The Ankiel story is a great one, and I'm a fan of him and his comeback as well, but him being on HOF ballot is a joke lol.He didn't even get 500 hits or 80 homers for his career, and his pitching stats obviously aren't very impressive and we all know that story. I don't even remotely understand this one
And Darren Oliver lol... I can't think of anything noteworthy about him besides the fact he played a ridiculously long time and was always surprised to see him on another team every year... his career reminds me of Fernando Rodney to some extent, but at least Rodney has some historic seasons under his belt and was considered a good closer for at least some of the teams he played for.
The biggest issue is with the players staying on the ballot for 10 years (used to be 15 years). My question is, if a player is not worthy of a HOF vote in year one, why does that change in years 2-10? A player is either HOF worthy or he's not. The passage of a few more years should not change any player's worthiness.
Also, how is it that voters are allowed to vote or not vote someone in based on whether they like the person or not? Schilling's percentage actually went down from one year to the next, after he ran his mouth about a bunch of stuff. I understand that people don't like what he has to say, but that should not affect his HOF votes. Changing a vote because of something he said is just plain wrong.
One way to solve the first issue is to raise the percentage required to stay on the ballot. I mentioned it earlier in the thread, what is it now, 5%? Complete joke.
The second issue cannot be policed in any way that I can think of. You'll always have bias. That's at least partly why no one's got in on a unanimous vote. And a few years back, I remember a writer leaving a shoo-in off the ballot and gave some garbage reason about forgetting about him or something. Should have his vote taken away.
My thing is, why does any player need to be on the ballot more than one year? When a player becomes eligible, he's either voted in or he's done.
How is a player not good enough to be in the HOF for the first 5 years of eligibility, then is suddenly good enough in his 6th year? What has changed?
InI remember Ankiel as pitcher his rookie year before all the psychological issues set in. On MLB Tonight one night, Tim Kurkjian actually said “If Rick Ankiel doesn’t cut it as a pitcher, he can still have a career as an outfielder because he’s such a good hitter.”
How prophetic was that? Maybe Kurkjian needs to be in the Hall of Fame...
People change. The same voters now are not all the same voters as 10 years ago. One and done would mean guys who deserve to be in the hall of fame being left out because that particular year's crop of voters might have a problem with them, either personality-wise or based on their interpretation of eligibility. Martinez isn't in yet because some people think that DHs don't belong in the HOF. But his percentage increases each year because of new voters who have more non-Martinez seasons to reflect on and realize he was a very good player. Guys might be left out because some voters think that their stats didn't put them above anyone else, but the longer they're out of baseball, the more seasons there are without them to compare their performance to.
I think the problem is voting. It shouldn't be sportswriters, it should be a committee made up of the same number of people that includes all living HOFers and a selection of current and former players and managers selected by a vote of the living HOFers.
Everything you're saying here is part of the problem with the HOF voting. IMO, the players who get in the HOF should be no brainers. Therefore, if the group of voters this year doesn't think someone's good enough to get in, then they shouldn't get in.
If they vote against someone because they don't like that player, then that's a whole other problem.
I'll say it again with all sincerity. Let the stat geeks vote.
It is what it is. Like so many things in our lives, it'll never live up to what we think it should be.
I know you can't set absolute thresholds for stats that guarantee HOF status, but that would make things easier in terms of should a guy be in or not. I fear that over time so many undeserving players have been elected that it's lowered the bar. HOF should be for undisputed great players, not very good players.
(as close to undisputed as you can get, anyway).
Hey, at least its not like the Basketball Hall of Fame where they kind of just throw everybody in.