Tweet
If you were suddenly put in charge of the Hall, what changes would you make to the election process?
I believe the process should better encourage sustained debate and consideration of more candidates. In that vein, These are some of things I've been considering:
- Extend the eligibility period to 5 years, making it a total of 25 since retirement. I know there will be detractors out there that believe if a person isn't elected in 15 years, why would they be elected in 20. You never know, and I don't see the harm in keeping the debate alive for a few years longer.
- Modify the 5% rule. I think we've seen a number of candidates with at least decent arguments fall after receiving less than 5% on their initial ballot - Ted Simmons, Bobby Grich, Lou Whitaker, come to mind. So I would recommend requiring that for a player to be dropped, they received less than 5% in at least two consecutive elections. However, I also don't want to over saturate the ballot with several obviously under qualified players holding on for at least two elections, so I would maintain a threshold for one and done status, I'm thinking 2 or 3% right now. Thus, anyone receiving less than 2 or 3% on their first ballot, would be one and done.
- Totally revamp the Veteran's Committee. The current format is almost as bad as the Frisch years. I believe the role of the Veteran's Committee is to keep the more distant history of the game alive and relevant. Some might argue that if a player wasn't elected by the BBWAA, then why elect them later? Well the BBWAA is not infallible. It's membership displays biases, inconsistencies, and most unfortunately at times, ignorance. Thus the VC should be an oversight on what the BBWAA may have missed, in addition to serving the function of just promoting fading history and figures. To achieve this I would break the VC down into actual committees, specialized in different areas. I would then propose either one of two election processes: 1) The committees have the authority to directly elect the figures under their area; or 2) The committees recommend players under their area to a master committee (which would be comprised of representatives from the sub-committees, and perhaps others such as former players, executives, media, historians, and whatnot, that have displayed a distinct predilection for the game's history), the master committee would then convene and elect at least one player from all the recommendations each year. I prefer the latter approach. I'd have a committee specializing in each of the following areas: 1) Pioneer Era and 19th Century which would examine figures instrumental in the games development as well as the players from the 19th Century; 2) An era up to a certain, perhaps arbitrary date (such players from 1901-WWII or integration); 3) Players after that cutoff date that have been retired for at least 25 years); and 4) Contributors, examining managers, executives, coaches, and other notables whose cumulative contributions might not be able to be boxed into one area (like Buck O'Neill). Regardless of the VC process, I would like to see at least one figure from the game's more distant past, elected per year, as such would be a good way of keeping the history of the game alive and relevant (as it would highlight stir a continuous debate as to what historical figures should enter the discussion).
I believe the process should better encourage sustained debate and consideration of more candidates. In that vein, These are some of things I've been considering:
- Extend the eligibility period to 5 years, making it a total of 25 since retirement. I know there will be detractors out there that believe if a person isn't elected in 15 years, why would they be elected in 20. You never know, and I don't see the harm in keeping the debate alive for a few years longer.
- Modify the 5% rule. I think we've seen a number of candidates with at least decent arguments fall after receiving less than 5% on their initial ballot - Ted Simmons, Bobby Grich, Lou Whitaker, come to mind. So I would recommend requiring that for a player to be dropped, they received less than 5% in at least two consecutive elections. However, I also don't want to over saturate the ballot with several obviously under qualified players holding on for at least two elections, so I would maintain a threshold for one and done status, I'm thinking 2 or 3% right now. Thus, anyone receiving less than 2 or 3% on their first ballot, would be one and done.
- Totally revamp the Veteran's Committee. The current format is almost as bad as the Frisch years. I believe the role of the Veteran's Committee is to keep the more distant history of the game alive and relevant. Some might argue that if a player wasn't elected by the BBWAA, then why elect them later? Well the BBWAA is not infallible. It's membership displays biases, inconsistencies, and most unfortunately at times, ignorance. Thus the VC should be an oversight on what the BBWAA may have missed, in addition to serving the function of just promoting fading history and figures. To achieve this I would break the VC down into actual committees, specialized in different areas. I would then propose either one of two election processes: 1) The committees have the authority to directly elect the figures under their area; or 2) The committees recommend players under their area to a master committee (which would be comprised of representatives from the sub-committees, and perhaps others such as former players, executives, media, historians, and whatnot, that have displayed a distinct predilection for the game's history), the master committee would then convene and elect at least one player from all the recommendations each year. I prefer the latter approach. I'd have a committee specializing in each of the following areas: 1) Pioneer Era and 19th Century which would examine figures instrumental in the games development as well as the players from the 19th Century; 2) An era up to a certain, perhaps arbitrary date (such players from 1901-WWII or integration); 3) Players after that cutoff date that have been retired for at least 25 years); and 4) Contributors, examining managers, executives, coaches, and other notables whose cumulative contributions might not be able to be boxed into one area (like Buck O'Neill). Regardless of the VC process, I would like to see at least one figure from the game's more distant past, elected per year, as such would be a good way of keeping the history of the game alive and relevant (as it would highlight stir a continuous debate as to what historical figures should enter the discussion).
Comment