J.T. Snow

[Freakshow]

I was surprised there doesn't seem to be a cowtipper poll about him, so I started this thread. Not because I think he's any kind of serious HOF candidate. It's because he should be on the 2012 BBWAA ballot.

Here's a note I recently sent to the Hall.

Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 7:32 PM
To: Research
Subject: [Research & Library Center] 2012 BBWAA Candidates

Daniel Greenia sent a message using the contact form at http://baseballhall.org/contact.

Looking at upcoming BBWAA candidates I want to bring the strange case of J.T.
Snow to your attention. Snow was released by Boston in June 2006, ending his career in pro ball. In 2008 this happened (per Wikipedia):

"On September 24, 2008, the Giants signed Snow to a one-day contract, and he took the field on September 27 against the Dodgers, but was replaced before the first pitch. It was a move that allowed Snow to retire as a Giant."

Under the official rules this apparently counts as a Game for Snow.
Should it? Does that rule make any sense?

I would petition for this "game" to be ignored and allow Snow to debut on the next BBWAA ballot.

Dan Greenia

I received this pat response:

Daniel,

MLB recognizes Snow having played a game in 2008, so that means he is not eligible for the BBWAA ballot until 2014. This is what the BBWAA recognizes as well.

Best,

(name deleted)
Research Associate
National Baseball Hall of Fame & Museum
A. Bartlett Giamatti Research Library
25 Main Street
Cooperstown, NY 13326

I then sent this reply:

Dear ,

Thank you for your quick response.

OK, right, rules are rules. What I'm asking is to bring a little reasonable thought to the process of constructing the ballot. My question was, "Does that rule make any sense?" Rules should be guidelines, not constraints against exercising common sense; as the case warrants.

Obviously, JT Snow isn't a big deal; he won't get 5% from the voters. It's about establishing a precedent in case Ichiro or Pujols or someone truly great does the same thing.

We know that Snow retired in 2006; he did a one-time stunt that was counted as a game, although he didn't play. No reasonable person would argue that his playing career was extended. More to the point, he did nothing to change his total contribution as a player, his image as a candidate is exactly the same. To restart his HOF eligibility waiting period based on this non-appearance makes no sense and is unfair and disrespectful to Snow, in my opinion.

You and I have better things to do with our time than to become overly concerned about issues like this. However, to those fans like myself who care about the HOF, this lack of even considering a minor change to the rules to improve the process tends to lessen our respect for the HOF. This lack of self-examination, regularly reassessing the rules, leads to a flawed process.


Dan Greenia

J.T. Snow last played in 2006 and announced his retirement after that season. From mlb.com on 12/7/2006:

SAN FRANCISCO -- Longtime Giant and fan favorite J.T. Snow has announced his retirement as a player after a 15-year big league career and has joined the San Francisco Giants front office, the club announced today.

If you agree that Snow should be on the next BBWAA ballot, that they should ignore his pregame bow in 2008, send a note to the HOF and the BBWAA petitioning for his inclusion.

[Cowtipper]

Does it matter THAT much? He's only going to get a vote or two anyway, either way. It seems like it is more effort than it is worth.

[Freakshow]

Does it matter THAT much? He's only going to get a vote or two anyway, either way. It seems like it is more effort than it is worth.

Well, yeah, if one's hobby is the Hall of Fame, it kinda matters when the Hall does nonsense like this.

But the larger point is, as I wrote:

Obviously, JT Snow isn't a big deal; he won't get 5% from the voters. It's about establishing a precedent in case Ichiro or Pujols or someone truly great does the same thing.

[Freakshow]

I sent this note to the BBWAA:

On Feb 9, 2011, at 12:38 PM, "Greenia, Daniel" <Greenia.Daniel@aod.org> wrote:
Dear Writers,

Looking at upcoming BBWAA candidates I want to bring the strange case of J.T. Snow to your attention. Snow was released by Boston in June 2006, ending his career in pro ball. He announced his retirement officially on 12/7/2006.

