2016 Baseball Hall of Fame Nominees

A majority of those players should be in the Hall of Very Good.

 

No, count them. A thin majority are likely HOFers, if not for PEDs.

 

75 percent to get in is what makes it hard to get in. That's a very high standard.

It doesn't matter how many you can vote for, it still takes 75 percent.

If people still only vote for people they think are HOFers, and not just random people to throw bones too, it won't change how hard it is to get in.

 

It's supposed to be pretty exclusive. They are guys you feel people should take note of 200 years from now. I don't know where folks got the idea that it's supposed to be inclusive.

And I'm sorry, but I don't see Jorge Posada as being somebody who future generations of the game should consider one of baseball's all-time greats.

 

If people are given votes just to keep them on the ballot for another year, I consider that having a bone thrown to them.

 

Yeah, it's sure not like the old days, when only inner-circle Hall of Famers like Ross Youngs got in.

Jesus H., two years ago, this board had a conniption meltdown because no one was voted in. OOP wanted to dismantle the BBWAA. Now it's 800 home runs or GTFO.

You people would complain about Mila Kunis, naked under your Christmas tree. With her barrel of Jim Beam.

 

I can only speak for myself but I don't do that. I only vote for players who I feel are worthy HOFers. If I am between two worthy HOFers for my last spot and I feel one needs the vote more to stay on the ballot, I'd vote for him. That's why I voted for Kent and Sheffield and not Mussina.

However there are a lot of guys I feel we're close to the line and it's a shame they didn't get more support, but I nonetheless felt they were just under than line, so I never voted for them (Edmonds, Bernie Williams, Kevin Brown were three really good players who deserved better than one and done. But I didn't vote for any of them.

I think lots of really good candidates get less support than they should have had, and fewer years on the ballot, because of the limit of 10. But I don't think anyone is kept out of the Hall. A guy like Edmonds may have hung around the ballot at 10-25 percent for a long time without the limit, but he would never get in.

I think the solution is maybe eliminate the limit of 10 but then raise the minimum to stay on the ballot and/or reduce the term to 5 years. Or else some combination like 5 consecutive years under 30 or 10 if you break 30.

 

But BB, isn't the "one and done" thing another one of these artificial levels the voters took it upon themselves to establish, like the "unanimous selection" and the "first-time selection"?

 

Great insight.

And, to me, this is no different than leaving Griffey off in favor of 10 other worthy players. The notion that you have to vote for the obvious Hall of Famers is a recent, Internet-driven phenomenon.

 

Like hell I would.

 

I hate to be cynical, but I don't think she actually makes that bourbon herself.

 

TAKE IT BACK!