Skip to content

ESPN’s T.J. Quinn refuses to vote for the Hall of Fame and has a lot of good reasons for it

Dec 28, 2012, 11:30 AM EDT


ESPN’s T.J. Quinn was a beat writer for many years, covering the White Sox and Mets and then moved on to do investigative reporting for the New York Daily News and ESPN, with a huge emphasis on covering performance enhancing drugs in sports. If there is any Hall of Fame voter, therefore, who is qualified to assess how PEDs and the Hall of Fame mix, it’s him.

Except he has decided that even he can’t do it and gave up voting for the Hall of Fame two years ago. Today he explains why:

Even before the issue of performance-enhancing drugs overwhelmed the annual conversation, I questioned my capacity to evaluate a player’s fitness for immortality. My only qualification, like all voters, was 10 years’ service as a BBWAA member. But nothing in my years as a beat writer covering the Chicago White Sox and New York Mets, and nothing in my years covering doping as an investigative reporter since has prepared me to evaluate the effect PED use should have on a player’s legacy.

He goes on to explain why the “keep the juicin’ bums out” arguments are essentially incoherent as generally applied. He also notes — as we have noted here at HBT lately — that it’s kind of a problem to give votes to guys who haven’t actively covered the game in years. Personally I think Quinn is eminently qualified, but even he himself thinks the fact that he hasn’t covered baseball on a day-to-day basis since 2002 prevents him from being up to the task. So who is?

But at the end of the day, the game, the Hall and journalism would be better served if voting was limited to a select group of veterans, historians and even journalists — if they’re the right journalists. Columnists and national writers who have devoted their careers to the game, not dabblers. That wouldn’t solve the problem of how to evaluate players in the age of modern chemistry, but at least the right group would be making the call.

I think it would be hard to come up with the right group of voters — ex-players are a particular problem as I think they are among the least suited to objectively analyze players’ contributions — but I think Quinn is right that the current electorate — ten-year BBWAA veterans who, quite often, aren’t even baseball writers anymore — is the wrong crop.

A lot of food for thought here. It’s nice to see someone with the franchise chewing on it all, even if he chooses not to vote.

  1. jarathen - Dec 28, 2012 at 11:37 AM

    Someone who gives this much thought to it IS qualified. It’s people who treat it as a personal chance to air grievances that aren’t.

    • natslady - Dec 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM

      So–“personal chances to air grievances” disqualifies a voter? Because the “personal chance to air grievances” is how many people regard their vote in (political) elections.

      • Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Dec 28, 2012 at 11:55 AM

        Many people are idiots.

      • natslady - Dec 28, 2012 at 12:03 PM

        Can’t disagree with that. But they do have the vote.

      • natslady - Dec 28, 2012 at 12:04 PM

        And they have the vote on issues far more important than the Hall of Fame.

      • HitsDingers - Dec 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM

        Airing your grievances with a political party’s philosophy by voting for a different party is not the same as airing your grievances against an individual by keeping him out of the HOF for personal reasons. Just because both sentences use the same word, “grievances”, does not mean they both mean the same thing.

        The key word there was, in fact, “personal”. Not “grievances”.


    • theawesomersfranchise - Dec 28, 2012 at 1:26 PM

      Someone who admittedly has not followed baseball closely since 2002 most certainly is NOT who I want voting for the hall, no matter how thoughtful and intelligent he or she may be. Sorry

      • albertmn - Dec 29, 2012 at 5:47 PM

        But, the players on the ballot have all been out of baseball at least 5 years or more. So, someone out just 10 years will have seen these players play the game. It is when you get voters that have been out 15+ years that are really the problem.

  2. natslady - Dec 28, 2012 at 11:43 AM

    OK, I’ll bite. What is the difference between this guy who didn’t turn in the ballot and some other guy who turned in a blank ballot and got excoriated for it? Disclaimer: I lost interest in the Hall of Fame long ago…

    • nategearhart - Dec 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

      If you don’t turn in your ballot it isn’t counted. Blank ballots are counted, which essentially means you are voting against every player on it.

      • natslady - Dec 28, 2012 at 11:58 AM

        Then putting in a blank ballot sounds like a more effective protest against the system than not voting at all.

        A lot of quite knowledgeable voters who do actively cover the sport are prevented by their newspapers’ policy from voting (e.g., Washington Post writers).