In 2008 this happened (per Wikipedia):

"On September 24, 2008, the Giants signed Snow to a one-day contract, and he took the field on September 27 against the Dodgers, but was replaced before the first pitch. It was a move that allowed Snow to retire as a Giant."

Under the official rules this pregame bow counts as a Game for Snow.
Should it? Does that rule make any sense?

I would petition for this "game" to be ignored and allow JT Snow to debut on the next BBWAA ballot. I would also add that this isn’t specifically about JT Snow; he won't get 5% from the voters. It's about establishing a precedent in case Ichiro or Pujols or someone truly great does the same thing.


Best,


Dan Greenia

I soon received a response from Ed Price:

Dan:

This is something about which you should contact the Hall of Fame, which determines eligibility.

To which I responded:

Hi, Ed,

I did contact the HOF first. They sent me back this brief, pat reply: “MLB recognizes Snow having played a game in 2008, so that means he is not eligible for the BBWAA ballot until 2014. This is what the BBWAA recognizes as well.”

I sent them this slightly irritated response, to which they have not replied:

“[quoted in first post here]"

So I then decided to contact the BBWAA, knowing that if the writers want something changed the HOF will do its best to accommodate them. Or on a similar tack, I think if there becomes a general awareness of this situation among fans that the Hall will feel compelled to address the issue. Unfortunately, bad PR seems to be a prime motivator for change, rather than self-examination.

So I will continue to agitate on this issue.

Best,

Ed immediately replied back to me:

Speaking for myself, I'm not sure why which year a player becomes eligible is a hug deal.

Snow did this of his own accord. As would anyone else. And the 5-year rule is in for a number of reasons -- to avoid worries about actual comebacks and to give voters time to reflect on players' careers.

Fair enough. Here's my response:

Hi, Ed,

Well, of course it’s not a “hug(e)” deal. It’s just along the general lines of, Why wait to do the obvious? If a guy is a hall of famer, get him on the ballot and elect him. Five years is more than enough time “to avoid worries about actual comebacks and to give voters time to reflect on players' careers.” In fact, three years would work just as well.

It’s the final honor for players like Snow simply to appear on the HOF ballot – and yes, it is an honor. And an even higher honor to receive a vote. And an even higher honor to get 5% support. And an even higher honor to get 15 years on the ballot. Why make Snow wait another two years to be honored? The HOF rules say. “A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues … ending five (5) years prior to election.” Snow did not “play” in 2008; he has satisfied the intent of the rule and should not be forced to wait 2 years beyond the next election to receive his honor.

Speaking for myself, I would not even count a few token appearances after a player’s career to be a restarting of their HOF eligibility clock. For example, Hideo Nomo. Tampa Bay released him in July 2005, ending his MLB career. Then KC let him get pounded three times in April 2008, setting back his HOF eligibility three more years. IMO that’s nonsensical.

I think the BBWAA screening committee should be tasked to consider players’ eligibility for the 2012 ballot, even if they played a few token games after 2006. Along with Snow, they could put players like Sandy Alomar, Jr. on the 2012 ballot, ignoring his 8 games, 22 PA at age 41 in 2007. Or Rheal Cormier would be eligible for consideration, setting aside his 6 G, 3 IP in April 2007. Again, why wait? They’ve satisfied the spirit of the waiting rule.

I doubt that in 2008 Snow had any concern that his actions would have an effect on his waiting period for HOF eligibility. Indeed, it makes little sense that it should. And he’s probably not much bothered by it now. The issue here is the precedent being set, as I said before. When the occasion comes that the rules are unnecessarily delaying the HOF entry of a truly great player, the failure to modify the rule may come back to bite the HOF.

Thank you for your responses.

[Cowtipper]

But it really doesn't matter. A player who is deserving will get in when he gets in, an player who is not will wait. It's not that big a deal.

