names get voted in. Why would anyone be tempted to add more names to this influx?

Currently retired players who have legitimate hof arguments and will be on the ballot over the next 6 years... Clemens, Bonds, Maddux, McGwire, Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling, Randy, Pedro, Frank Thomas, Biggio, Bagwell, Edmonds, Griffey, Mussina, Larkin, Raines, Edgar, Palmeiro, Trammel, Sosa, Kent, Walker, Piazza, Sheffield..... and people want to add more names to the ballot?(like Rivera, Chipper, Thome, Manny, Ivan Rodriguez and Vizquel--I assume Jeter will play out several more years)

Even in a perfect world, where Larkin, Raines and Bagwell get voted in, 2012, and Schilling, Biggio, and Piazza in 2013, and Glavine, Thomas and Maddux in 2014, and Randy, Pedro and Smoltz in 2015. That still leaves you with Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Mussina, Palmeiro, Trammel, Sosa, Kent, Walker, Sheffield on the 2016 ballot which also has Griffey, Edmonds, Hoffman and Pettite joining it.

So this is some kind of devious meta-ironic plot to get Steve Trachsel inducted by shortening the wait?

My mind is blown.

How much more perspective are you going to get from two extra years of waiting?

Ask Mark McGwire. Of course if you think that it would have been great to have McGwire in the Hall of Fame before that 2005 congressional hearing added a bit of "perspective" to his career, I can see your point.

Well, it could be even more than that. The switch could put a ton of players on the podium for 2012. The hall has been losing money for several years now and attendance has been down for several years as well. They might hurting a lot more than they let on and could be hoping for a huge induction weekend to put them back in the black. In otherwords they might not be able to wait for 2013 and 2014 to come.

The Hall of Fame is about in as much danger of going broke as The New York Times, with or without idiotic proposals like this. The Hall of Fame isn't Wal-Mart and it doesn't need to be follow the Wal-Mart business model.

Well, you are asking them (or is it demanding?) to prioritize your needs over their business needs. Your needs are purely entertainment based while their needs actually have people's careers and jobs riding on the line.

For the record I went once when I was about 12 or so and had a grand old time. I don't have any immediate plans to go again, though if I have kids maybe...though no immediate plans there either.

I'm just saying I like the current set up. I don't see "MLB doesn't agree with you" as much of a rebuttal. Sure, they can move the museum to New York City or something, and I'd be bummed about that. That's their right. And until that happens I have the right to enjoy the fact that its in an obscure town, whether that quaint charm is a by-product of a resort town scheme or not.

Holdovers Barry Larkin, Tim Raines and Jack Morris are the only ones to really have a shot.

Whither Bagwell?

I don't think 3 vs 5 makes much difference in the abstract. In the short term, as #4 points out, it would seem to make the problem worse. So I don't see them making this change anytime soon. It would probably be phased in along the lines of "everybody retired 2011 or earlier waits 5 years; 2012 waits 4 years; 2013 waits 3 years." Anyway, my guess is that somebody at the HoF made a list of the "clean" candidates likely to be elected over the next several years, guesses that the supply runs out sometime around 2017-18 and they're worried there will be years with no serious candidates other than steroid pariahs.

Basically, no it won't alleviate and maybe could intensify the steroid debate in the short term but I'm guessing it's intended to bring that debate to a close earlier by trying to ensure viable "clean" candidates through the 10s and early 20s.

Or, who knows, it could be something as dull as they have remodeling/expansion plans for 2020 and they want Jeter and Pujols rolling through ASAP to pump up the cash flow.

An alternative is to allow the screening committee to, in "rare" circumstance, wave the waiting period. Not just for Clemente-type situations but also for obvious guys like Ripken. I'd imagine Ripken would draw an even bigger crowd if he was inducted the summer after retirement.

Why would a writer not put a name on the ballot simply because he already put three names on his ballot.

Does a writer not think Maddux is a HoF'er because he voted for Bonds, Clemens, and Thomas already?

One reason Hall officials would want to shorten the waiting period is to make it a more “immediate” event.

By more immediate, they of course mean bigger attendance/lucrative.

Would guys stay on for 20 years after retiring? Or would they remain on the ballot for only 15 years?

When would they implement it? Would they do it right away and toss on the 2012/2013/2014 classes in one hellish over-mass? Would they wait a few years and then introduce it in stages?

In and of itself, a five-year or a three-year deadline isn't that big a deal. It's how they implement any change, if there is one.