      • nategearhart - Dec 28, 2012 at 12:03 PM

        You’re probably right, so long as the writer isn’t just showboating. But I think Quinn isn’t so much protesting as simply abstaining.

      • Roger Moore - Dec 28, 2012 at 5:52 PM

        @natslady: Then putting in a blank ballot sounds like a more effective protest against the system than not voting at all.

        No. Entering a blank ballot is a way of registering your opinion that none of the players on the ballot deserve to be in the Hall. That’s not a protest against the voting system, it’s a criticism of the players and/or MLB for whatever you think is wrong with them (e.g. strikes and lockouts, lax policies on PEDs, not as good as the players you remember from your youth, etc.). Refusing to turn in a ballot at all is ambiguous, since there are plenty of reasons you might not vote, but combined with a column like this one it’s a good protest of the voting system itself.

    • Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Dec 28, 2012 at 11:48 AM

      Read the linked article before you post a comment like this…

      • natslady - Dec 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM

        I read the article. Sounds like a guy who doesn’t want to make the tough decisions.

      • forsch31 - Dec 28, 2012 at 8:50 PM

        No, you obviously didn’t. Quinn withdrew from the voting officially; he doesn’t receive a ballot anymore to turn in, unlike the goof who turned in his registered ballot that went against all of the eligible players as a specific protest against a select few. That sounds much more like somebody who “doesn’t want to make the tough decisions.”

    • stercuilus65 - Dec 28, 2012 at 6:58 PM

      The difference is Craig likes this writer because he agrees with him on PEDs, i.e. he’s an apologist, while the other writers he slams do not.

  3. Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Dec 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

    “a number of my fellow Baseball Writers of Association of America members find themselves in the awkward position of judging a group of men who cannot be judged by the old standards.”

    I think that to the baseball fan it seems more like these guys RELISH the opportunity to judge these players. I appreciate Quinn being humble and mentioning amphetamine users, but I sure wish someone with a vote and a column would start calling out these whackos who think Bonds using is some kind of affront to the game while guys who cheated the game before the drugs Bonds were taking were invented get some kind of free pass.

    • Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Dec 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM

      Also: “The fact is, as a group, the writers have proved capable gatekeepers to the Hall. ”


      • paperlions - Dec 28, 2012 at 1:52 PM

        They have done better than the veterans committee, by far. They’ve also done better in MVP, CY, ROY, and MOY voting than managers have done voting for GG or fans have done voting for the ASG. Have they been perfect? nope, not even close….better track record than any other large block of voters for baseball related honors? yep.

      • Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Dec 28, 2012 at 2:02 PM

        Indisputably, they have done a better job than some of the alternatives. Part of me wants a Hall of Fame big enough for Vukovich and men of his ilk, but I understand the need to police entry in the way that the BBWAA has chosen. My main issue lies with the inconsistent way that standards have been applied to voting, and with the immense sanctimony that has seemingly become inseparable from columnists around election time. It’s bad enough that you have some guys in the Hall who were just very good, but adding piousness from a group of voters that has included guys like Jay Mariotti and Bill Conlin is salt in the wound.

      • Roger Moore - Dec 28, 2012 at 6:01 PM

        It’s bad enough that you have some guys in the Hall who were just very good

        Sure, but most of the guys in that category were put in by the various incarnations of the Veterans’ Committee, not by the BBWAA. The worst players put in by the BBWAA are guys like Jim Rice, Kirby Puckett, and Catfish Hunter. The Veterans have probably put in 30 players worse than the worst player put in by the BBWAA.

  4. kingmiedus - Dec 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM

    Football has a select group of people that vote on the hall (I believe 50 of them), some people get pissed at that system too, although I prefer it. I think it is something like 1 writer for each city and then a number of national guys. I can’t remember how they get on it, but I do recall Peter King breaking it all down because he has been asked about it a number of times. They all get together in a room and have discussions on the last 10 or 15 guys too (as only something like 5 can get in at a time), so when players get down to that level they actually have someone making a case for them to be in the hall so that all voters are adequately informed.

    • nothanksimdriving123 - Dec 28, 2012 at 2:12 PM

      The Hockey Hall of Fame has a special selection committee of experts, and several years ago they elected a former player named Dick Duff. By most accounts he is a nice fellow. He was on teams that won several Stanley Cups. However, he never led the NHL in any major category or was even among the scoring leaders, never won any NHL individual awards, was never voted to the end-of-year All-Star Team. Merely a well-liked, good player. Moral: No system is perfect.