[Freakshow]

But it really doesn't matter. A player who is deserving will get in when he gets in, an player who is not will wait. It's not that big a deal.

It's about as relevant as a thread discussing the HOF case of Luke Sewell, right?

[Bigfoot 88]

Child please

[Cowtipper]

It's about as relevant as a thread discussing the HOF case of Luke Sewell, right?

I never brought up the relevancy of it. I am referring to the amount of effort you are asking us to put into this, when really we shouldn't be putting ANY into it because there is really no reason to. The point is, who cares if he came back and played a game? Who cares if Ichiro comes back four years after retiring and plays a game? Then he has to wait a little longer to get into the Hall. It's not a big deal.

[Freakshow]

I never brought up the relevancy of it. I am referring to the amount of effort you are asking us to put into this, when really we shouldn't be putting ANY into it because there is really no reason to. The point is, who cares if he came back and played a game? Who cares if Ichiro comes back four years after retiring and plays a game? Then he has to wait a little longer to get into the Hall. It's not a big deal.

I refer you to post #1:

If you agree that Snow should be on the next BBWAA ballot, that they should ignore his pregame bow in 2008, send a note to the HOF and the BBWAA petitioning for his inclusion.

You don't agree. That's fine.

For myself, as someone who does care about the HOF, I see at least three reasons to commit the effort required to send a sentence or two to the HOF/BBWAA:

1) Life is uncertain. Delays to eligibility can result in players not being honored while they're alive.
2) Respect for the process. When the HOF adheres to rules that defy common sense, it calls into question the quality of the honor being bestowed. The rules for the HOF (as well as the rules of the Game) have been continuously reviewed and tweaked as necessary. This just another time where a weakness in the rules should be addressed.
3) Respect for the person. Snow has earned a place on the HOF ballot with his play. He has fulfilled the necessary waiting period. His honor is now due. Snow's "game" in 2008 is like a pinch-hitter being announced then being replaced by another batter before seeing a pitch because the opposition made a pitching change. That's not counted as a game (Rule 10.03(b) Comment).

You're saying there's no reason for concern here, no point to pursuing it. Well, you're right. Do you know why there's no crying in baseball? Because it doesn't matter, it's not important! It's a game for the participants, part of the entertainment industry for the fans. A hobby for us researchers. Who cares if Luke Sewell is a credible HOF candidate or not? We do! I posted a comment in that thread, after all.

So please don't try to tell us what we should and shouldn't care about.

[Freakshow]

I sent this two-part message to Fan Feedback at mlb.com:

Rule 10.20
MESSAGE:
Researching players coming up for the Hall of Fame, I came across the case of JT Snow. After retiring in 2006, Snow signed a one-day contract and was listed in the starting lineup on 9/27/08. He took the field, then took his bow and exited before the game started. This actually counts(!) as a G in his official stats. Rule 10.20 says: "…such players, however, shall be credited with one game played ... so long as they are announced into the game or listed on the official lineup card." (cont)

Rule 10.20 (cont)
MESSAGE:
This defies logic. This is like a PH announced into the game, but being replaced before batting. That's not counted as a game. Also, in Rule 10.23(c), Snow's stunt would not continue a cons G played streak. The HOF told me that Snow is not eligible now due to that game in ‘08. Can Rule 10.20 be changed, or at least a pronouncement that his "game" in 2008 should not deny him a place on the 2012 BBWAA ballot? He has fulfilled the Hall's 5-years without playing requirement. Best, Dan

So far nothing but a robo-acknowledgment in reply.

[Freakshow]

I may have misspoken about one aspect. I wrote:

This is like a PH announced into the game, but being replaced before batting. That's not counted as a game.

Looking into this, I believe the announced batter IS credited with a game played (against all logic).

Is there a rules maven here who can confirm or deny whether a sub who is announced but doesn't play gets credited with a game?

