As I sit here watching the induction of this incredible class to the Baseball Hall of Fame, I can't help but think about the news that came out from the Hall of Fame yesterday. Starting next year, candidates will only appear on the ballot for 10 years instead of 15. With next year's class sure to be as star-studded as this year's (Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz) and other sure-fire guys (Ken Griffey Jr., Chipper Jones, Trevor Hoffman, Mariano Rivera, Derek Jeter) to follow shortly thereafter, five fewer years on the ballot is only going to make it that much harder for everybody else to get in.
At first glance, this seems to be a reaction (and possible solution) to the ballot overcrowding created by Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and the rest of the Steroid Era players who otherwise would be deserving, but the writers have made it pretty clear they're not going to elect. So, by cutting five years off of their eligibility, you're clearing Bonds, Clemens, etc., off the ballot sooner, thus theoretically opening up spots for their supporters to vote for someone else.
But, as much as knocking the Steroid Era guys off the ballot earlier will help ease some of the congestion, it also just became a lot harder for the Craig Biggios and Tim Raineses of the world to get into the Hall of Fame via the traditional method. Biggo and Raines are what I consider the "borderline" guys. They obviously have Hall of Fame credentials, but they're not as good as some others on the ballot who deserve to go in ahead of them. Biggio ended up one vote shy of election this year and still has eight years to go, so he'll likely get inducted eventually, but Raines only has three years left. He's simply going to run out of time. If he had eight years instead of three, though, who knows?
While they might not seem that significant, those five years that Raines is losing certainly are. They made the difference between being in the Hall of Fame and not being in the Hall of Fame for several recent inductees. Bert Blyleven was elected in his 14th year in 2011. Jim Rice got in on his 15th and final try in 2009. Jack Morris was just knocked off the ballot after his 15 years expired this year. His voting percentage went up every year from years 10-14 before it understandably went down this year (again, too many more deserving candidates ahead of him).
Of course, being dropped from the writers ballot five years earlier means a candidate moves on to the Veterans Committee five years earlier. But as we've seen, it might actually be harder to get into the Hall of Fame via that route. And with the current structure of the Veterans Committee, candidates are only considered once every three years, so they're now only eligible a maximum of twice in those five years (for example, Morris won't be considered again until 2016 for the following summer's induction, then in 2019, etc.).
Don Mattingly, Alan Trammell and Lee Smith are all between their 11th and 15th years on the ballot, so they'll stay on until they reach 15. Those three will never be elected to the Hall of Fame, however. But there are players who could've finally drummed up enough support over those final five years (Blyleven is a great example of someone whose supporters grew over time) that now have a much smaller window of time, which might not be enough depending on the other candidates in a given year.
I get the idea behind this, as well as the argument that some people make when they say "either you think the guy's a Hall of Famer or you don't." While that's a fair viewpoint, it's not necessarily one I agree with. Take this year (or next year or the year after that). There are more than 10 guys that I would've voted for if I had a vote, and as a result of the 10-vote limit, some players who you otherwise would've voted for had to be left off.
How many years they have left on the ballot shouldn't be a factor when it comes down to determining a player's Hall of Fame worthiness. But it is for many voters. And it does those voters a disservice as well. Instead of having 15 years to think about a player's career, and maybe reconsider his credentials one way or the other, they'll have to rely on their snap judgments. If they come around about a certain player, they'd better do it quick before he's gone.
To me, it seems like there was another solution. It wouldn't have eliminated the ballot overcrowding that I'm sure is one of the reasons for the new eligibility term, but it would've helped ease some concerns about it. Eliminating the 10-vote maximum. That number seems incredibly arbitrary, and it doesn't seem necessary.
On average, only one or two guys gets into the Hall of Fame each year. Increasing the number of candidates the voters can choose wouldn't change that. And even if that average did go up to three or four, so what? If those players deserve it, they deserve it. Sometimes there are fewer than 10 players on the ballot that do. And sometimes there are more than 10, leaving voters trying to figure out who to knock off. I say, if there are 15 guys on the ballot that somebody wants to vote for, let him vote for all 15. You're not going to get 75 percent of more than 500 people to agree on more than two or three players anyway.
Election to the Baseball Hall of Fame is the highest honor a player can receive. It's the top 1 percent of the 1 percent of the population that's had the privilege of playing that great game for a living. It's already hard enough to receive that honor. Why make it harder?
No comments:
Post a Comment