  5. chadsay - Dec 28, 2012 at 11:54 AM

    Since it is called the “Hall of Fame” and not the “Hall of Deserved Recognition” , I say let the fans vote. The Hall’s integrity has long been questioned. Why not just throw it out the window?

    • mrfloydpink - Dec 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM

      Please. One need only look at the All-Star game starting lineups to see why this wouldn’t work.

      • Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Dec 28, 2012 at 12:54 PM

        I would actually like to see what a fan voted HoF looked like. Not, like, in real life, because it’s bad enough Jack Morris will probably get in. But it would be interesting (for mockery purposes) to see what the Hall of Fame would like like if guys like Don Mattingly were first-balloters.

      • paperlions - Dec 28, 2012 at 1:52 PM

        If fans voted, no one would be elected with 75% of the vote this year.

    • Ben - Dec 28, 2012 at 12:04 PM

      New HoF credentials–must have played for the Yankees or Red Sox. Grants automatic inclusion.

    • bleedgreen - Dec 28, 2012 at 12:54 PM

      I don’t necessarily agree with the fan vote, but I’ve said hte same thing about the name. Its the HALL OF FAME. Not the HALL OF THE BEST BASEBALL PLAYERS EVER. If a guy is famous, he deserves to be in there. Bonds is famous for maybe more than just his play, but also his legal issues with the PED stuff. Everyone, even non baseball fans, know who Barry Bonds is. That, to me, says he deserves to be in the Hall of FAME. Infamy is still fame.

      • mrfloydpink - Dec 28, 2012 at 2:12 PM

        Eddie Gaedel. Jose Canseco. Ugueth Urbina. Ozzie Guillen. Bob Uecker. Mark “The Bird” Fidrych. Lenny Dykstra. All quite famous.

      • Gamera the Brave - Dec 28, 2012 at 2:59 PM

        Good call on Gaedel, he’s on my all-time “Pro Ballplayers under 5 feet tall” team!

    • indaburg - Dec 28, 2012 at 2:01 PM

      Are you always this literal? The word “fame” is also a verb. It means to make famous. Think of it as The Hall to Make Famous Because They Deserve Recognition Due to Exemplary Accomplishments on the Baseball Field. In short, the Hall of Fame.

      I don’t know if you were joking about the fan vote, but in case you’re serious, why not try to improve the Hall of Fame’s integrity rather than obliterate it?

  6. sdelmonte - Dec 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM

    Quinn’s reasoning echoes that of the NY Times, which doesn’t allow its staffers to vote for any awards or honors. Which is a pity only in that I think Dave Anderson and George Vecsey would probably exercise reason.

    • natslady - Dec 28, 2012 at 12:01 PM

      I said the same above, before I read your comment. A portion of what you have to consider the best-informed voters are excluded. This makes no sense.

  7. DelawarePhilliesFan - Dec 28, 2012 at 12:48 PM

    As long as we are airing grievances here (setting myself up for Fesitivus retorts), lets have a call to end the idiocy of not voting for clear cut HOF’ers because you do not want them to have the “honor” of the highest vote total ever. No one has ever unanimously been voted in – so going forward, no one ever can be…..because that is allegedly a “slap in the face” to all the greats from years past. It is beyond stupid.

    As it stands now, Tom Seaver has the highest percentage ever. No offense….but does anyone believe Tom Seaver is the best player ever? And if he is not, then why continue this ridiculous ploy that a unanimous vote is some sort of honor. The fact is, it was asinine to not unanimously vote Cobb, Ruth, Young, etc. into the Hall way back when. But asinine as that was, to continue that practice with Williams, Mays, Musial and…..well…..everyone up to today makes it worse yet! End the insanity: do not leave someone off that clearly should be in the hall. If you have a legitimate argument against that player being ion the hall, fine. But if you are leaving him off to not “bestow” upon him, then disqualify yourself from the process and stop voting, because you are part of the problem

    • Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Dec 28, 2012 at 12:57 PM

      “does anyone believe Tom Seaver is the best player ever?”