[jjpm74]

I may have misspoken about one aspect. I wrote: Looking into this, I believe the announced batter IS credited with a game played (against all logic).

Is there a rules maven here who can confirm or deny whether a sub who is announced but doesn't play gets credited with a game?

This actually came up last season when I was watching a Yankees game. Whether or not they get credited a game is at the discretion of the official scorer presiding over the game.

[Freakshow]

This actually came up last season when I was watching a Yankees game. Whether or not they get credited a game is at the discretion of the official scorer presiding over the game.

Is their decision based on any criteria or is it an entirely inconsistent decision; some do it one way, some do it the other?

[jjpm74]

Is their decision based on any criteria or is it an entirely inconsistent decision; some do it one way, some do it the other?

From what the announcers said, it is at their discretion in the same way a game where the a pitcher leaves the game before the 3rd out in their half of the 5th inning with the lead is at the discretion of the official scorer. In other words, it is a judgement call. I have no idea how someone can "judge" one announced pinch hitter who is used to get a pitcher out of the game to be officially credited with a game, but not another, though. Maybe it is determined by whether or not the manager successfully forced a pitcher out of the game by having a given pinch hitter announced.

[Beady]

I think these announcers were probably just mistaken, and an announced pinch hitter always is credited with a game played. Official Rule 10, the scorer's rule includes this provision, rule 10.3(b)

"The official scorer shall identify in the official score report any player who enters the game as a substitute batter or substitute runner...The record of substitute batters and runners shall include the name of any such substitute whose name is announced, but who is removed for another substitute before he actually gets into the game. Any such second substitute shall be recorded as batting or running for the first announced substitute."

This is the only reference I've found to the case of a pinch hitter who is called back after being announced. The clause does not refer explicitly to credit for a game played, and in fact nowhere in the rule is the GP mentioned at all, although probably everything else does appear that you'd likely think of as an official statistic. But, at any rate, if the scorer were empowered to decide whether the player was credited with a game or not, that fact would have to be mentioned in the rule.

If something similar to Snow's case were to happen to a player like Pujols, someone who was a guaranteed or likely first-year electee, then I can well imagine that it would become a subject of at least some controversy, and quite possibly an exception would be made. But I don't think inaction in Snow's case establishes a strong precedent. The straightforward interpretation of the rule is simply being accepted in his case as it has been in the past, and that's not precedent, it's business as usual. It doesn't at all rule out a new departure in a different case later on.

[Freakshow]

I received this note today from the same guy at the Hall of Fame:

Daniel,

The BBWAA sets these rules, not the Hall of Fame. If the rules aren't black and white, then where do you draw the line? One game? Five games?
And who makes that call?

I hope this helps clarify,

My response to him:

Dear Freddy,

Thank you for giving more thought to this issue. Unfortunately, your rationale doesn't quite stand up to scrutiny.

The fact is, for more than 40 years the BBWAA has employed fuzzy rules in deciding who makes the ballot. Since 1968, the BBWAA screening committee employs subjective criteria in deciding which 10-year players among those retired five years ago will actually appear on the ballot. The perils of this subjective process were starkly revealed in 1978, with the flap surrounding the screeners' rejection of Milt Pappas.

Given this history, it would not be much of a reach to give the screeners the authority to put on the ballot players who made only token appearances in the five years since they last played substantially. For example, they might be allowed put players like Sandy Alomar, Jr. on the 2012 ballot, ignoring his 8 games, 22 PA at age 41 in 2007. However, I don’t advocate for this; we know how an arbitrary process such as this can lead to controversy and charges of favoritism. I think we would agree that there ought to be objective criteria used to decide eligibility for the HOF ballot.

You asked, where do you draw the line? Employ Occam's Razor; or KISS. In other words, try to keep it simple and sensible. Follow the wording of the BBWAA Election Rules: “Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election.” Taken literally, rather than technically, Snow was not an “active player” in 2008. Snow didn’t try to work himself into game shape in 2008; his intent was never to actually be an “active player”, but simply to be honored in a Giants uniform.

