How the Hall of Fame SHOULD work...

[clydeclod]

Previously posted to Craig's Blog:

Here's my problem: How is someone a Hall of Famer one year and not the 12 or so prior times he's been on the ballot? I say you either are or you aren't -- you don't BECOME one AFTER your playing days are over. If anything, the people who voted for Bruce Sutter this year and not in

Comments

[corsair553]

I think I disagree with you completely. First of all, I think the whole argument is based on a flawed premise. Yes, Bruce Sutter didn't do anything different between the first year on the ballot and his last year on the ballot. However, just because he got voted on his 12th try does not mean that he wasn't a hall of famer the first 11.

Your theory makes binding the initial assessment of players. Thus, the real question is whether or not you think anyone could ever change their mind. This is apparently what we completely disagree on. I think the discussions people have about players and how good they are are a good thing, and should continue. You would cabin them all into one year on the ballot, because there's no reason to try and convince people that a player is a hall of famer afterwards. While the players don't get better, new information can surface. And as we've seen, nowadays there are more telling and complete statistics to inform voters that weren't available initially. Moreover, even if new statistics don't add any new information I do think that someone can be conviced that someone is a Hall of Famer while not initially thinking so. (See Jayson Stark and Bert Blyleven)

Furthermore, the courtesy votes are not problematic. No one actually thinks that Walt Weiss is going to be elected to the Hall, but they cast their vote for him to show him their respect. Once a clearly unworthy player gets elected because of the courtesy votes, then I will see a problem.

[clydeclod]

You miss the point about the courtesy votes. Each vote for undeserving players like Hal Morris is one less vote that can be cast for the few players on the ballot who DESERVE to get them. If you've been given the honor of having a ballot to file, then it's your CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY to vote for the people who SHOULD be in the Hall, because THAT'S WHAT THE VOTES ARE FOR! The votes are not out of some vague "respect", but rather serving a very specific purpose.

Thus, it's reasonable to put the onus on ballot-casters at the very outset. Much like a political office-holder, if they are not able to perform their duties, they should be parted from them. There are plenty of baseball beat writers, so give the job to the people who actually care and pay attention.

By the way, your first paragraph completely AGREES with my initial premise as I wrote it...

So how's that law school arguing cases thing going for you? ;)

[corsair553]

Hall of Fame voting isn't that you get 5 votes and they have to be apportioned accordingly, you get a yes or no vote on each person up for admission. Thus, your first paragraph is null. I would've expected a journalist to know that.

And my first paragraph was merely setting up the discussion, not actually arguing anything, so, law school case arguing thing is going just fine.