      Tom Seaver, Gary Carter, and Sidd Finch are tied for that honor in the BBB household.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Dec 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM

        Sidd would have been a HOF’er had he given up being a yogi

  8. paperlions - Dec 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM

    That is a nice article.

    Quinn is wrong about one thing though. McGwire was not a one-dimensional player. Among players with at least 6000 PA, McGwire is 54th all-time in OBP and 8th all-time in SLG. So, while clearly an elite slugger, he also had elite on-base skills; resulting in the 24th highest wOBA of all time and the 11th highest wRC+ of all time.

    Those numbers scream elite offensive player…better on offense that Mays or Aaron or Mize or Robinson or Dimaggio….of course, he had no defensive value (similar to Ted Williams) and so was not the complete player of the others listed or as valuable as they. But to suggest that his offensive production was not at an all-time level is to be ignorant of fact. Dock him for using steroids if you wish, but to suggest that even with them he wasn’t a HOF player is simply ignorant.

    • louhudson23 - Dec 29, 2012 at 8:55 AM

      McGwire was none of those things. I do not dock him. I disqualify him.

      • paperlions - Dec 29, 2012 at 9:34 AM

        Then you are willfully ignorant.

  9. kirkvanhouten - Dec 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM

    Great article, but I do have one bone to pick:

    “When Mark McGwire appeared on the ballot, I did not vote for him. Even before he admitted using, I was part of a team at the New York Daily News that reported his extensive use in the late 1980s and ’90s, down to the drugs one dealer had given him. That made it easy for me: I knew what he had used. And whether his home run totals were inflated or not, he had been a one-dimensional player for most of his career. That was my standard.”

    That *one* dimension was hitting a ball really fucking hard and extremely often. And he got on base more often than Rod Carew, Joe Morgan, Honus Wagner, Frank Robinson, Tony Gwynn, Willie Mays, etc. He’s 10th all-time in OPS. So, his *one* dimension was being a really great hitter…which strikes me as fairly important dimension to have, and one he shares with numerous Hall of Famers.

    • louhudson23 - Dec 29, 2012 at 9:05 AM

      McGwire was not an elite player. His numbers are artificial. It is ludicrous to recite his numbers alongside those other players.Equally ludicrous is to cite “greenie” use or cocaine use as a comparable performance enhancer. The record book and the game were not distorted by “greenie”use. Maury Wills did not become Brett Boone and Dave Parker did not suddenly become Barry”small balls,big head” Bonds. Wearing those stupid ass balance bracelets would be performance enhancing if those who wore them gained 30 feet on their fly balls,but they didn’t,so no problem. McGwire,Sosa,Bonds et al were clowns playing an arcade game.Thankfully,pitching and defense have returned to the game and clowns like them appear to have melted away……

  10. tc4306 - Dec 28, 2012 at 1:25 PM

    Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star articulated his position. He won’t vote for anyone who tested positive/admitted use after MLB initiated testing. (2003?) Prior to that, substances may or may not have been against the law of the land but were not banned by MLB. One could take the position that all law breakers should be out. But we’re all law breakers. Find me the diver who has not sped, the pedestrian who has not J-walked or the college kid who has not “experimented.” Grif’s position of granting a pass to those who have not knowingly broken a MLB rule while giving the thumbs down to those who knowingly broke the MLB rules and sought to evade detection seems to me like a reasonable way to go about it.

  11. Mark Armour - Dec 28, 2012 at 1:26 PM

    Personally, I think the correct people to vote for the Hall of Fame are people well versed in the history of the game–historians, people who write about the game from a broad perspective. People who understand the purpose of the Hall and the people who are already enshrined.

    However, if it is going to baseball writers, I don’t get the argument about not covering the game in recent years. The players on the ballot played between the late 1970s and 2007. The entire reason the ballot was given to the writers in the first place was because they were the only ones who saw most of the players play the game. Given that, the most qualified writers are the guys who followed the game in the 1980s and 1990s. What does going to games in 2012 have to do with judging Tim Raines?

    The answer I suspect is that some people think that only the newer writers understand modern baseball analysis, and that understanding trumps actively following the game during the years that these people on the ballot were playing. I disagree, but this is the way the goalposts are headed.

  12. wpjohnson - Dec 28, 2012 at 1:26 PM

    I would encourage all voters to turn in a blank ballot. The Hall needs admit only the greatest of the great- particularly on the first ballot. Cy Young wasn’t elected on the first ballot.