The Snow Affair is an opportunity to clarify the rules and set them aright. Rule 3.C of the Election rules should be amended to define the term “active players” to conform to Rule 10.23(c) of the Official Baseball Rules regarding consecutive-game playing streaks. So add something like this to HOF Rule 3.C: Unless a player plays at least one-half inning on defense or completes a time at bat, in the regular season or the post-season, he will not be considered to be an active player in that season for purposes of HOF eligibility.

That’s where you should logically draw the line. The rule that defines a “Game” that serves to continue a player’s career should be the same as the Official Baseball Rules that define a “Game” that serves to continue a player’s consecutive game streak. J.T. Snow’s appearance in 2008 would not continue a consecutive game streak, according to Rule 10.23(c); likewise, it should not be counted as an active continuation of his playing career.

The Hall of Fame should encourage the BBWAA to address this modification to the eligibility rules.

I hope this helps,

[Paul Wendt]

>>
That’s where you should logically draw the line. The rule that defines a “Game” that serves to continue a player’s career should be the same as the Official Baseball Rules that define a “Game” that serves to continue a player’s consecutive game streak. J.T. Snow’s appearance in 2008 would not continue a consecutive game streak, according to Rule 10.23(c); likewise, it should not be counted as an active continuation of his playing career.
<<

Certainly this criterion is reasonable.

Regarding the Cause:
In my opinion there is an essential a tactical question. Maybe that means it isn't a worthy Cause, tactics be damned.
Does this particular engagement help you or hurt you as a critic who writes to baseball people and institutions on several matters, consistently over his own name?

Unfortunately I can't give advice with any confidence. If someone is moved to dismiss you here, is that bad? Or will it make you a more compelling critic in general?

[Freakshow]

I started this thread simply to chronicle my attempts to influence the powers that be regarding the rules that govern the Game. This started with direct contact with the institutions involved. As this by itself will probably not bring about the change I seek, other avenues for increasing general awareness are being explored.

While the original impetus for this thread was the injustice being done to Snow, this has become subordinate to the Cause. That is, to improve the rules. And this is on two fronts:

1) To change rule 10.20 of the Official Baseball Rules so that merely being announced into a game or listed in the starting lineup does not count as a Game in the official statistics. I would argue that a Game played should be credited when a player is in the game when either 1) one pitch is thrown, 2) one fielding chance occurs, or 3) a base is gained. In other words, to be in the game and on the field when something happens. I think that precipitating a pitching change or some other managerial move by your announced presence does not constitute "being in the game when something happens."

2) To change rule 3.C of the BBWAA Election Rules to conform with the criteria for continuing a consecutive game streak as laid out in Rule 10.23(c) of the Official Baseball Rules. In other words, the activity necessary to continue a playing career for purposes of HOF eligibility should be the same as the activity necessary to continue a consecutive game streak.

Disregarding the question of whether or not all this attains the threshhold to be termed a "Worthy Cause," I would find critiques of my arguments and tactics to be much more valuable. Thanks, Paul.

[DoubleX]

While I don't think isolated instance is a big deal given the player involved, it's nonetheless pretty interesting, and as Freakshow says, could become a bigger deal if a more prominent player goes through similar circumstances. Many of us may not take this issue as seriously as he does, but any criticism is really unwarranted. So I thank Freakshow for bring this interesting oddity to our attention and see nothing wrong with his attempts to bring it to the Hall's attention as well.

[Steven Gallanter]

While I don't think isolated instance is a big deal given the player involved, it's nonetheless pretty interesting, and as Freakshow says, could become a bigger deal if a more prominent player goes through similar circumstances. Many of us may not take this issue as seriously as he does, but any criticism is really unwarranted. So I thank Freakshow for bring this interesting oddity to our attention and see nothing wrong with his attempts to bring it to the Hall's attention as well.

