January 02, 2009
Dissecting the Ballot
Joe Posnanski takes an in-depth look at the players on the Hall of Fame ballot. He also posts an all-time team by lineup position. Ruth should bat third and Gehrig fourth, however.
As time passes, I find Hall of Fame arguments less interesting. Maybe the Hall should be dynamic. At any given moment, the Hall of Fame contains the 100 greatest players ever. So every year, voters (and you can expand the number of voters) rank their top 100 players. It would consist of the current Hall of Famers, the players appearing on 5% of the previous ballots, and the new players as done today. So Rickey Henderson comes into the picture, who obviously belongs in the top 100, and someone leaves the Hall. This allows for mistakes to be corrected. It might not be very nice, and I suppose you can recognize these temporary Hall of Famers in some way.
The Hall can then allow for growth. Players appearing in the top ten for ten consecutive years become permanently enshrined. They come off the ballot, and room is made for that many new players. In a way, this would create a tiered Hall of Fame, which others have recommended in the past. Any comments?
A top 100 list of players means every player must be ranked, and could you imagine the arguments that would cause? Plus what's the metric for comparing a batter to a pitcher?
I'm not sure how serious you're being about this, but the BBWA will never agree to be a part of something that takes the title "Hall of Famer" away from some 65 year-old guy who gives a good interview. Not gonna happen.
It's a GREAT idea, but like amos said... it'd never happen. Perhaps the BBWA should lose some power though... a thing I've long been a favor of since they're a flawed bunch themselves.
For what it's worth, I'm also a big fan of the tiered system. Ruth is obviously a better player than, say, Orlando Cepeda. I think the Hall should reflect that with a tier. Even as simple as making the plaques Gold, Silver, and Bronze to differentiate between the best of the best, the greats, and the guys who snuck on the list.
I could agree with a tiered system, but never a revolving one. Once you get in you shouldn't get out. The revolving (evolving?) system kind of thing is good for fantasy leagues, but never a practicality. Could you imagine the debates and telling someone you were a hall of famer 10 yrs ago, but not now? It would be an insult to the player.
I like the idea a lot, but it needn't be for the hall of fame. Some enterprising blogger should set up a website for the purpose, invite a group of knowledgeable voters to vote each year, and maintain a separate public list for which any person could vote at any time, so it is permanently in flux.
You seem to not understand what the HOF is - it's a tourist museum.
This is the perfect suggestion for the beginning of a good idea.