    If no one is elected this year it will be a positive development for the Hall. No Biggio, no Morris, no one. The voters should show some respect for the Hall.

    • DelawarePhilliesFan - Dec 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM

      Well let me ask you then – was it right to leave Cy Young off the ballot? And if not, then why would repeating that make sense?

      The hall does not have a special wing for 1st ballot inductees, when you are in, you are in. If you don’t vote for a player, that should only be because you don’t believe they belong in the hall.

      • wpjohnson - Dec 28, 2012 at 6:31 PM

        Somehow I believe that leaving Cy Young, the winner of 511 games, off a ballot is quite different from leaving these “good” players of today off the ballot. Comparing these guys to Young is like comparing gold to horse manure.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Dec 28, 2012 at 10:43 PM

        It seems to me your point is that since Cy Young was left off the first time, every other pitcher should be as well. So again, I ask, was it wrong to leave Cy Young out of the Hall that first vote? If the answer is yes, are you suggesting that the only way to “correct’ what happened to Cy Young is to do the same to everyone else? 2 wrongs make a right?

        I assume you don’t believe Cy Young should be the only Hall of Fame pitcher. So pick any other pitcher you think is Hall worthy. What is the proper way to induct that pitcher – wait for the 3rd ballot, so they will not get in quicker than Cy Young? All that does is validate the ridiculous thing done to Cy Yong.

        Cy Young should have been voted in on the first go around. It was lunacy he was not. To say that that lunacy should continue to play out over and over until the end of time is absurd.

      • wpjohnson - Dec 29, 2012 at 9:26 AM

        Delaware, if you don’t know the difference between greats like Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, and Warren Spahn and merely good pitchers like Hal Newhouser, Ferguson Jenkins, and Rollie Fingers, you have no knowledge whatsoever of baseball history.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Dec 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

        Again, you cannot answer a very basic question – was it wrong to leave Cy Young off the first time around? And if it was wrong to leave him off, why do it to others (and for the record, I am not comparing anyone to anyone else) You mention Warren Spahn – he was voted in his first year of eligibility. Is that some sort of slight to Cy Young? Should he have had to wait until his 3rd year, so as not to get in quicker than Cy Young?

        If someone belongs in the Hall – vote them in. If they do not, don’t. But this nonsense of “Oh, so and so had to wait an extra year, so everyone else should too” is ridiculous. Vote on merit, period.

    • kirkvanhouten - Dec 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM

      Excellent point. Craig Biggio doesn’t deserve to be in the same Hall of Fame that enshrined the baseball greats such as Highpockets Kelly, George Kell, Bill Mazeroski and Chick Hafey.

      • wpjohnson - Dec 28, 2012 at 6:29 PM

        Well, then, why name more mediocre players to the Hall? The Hall has too many like the players you named. I can name many, many more. So you want to compound the problem. I would prefer, though it can’t be done, balloting for the removal of the mediocre inductees. I would suggest that the Hall could be reduced by from 1/4 to 1/3 or more. then it would be a true hall of fame.

  13. tc4306 - Dec 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM

    Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe was on Prime Time Sports last night. He said he won’t vote for the juicers but he can see himself changing his mind as societal attitudes change. He said he could see himself voting for these guys “down the line,” but that
    he was “just not there yet.” These guys will be on the ballot for 15 years. They may not get in on the first ballot, or the second or even the third. But Ryan is right. Attitudes will change, voters will relent/come to their senses (depending on your point of view) and guys who are initially denied entry will get in over the next decade.

    • jaysjunkie - Dec 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM

      Saw that interview with Ryan. This topic brings to mind Prime Time Sports co-host Stephen Brunt, a former beat writer for the Globe and Mail who recently gave up his right to vote because he didn’t like the fact that eligible players were being penalized for suspected drug use, despite the fact that MLB didn’t have rules at the time (he was also disgusted that MLB buried their head in the sand about the issue, too). And I can fully respect that position.

  14. shoehole - Dec 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM

    Let me ask. Have you ever bought a lottery ticket? Have you ever bet on the ponies or played the football pool at work?
    These are all considered gambling. The best hitter of all time is not on the HOF ballot because he bet on his own baseball team. I believe it’s time to add Pete Rose to the ballot.

