Solution for Hall of Fame Voting Controversy
With the Hall of Fame ballots due in less than a week, baseball writers around the country are looking at players from the past and thinking, “Did he juice? If he did, did it help? Does it matter? Is it cheating, or not?”
Such is the conundrum of players on the ballot from the PEDs Era. How do we solve it? Easy.
To me, the Baseball Hall of Fame is a museum. It’s a physical place that people can visit and learn about the history of the game. There are curators who acquire, organize, and manage historical items to put on display. Let’s leave it at that, and stop voting players into it. End the ballot. Done.
Going forward, the curators decide what players to honor, how to honor them, and when to honor them — just like any other museum. Was “Sue” the Tyrannosaurus Rex voted into Chicago’s Field Museum by a bunch of dinosaur writers? Did space writers vote moon rocks into the American Museum of Natural History? Was the Mona Lisa a first-ballot entry into the Louvre? Of course not. The idea of voting people into a museum is ludicrous, when you think about it. So let’s end it.
Without having the pressure of a vote every year, the great feats — and terrible choices — of Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson, Denny McLain, and Mark McGwire can be detailed and chronicled as part of baseball history. The remarkable run of Dodgers infielders Steve Garvey, Davey Lopes, Bill Russell, and Ron Cey can be properly honored. The brief yet incredibly dominant runs of Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly can be celebrated without the nonsense of requiring 75% of a group of baseball writers to agree that it should be celebrated.
I understand why there was a vote in the past to establish “Hall of Famers.” Further, I understand how important it was — in the past — for individuals to be officially honored as “Hall of Famers.” Mainly, it was a financial thing. Back in the day, players didn’t make the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars that they do now, and their pensions aren’t nearly as lucrative as the ones doled out to more recent MLBPA members. So the credibility of “Hall of Famer” attached to a player was somewhat similar to adding the letters “Dr.” or “M.B.A.” to one’s name — it meant one could make more money. Who gets a bigger payday at a baseball card show? Jim Rice or “Hall of Famer Jim Rice”? For many players, that earning potential was important to enjoying their retirement.
However, the players coming on to the ballot now don’t need the meager dollars attached to “Hall of Famer” status. Rafael Palmeiro, for example, earned well over a hundred million dollars in his steroid-enhanced career — I doubt he, his children, or his children’s children, will ever need to rely on autographed baseballs to pay their doctor bills. So why is it so damn important that multimillionaires such as Palmeiro, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza, Sammy Sosa, etc., be voted in to The Hall? They don’t need the status for anything other than ego. If there was something about their careers that curators believe was so important to the history of baseball that future generations should learn about it, it can be chronicled in some way, shape, or form in the museum. Maybe it’s a photo, or an old glove, or a laser show. Plaques are boring, anyway. With or without voted-in “Hall of Famers,” we’ll still have arguments about who are/were the best players in baseball — and it will remain a fun exercise.
The problem, of course, is that if there is no longer a vote for Hall of Famers, there’s no induction and no gala event to promote and celebrate The Hall every summer. Well here’s an idea: instead of voting in “Hall of Famers,” the BBWAA can vote in a panel of curators every year. The curators can be players, writers, broadcasters, owners, coaches, scouts, MLBPA labor leaders, and maybe even fans. Those curators handed the custodial responsibility of choosing artifacts and events to honor in the Hall, for a period of one year. To some people, the opportunity to shape how baseball history will be displayed may be more of an honor than having their face put on a plaque.
That’s my idea — just throwing it out there. Not saying it’s the greatest idea, but it’s something to start the conversation. In my opinion, the concept of voting players into the Hall of Fame has run its course, and it’s time for something different.
What’s your thought? Is it time to end the voting? If not, why do you feel it is important to continue? Or, maybe you think the voting process needs to be changed. Air it out in the comments.
About the Author
Joe Janish began MetsToday in 2005 to provide the unique perspective of a high-level player and coach -- he earned NCAA D-1 All-American honors as a catcher and coached several players who went on to play pro ball. As a result his posts often include mechanical evaluations, scout-like analysis, and opinions that go beyond the numbers. Follow Joe's baseball tips on Twitter at @onbaseball and at the On Baseball Google Plus page.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed.
I agree 100%, not that Joe’s thought is a bad one, just that it already exists to an extent. I think the HOF membership is part of the allure of baseball. Both in what Izzy describes, the connection from generation to generation of fans, and also in the intrigue of the select membership itself. Izzy is right on when saying that the writers should not be the ones to determine, I prefer baseball people be some mix of players, managers, GMs, etc. The only rule should be some type of limit to the inductees, to avoid voting in a bunch of buddies…something that would maintain the current small percentage of players that make it, whatever that is. Baseball is a sport that transcends the actionof the game – the stats, the characters, the differences from park to park and generatin to generation, and the HOF membership is part of that special intrigue. I know that it is political and especially now with the steriods, but I think the intrigue will outlast the current pitfalls.
This way, no one has to worry about whether or not Sosa, Bonds, McGwire, etc., are “worthy” of being voted in as “Hall of Famers” — a curator puts them into a special room somewhere in the building and their homerun stats are highlighted, and that’s that. Visitors to the Hall can check out the players, read / look at whatever materials are displayed, and draw their own conclusions, argue with each other about who was better, etc.
I’ve been to Cooperstown four times. Love the HOF as a museum. They can honor baseball people with special exhibits and, as many museums do, send out travel exhibits to other museums around the country.
