Any candidate on the eight-person ballot who receives fewer than five votes from the 16-member panel will not be eligible for that committee’s ballot during the next three-year cycle, the hall said Wednesday. A candidate who is dropped, later reappears on a ballot and again receives fewer than five votes would be barred from future ballot appearances
Mind. Boggling. Unless the HoF rescinds this policy at some point, this means anyone who twice falls to the 4 vote “delete” level will get NO future chances, at all. Note it is unclear if this retroactively applies to recent elections or not.
Note the BBWAA ballot has a 5% cutoff, not the 25% one here. In conjunction with the tiny 16 member committees, this just ensures that the usual VC cronyism will rule supreme, with more crap choices like Baines and Parker getting elected, while more deserving ones like Lou Whitaker and Dwight Evans will eventually get permanently consigned to oblivion as newer candidates appear on the ballot.
Of course, this is actually a baby and bathwater situation, since what the HoF is actually shooting for here is ensuring that no roiders ever get in.
Of course, the veterans committees only vote on candidates who didn’t make it into the Hall in the broader vote.
AIUI, what this means is that a guy would not get future shots at admission if he:
Fails to be voted in after as many as ten years on the general ballot *
Fails to get at least four votes (out of twelve committee members) twice
Honestly, if a former player is unable to do that, either (a) he likely wasn’t good enough to make it in anyway, or (b) his candidacy is so controversial (i.e., yeah, steroids) that he can’t get a consensus on his admission anyway.
Other than the handful of steroid stars (Bonds, Clemens, Alex Rodriguez, etc.) who are clearly good enough, but are tainted by the steroid thing, I have a hard time picturing anyone who’s “deserving” who will have their candidacy damaged by this.
I do have sympathy for a guy like Lou Whitaker, but I think that generally, the veterans committees are now selecting players who were borderline candidates, at best.
*- If a guy fails to get at least 5% of the vote in any given year, he’s permanently removed from the general ballot. Which, again, is likely a sign that he wasn’t good enough in the first place.
Did you even read what I wrote? These tiny 16 person committees will virtually ensure that deserving candidates will eventually get permanently deep-sixed thanks to personal and institutional biases while freak ones like Harold Baines will continue to get in. Right now the chances of the 8th best (Grich, tho I have the same issues with his worthiness that I do with Chase Utley’s) and 13th best 2B, Whitaker (according to the JAWS metric) hang by a thread, tho Sweet Lou managed to get 6 votes his last time up.
Other deserving players got squeezed out thanks to the math and rules of the BBWAA’s own ballot (10 player limit on all ballots, one and done if you don’t reach 5%), removing Lofton (10th on CF JAWS) and Edmonds (15th) among others.
If both avenues to election were designed fairly, these concerns wouldn’t be as much of an issue. With say 50 person VC committees, I’d have no issues with a 10% cutoff (5 votes).
If there are personal and institutional biases (which I certainly oh won’t argue that there aren’t) that are keeping players like Whitaker out of the Hall, why would this rule be any worse? It’s not like it can’t be changed once Hall voters cycle out.
Yes, I did, but thank you for the snarky question.
You clearly believe that there are a substantial number of players who should be in the Hall, but are being kept out due to the way voting works, and that this new rule will make it even harder for those players to get considered.
I happen to disagree. I liked Whitaker a lot when he was a player, but I think he’s a borderline candidate (same with the other guys you mention).
The real issue I have is combining these new rules with the tiny voting pools, which will just exacerbate the historical biases that the VC has exhibited, where someone gets the votes because a sufficient number of their managers and teammates are on the committee, vs., you know, properly, objectively and fairly evaluating their worthiness.
So it isn’t so much I want to see certain players get in than I want them all to get a fair shake; as indicated in my OP some got squeezed out due to the ballot crunch in the early 2010’s. I’ve seen indications that these BBWAA one and done’s already don’t get a fair shake from the VC as it is (took Ted Simmons several VC ballots before he finally made it, while Lou W often has never even made the ballot in the first place).
This two-and-out crap will just cause more and more arguably deserving candidates (deserving of fair consideration at least) to be consigned to oblivion while inferior ones get the nod. [So please try to steelman my position, thanks, as I tend to be a somewhat smallish Hall type note.]
To permanently remove a player’s candidacy (absent going on the ineligible list a la Rose and Shoeless Joe of course) is completely unprecedented in the history of the Hall. Yeah yeah they may change it back in 10 years or so, but as of this moment it’s a horrible change that will over time harm the Hall’s legitimacy.