    • nategearhart - Dec 28, 2012 at 3:16 PM

      You seriously don’t see the difference?
      If you own the pony, you don’t get to bet on the pony. If you draw the lotto numbers, you don’t get to buy a ticket. If you play on the football team, you don’t get to bet on the football team.
      I’ll ask YOU…have you ever taken an inside tip pertaining to your work that people outside the industry are not privy to, and used it to your advantage in the stock market? No, because it’s wrong AND illegal, right? THAT’S the apt comparison here.

      • tc4306 - Dec 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM

        “If you own the pony, you don’t get to bet on the pony.” Obviously, you know very little about horse racing.

      • nategearhart - Dec 28, 2012 at 3:39 PM

        You are correct, I made an assumption. Strike that one from the record; apparently baseball has higher standards than horse racing. Certainly doesn’t make shoehole’s point any more valid.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Dec 28, 2012 at 10:54 PM

        Yes, baseball is so against gambling that they refuse to have anything to do with it.

        And that is one of MANY! But hey, in all fairness…they make money off of ads, they didn’t make any money off Pete Rose’s gambling.

    • kirkvanhouten - Dec 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM

      Does my employer have extremely strict rules against against gambling on ponies?

      Hmm, let me consult the handbook….

      ….nope. Not at all. Thus making this analogy ridiculous.

      (and Pete Rose is not the best hitter of all time. Or even close. He got the most *hits*, in large part because he couldn’t bow out gracefully and put up 5 dogshit seasons with an Al Newman-esque .315 slugging percentage the last five years of his career).

    • The Dangerous Mabry - Dec 28, 2012 at 11:29 PM

      Having the most hits doesn’t make a man the best hitter of all time. He also made more outs than anyone elae and you’ll never hear him called the easiest out in history. Pete Rose was very good, but don’t exaggerate the man’s abilities.

  15. BigBeachBall - Dec 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM

    If you invite a bunch of asterisks into your club, then your club becomes one too.

  16. stairwayto7 - Dec 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM

    He is still standing in front of Joe Paterno’s home!

  17. wpjohnson - Dec 29, 2012 at 9:29 AM

    It appears that many of you would prefer the Hall of Fame changing to the Hall of Pretty Good players. It would resemble an offshoot of the social promotion and everyone gets a participation trophy mentality.

  18. stew48 - Dec 29, 2012 at 7:59 PM

    Some of you write like guys on PFT. First, fame is never a verb; look it up. Fame is defined:” a great reputation”. Famous means to possess fame. Infamy is disgrace or great wickedness, so they are two very different words. Since it is the baseball hall, I would think being great at baseball would be the prime consideration. The reputation part must, in view of baseball history, include the entire personna. And, I am not expressing an opinion about any of the drugs or enhancers. With the list of those already in the Hall when drugs, etc. became a problem, I find it difficult to exclude alleged users. While I am an absolute fan of Pete Rose, the player, I fully understand why he is not in the Hall. The explanation is simple, and I have stated it before: Kenesaw Mountain Landis.

  19. kappy32 - Dec 29, 2012 at 8:55 PM

    I have been pushing for a change in the voting process for a few years now & until now, I haven’t heard anyone bring up a better idea. I’ve even wrote about it on the comment section here. This is what I propose:

    There are 4 entities interested in who makes the Hall of Fame. They are: (1) MLB; (2) MLBPA; (3) BBWAA; and (4) HoF Members (Veterans Committee). I propose that each entity either elect or appoint a certain amount of members, say 5, to serve on “The Hall of Fame Selection Committee.” In order for a player to make the Hall, that player must receive a two-thirds (2/3) vote to get in. For example, if each entity sends 5 members to the committee, a player would need 14 votes to get inducted. That would make sure any one entity couldn’t prevent a player from getting in & vice versa. Writers are given too much power & they aren’t qualified. It is crazy to bestow the greatest honor a player can receive through the evaluation of a bunch of guys who are more interested in creating news than reporting it & haven’t played ball since high school (if even that).

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. B. Crawford (3017)
  2. G. Stanton (2723)
  3. C. Correa (2698)
  4. Y. Puig (2640)
  5. G. Springer (2595)
  1. H. Pence (2469)
  2. H. Ramirez (2342)
  3. M. Teixeira (2296)
  4. J. Hamilton (2287)
  5. J. Baez (2183)