The more I think about it, I realize that your idea is so good that it will never happen. Too many entrenched interests with their petty minds. Too bad!
The problem isn’t in voting for Hall of the Fame inductees,. the problem is the choice of people charged with doing so. It’s time to take it away from so-called journalists and sportswriters, and give it to current Hall of Famers and perhaps retired umpires.
And I think Joe’s suggestion has a lot of merit, BTW.
No matter who votes, they are going to have some biases. Whether it is a journalist or ex-player. Maybe if each voter’s choices were put up to more scrutiny from their fellow voters, he couldn’t get away with irrational choices.
Secondly, beat writers are among the few people whose job it is to watch, and objectively report, every single baseball game of every season. In my mind, that’s a strong qualification for any voter.
At the same time, I agree that many writers have no business voting on HoF inductees, for various reasons. Some aren’t objective. Some don’t watch every single game. Many haven’t ever seen play — in person — the players they’re judging.
Further, I agree there should be more of a mix of voters. I like the idea of some broadcasters getting a vote. I like the idea of umpires, managers, coaches, former players, and HoFers getting votes. Not all, but those who have certain credentials to be decided upon. Which is how I hatched the harebrained idea of voting for a group of curators. Now, who votes for the curators? Hmm … maybe curators from previous years?
Also, your portion about memorabilia and players getting more for signing, having a ‘dr.’ before their name is wrong…scott broscious charges 129 per autograph, jim rice (Hall of Fame Jim Rice) 59…and who made more during their careers.
hilarious.. funniest thing i read all day
I wrote this on Rubin’s blog, but I’ll repeat it here — I think they should use a select group of carefully chosen journalists and current HOF members. Maybe that committee is 30 or 40 people. Half journalists and half HOF members. They get together every year — maybe one weekend a year — and have a debate among themselves. Then they hold an open vote and any player getting over 75% gets in. All their discussion and votes are not open to the public, but how each committee member voted in the end can be made public.
To get on the committee, a writer and HOF member would need 75% of the vote of the current members too. And any committee member who is not voting with any consistency or integrity can be voted off the committee by a 75% vote as well. When an opening comes up, any current member can nominate someone for the vacancy. If multiple people are nominated, then the one who gets the highest number of votes gets to be on the committee.
I just hate the current system where over 500 journalists are sent ballots and then each one votes in a vacuum in sometimes illogical ways. And some of them don’t even cover baseball anymore. It’s a broken system as is and should be changed.
WHY????????????
Isn’t being paid tens or hundreds of millions of dollars enough? Why do players deserve more than that? For what reason? These guys aren’t curing cancers or saving lives, they’re playing a game, and being paid handsomely.
Furthermore, the concept of honoring individuals is in complete opposition to the most fundamental aspect of team sports. Teams win championships, not individual players.
That said, maybe entire teams should be voted into the HoF.
I have no idea how best to respond to such a comment. But that’s your opinion, so thanks for sharing.
Baseball card shows are ONE example of a player making money via HoF status. I suppose I could have detailed the several hundred ways that a former player can financially leverage HoF status but a.) that would have made the post far too long; and b.) I took for granted that one example would be enough for most people to get the idea.
So I guess it was stupid of me to make that assumption, and to not make clear that a card show was merely one example of the myriad ways someone can financially gain from being a Hall of Famer.
I’m in 1000000% agreement with you in regard to the steroids issue. This is why I think the Hall of Fame voting should come to an end — maybe forever. There’s no way to know who cheated and who didn’t. All we know for sure is that steroids didn’t exist in baseball until some point in the late 70s / early 80s. So in my mind, anyone who played after that is under suspicion for cheating.
At the same time, we can’t pretend that baseball wasn’t played for the past 30 years. The baseball museum in Cooperstown is going to exist for the near if not distant future, and its purpose is to chronicle baseball history. What was happening in the 1990s through 2000s is part of that history whether we like it or not. So, let’s make sure that that time is properly chronicled — with full explanation of what was happening with PEDs and offensive numbers skyrocketing. At the same time, stop short of honoring any individuals with “Hall of Famer” status, because we’ll never know who was on the up-and-up and who wasn’t. Stalin and the Nazis burned books and attempted to erase history — we don’t want to be like them, do we?
“What HOF controversy?” is a STUPID question. Everyone following baseball right now will agree that there is more controversy over this year’s HOF vote than ever before, due to the Steroid Era.
“What we need to do is sit back and respect the “Hall” for what it is — a baseball institution that just needs to left alone. Messing with it now will only dilute the accomplishments of the all those who worked their butts off to enter its doors!”
That’s a STUPID explanation for disagreeing with my idea. First of all, any player who “worked their butt off” to get into the HoF shouldn’t be in the HoF, because baseball is a team sport and players should be working their butt off to help their team win. Second, the Steroid / PEDs era starting in the late 1980s and going through 2005 VASTLY “diluted” the accomplishments of all current HoFers. With players pumped up on steroids, hitting 30, 40, 50, and 60+ homers was no longer a special accomplishment. Hitting 500 or 600+ HR over a career was no longer a big deal. Hanging around for 15-20 years and compiling 3000+ hits was no longer as tremendous an accomplishment as it was before.
But hey, maybe you think it’s great that Sammy Sosa hit 609 HR, and have no argument with him being a HoFer as a result. Good for you, bad for me, because I think the moment Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, and any other ‘roided-up player gets in, the HoF is irrelevant.