Yes, Freakshow does have a small point that might relate to a consecutive games streak or record for the most games appearing at a position. The HOF should probably make a rule of some sort to clarify 1 game instances where the player doesn't bat or take the field.

[Freakshow]

There is now an article regarding this topic at Baseball Think factory: J.T. Snow, Rule 10.20 and the Hall of Fame

[Freakshow]

A couple people were kind enough to provide links to the BBTF article on their website:

Rob Neyer at SBNation

Graham Womack at Baseball Past and Present

[Freakshow]

A week ago I inquired to see if the Giants organization had any interest in going to bat for Snow. Nope.

I started with this brief note:

JT Snow last played in 2006 so he should be eligible for the next HOF election. The HOF says no, that his farewell appearance in Sept 2008 counts as a game. My article at Baseballthinkfactory has the details: "J.T. Snow, Rule 10.20 and the Hall of Fame."

The response:

Thank you for writing and sharing your thoughts with us. JT Snow's last game was 2008.

Best Regards,
Giants Guest Services

I sent a fuller explanation:

Technically true. But was he an “active player”? That is the question that the BBWAA Rules for Election leaves open for interpretation.

Was Snow in the game and on the field when a play happened? No.
Did the Giants sign him in 2008 intending to let him actually play? No.
Did Snow work to get himself into playing shape? No.
Was Snow’s intent for being activated entirely symbolic? Yes.

Doesn’t look like an active player to me. The HOF is about to do a disservice to one of your own.

The Rockies Eric Young, who likewise retired in 2006, did the same as Snow in September 2008. But Young will be eligible now because he didn’t get cute and have his name written into the starting lineup. Snow has earned a place on the HOF ballot with his play. He has fulfilled the necessary waiting period. His honor is now due.

For a fuller discussion, check out the article:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/..._hall_of_fame/

Thank you for your response.

The response:

Thank you for the comments. This is probably more of a questions for those who vote on this and HOF.

I tried again:

I agree, and I have been in contact with the HOF, as well as the BBWAA. However, these institutions normally do nothing until prodded to take action. The team and the media that a hall of fame candidate played for become their primary advocates. If the Giants and the Bay Area media do nothing to increase awareness of the impending snub of Snow by the Hall, then an injustice will occur; a small injustice, but an injustice nonetheless.

The rules can and should be interpreted to make Snow eligible now; it’s unfair for him to wait two more years. Appearing on the HOF ballot is an honor that only 7% of major league players receive (72 of 1029 players who last played 2001 to 2005). For players like Snow, it is the highest honor the Game has for them. Justice delayed is justice denied.

There is also the issue of the precedent being set. If Ichiro or Pujols or someone truly great does the same thing, this could be a major controversy. Get the rules clarified now. The rules for the HOF (as well as the rules of the Game) have been continuously reviewed and tweaked as necessary. This just another time where a weakness in the rules should be addressed.

A week later I finally got something I could use:

Very good points, but I am just the one that answers the many questions of Giants fans, many of which I am not the expert at. I would suggest asking one of the beat writers this question. I was lucky to listen to our beat writer answer questions on topics like this but not this exact question. He was very open in his answers, he was Harry Schulman. This is also an interesting question for Marty Lurie, on KNBR.

I then suggest this:

Thank you for the suggestions.

Since you, as the club’s representative, already have a relationship with these people, it would be much more effective if you could notify these parties rather than me. You represent Snow’s franchise, his employer. The SF media depends on you; if you requested them to give a little notice to Snow’s plight they probably would do it. Or you could just forward them our conversation here.

I live in a Detroit suburb and have little interest and knowledge of Giants baseball. My main interest is the Hall of Fame and their flawed system. I hope they will do right by JT Snow. I have no standing with the Bay area sports media; you do.

I'll also send notice to the two guys they mentioned.