Ok, I could see them making this change to get a guaranteed hofer in 2012(which might be what they are most worried about) If they make a change before the ballots go out this year, Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Sosa, Biggio, Schilling,
and
Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Kent...

heck if they are smart they change it gradually, make it four years for now that way it's just Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Sosa, Biggio and Schilling. Schilling and Biggio are probably locks in that case and Larkin probably still makes it. A Red Sox player adds a ton of attendance, and throw in the probable(?) Santo addition and 2012 goes from being a lost cause to a huge success.

short term gain, tons of press articles about Bonds and Clemens etc. From a business point of view, it would be stupid for them not to seriously consider it. From a fan point of view I still hate it.

FWIW, BBWAA head Ken Davidoff commented on his Newsday blog that the Kernan piece was the first that he had heard of such an idea, was "skeptical of its validity," and said he was not in favor.

Not really, in one sense I guess, but the number of names on the ballot doesn't create a logjam, it's the number of worthy names that creates a logjam. changing it from one year or three year or five year by itself doesn't create a logjam, but adding a few more worthy names to the vote, before you had a chance to clear out the other worthy names, does create a log jam.

I agree with this, I just don't understand the objections to the 5 percent rule that I see frequently voiced (other than perhaps extending it two years to get past any first-ballot issues). Guys who get less than 5 percent of the vote are not getting elected. Their presence on the ballots can only serve to inhibit players with a chance from getting in.

Well yes, they could up and move it if they chose to. But until they actually do that I don't see how they view Cooperstown has any effect at all on how I view it.

This is kind of getting odd. I was responding to a poster's opinion that the point of the Hall is to be out in the middle of nowhere. So far you have pretty much disagreed with my view while not really defending the position that I have disagreed with.

It is like someone stating that they think green is the most popular color in the country and me disagreeing with that view and you saying "well, green is my favorite color and that is all that matters".

Does a writer not think Maddux is a HoF'er because he voted for Bonds, Clemens, and Thomas already?

As for this particular case, who knows (it seems more likely that he'd leave off Thomas). But I think we've had enough examples of bizarre voting logic throught the years to make this scenario not at all implausible. The football HOF already limits the number of names on any given ballot under what I assume is similar logic (EDIT: by which I mean "they limit the number of inductees each year").

Why would a writer not put a name on the ballot simply because he already put three names on his ballot.

Does a writer not think Maddux is a HoF'er because he voted for Bonds, Clemens, and Thomas already?

It's not about what an individual writer does, it's about the history of the hof. They never induct four people in a year since the current format started. And there is absolutely no way Clemens or Bonds is going in on the first ballot anyway.

The average writer puts something like 6 plus names on a ballot, only one or two names make it in.

2012 is going to be a wasteland, but 2013 you have Schilling and Biggio going in. (with holdovers of Clemens, Bonds) 2014 Maddux, Thomas and Glavine go in. 2015, Randy and Pedro go in, 2016 comes up and Griffey is the only rumor free guy... then you move the requirement up and you might get Rivera and others so they don't have to actually talk about roids.

In 2012, Larkin goes in. If they do all three classes in one year, the HoF is absolute clownshoes. They'll have such an massively overcrowded ballot that it'll create such a massive ###########.

If the concern is a year without any BBWAA-elected guys, then they should cut the 10-names only limit.

The Hall of Fame is about in as much danger of going broke as The New York Times, with or without idiotic proposals like this.

From the tax records I've seen the Hall has never had a very large safety net to begin with (I think it was 8 or 10 million dollars) and they have been losing money for several years now and look to lose money this year as well.

I agree with this, I just don't understand the objections to the 5 percent rule that I see frequently voiced (other than perhaps extending it two years to get past any first-ballot issues). Guys who get less than 5 percent of the vote are not getting elected. Their presence on the ballots can only serve to inhibit players with a chance from getting in.

The objection is that there are players who are deserving and have left the ballot, three obvious ones are Kevin Brown, Ted Simmons and Lou Whitaker, that a little more perspective would have helped their case. In Kevin Browns case it seems part of what hurt him was a big class along with the fact that he's a dckhead, and Whitaker might have gained traction after Sandberg went in.

They never induct four people in a year since the current format started.

And how many years have there been 4 or more legit HoF candidates on the ballot?

From the tax records I've seen the Hall has never had a very large safety net to begin with (I think it was 8 or 10 million dollars) and they have been losing money for several years now and look to lose money this year as well.

The point is that if the HoF ever were in any actual danger of croaking, baseball would find ways of making sure it didn't happen. The free publicity baseball gets from the Hall of Fame is worth a hell of a lot more than the relative chump change it would take to cover any losses.