[J W]

Pretty neat Mr. Greenia. Your argument makes sense to me; that J.T. Snow is the subject of the ruling is irrelevant, but it would be wrong to allow someone to pay his/her way into an official game without having a plate appearance.

[Freakshow]

Pretty neat Mr. Greenia. Your argument makes sense to me; that J.T. Snow is the subject of the ruling is irrelevant, but it would be wrong to allow someone to pay his/her way into an official game without having a plate appearance.

Well, yeah. The article is a Modest Proposal; satirical, tongue-in-cheek.

I contacted the two guys suggested to me. Marty Lurie sent an immediate response:

Dan got it..I'll use this on the pregame...thanks,
Marty

-----Original Message-----
From: "Greenia, Daniel"
Sent 03/22/2011 12:07:20 PM
To: marty@knbr.com
Subject: JT Snow hall of fame


Hi, Marty,

Since you seem to be the #1 Giants’ voice I thought you might be interested in the unique circumstances concerning hall of fame eligibility for J.T. Snow.

Being a fan favorite, the Giants signed Snow to a one-day contract in September 2008, so he could take a final bow and retire with the team. The Rockies did much the same that month with their guy Eric Young. Both had retired back in 2006. After waiting five years they would be eligible for the HOF ballot in 2012, the upcoming election. As it turns out, Young will be eligible but Snow will not. You see, the Giants got cute and wrote Snow’s name onto the starting lineup card on that day in 2008. According to Rule 10.20 of the Official Baseball Rules, this officially counts in the stats as a Game played(!?!). The Hall of Fame has written to me that this will delay Snow’s eligibility for the BBWAA ballot for two years.

I’ve also corresponded with the BBWAA, citing their Rule 3.C: “Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.” The phrase “active player” is undefined and ambiguous. I’m saying that being technically credited with a Game in 2008 did not make Snow an active player. Snow didn’t try to work himself into game shape in 2008; his intent was never to actually be an “active player”, but simply to be honored in a Giants uniform.

Well, both the BBWAA and the HOF want to sweep this away as a non-issue. The general attitude is Who cares about Snow; he’ll be lucky to get a vote. There are several reasons to address this issue:

1. Rule 10.20 is illogical. They should credit a player with a Game played only if they are in the game when something happens. A Game played should be credited when a player is in the game and on the field when either 1) one pitch is thrown, 2) one fielding chance occurs, or 3) a base is gained.
2. It’s inconsistent. Snow’s Game in 2008 is not sufficient to continue a consecutive-game playing streak. (Rule 10.23 says that a player has to play a half-inning on defense or complete a time at bat to continue a consecutive games streak.) I suggest that the HOF should use this same criteria for continuing a career; amend rule 3.C of the BBWAA Election Rules and add this: Unless a player plays at least one-half inning on defense or completes a time at bat, in the regular season or the post-season, he will not be considered to be an active player in that season for purposes of HOF eligibility.
3. Respect for the process. When the HOF adheres to rules that defy common sense, it calls into question the quality of the honor being bestowed. The rules for the HOF (as well as the rules of the Game) have been continuously reviewed and tweaked as necessary. This is just another time where a weakness in the rules should be addressed.
4. The precedent. If Ichiro or Pujols or someone truly great does the same thing, this could be a major controversy. Get the rules fixed now.
5. It’s unfair to Snow. Appearing on the HOF ballot is an honor that only 7% of major league players receive (72 of 1029 players who last played 2001 to 2005). For players like Snow, it is the highest honor the Game has for them. Snow has earned a place on the HOF ballot with his play. He has fulfilled the necessary waiting period. His honor is now due.

I wrote an article about this at Baseball Think Factory:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/..._hall_of_fame/

Thanks for reading. Please consider bringing this issue to light. A player’s club and its media are his primary advocates in any issues with the Hall of Fame or the BBWAA electorate. If you don’t speak up against this mistreatment of Snow, who will?