WWTBAM Bored

The Baseball Hall of Fame instituted a rule change that will make it more difficult for players to be inducted. Under current rules, players must be retired for five years (or dead) to be on the ballot, and they can remain on the ballot for up to 15 years (a player must be named on at least 5% of the ballots to remain on the ballot). In order to be inducted, a player must be named on at least 75% of the ballots in any year.

Under the new rules, players will only have ten years of eligibility instead of 15. Since the current 15-year eligibility rule was adopted in 1962, six players, most recently Bert Blyleven in 2011, where inducted in their 11th to 15th years of eligibility. Three players currently in their 11th-15th years of eligibility (Don Mattingly, Alan Trammell, and Lee Smith) will continue to be eligible under the old rules.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11267 ... y-10-years

I'd look for this rule to be lifted once all of the PED players the Hall doesn't want to get in fall off the ballot prematurely... which is the only explanation for instituting this rule in the first place. A lot of voters would like to see the 10 player maximum relaxed, and instead the Hall makes their job even more difficult with the logjam currently on the ballot...

lb13

I'm glad they grandfathered in the three remaining eligible, because you never know how that final year of eligibility will affect voters. They might have gotten in already under a ten-year rule.

I was surprised to see how well-known all six of this year's inductees are - even non-baseball people have heard of all of them. Or maybe it is just that we get so many Braves games on TV that three of them are very familiar around here.

Six players over a fifty year period isn't much of a dent...but as with the veteran's committee in the NFL it righted some wrongs. Blyleven certainly belonged in.

Until they institute some better rules for the voters themselves I think it remains a broken system. What makes a voter eligible needs improving and if it were up to me anyone who doesn't vote for a player elected by some percentage, say 90 or 95%, should permanently lose their right to vote in the future if they are that much out of touch.

And maybe the reverse as well. If you vote for someone who gets less than X% (say the minimum 5% perhaps) then perhaps you should be reviewed to see if you should remain on the list of eligible voters. I get tired of people who don't seem to take it seriously by either not voting for someone because they "shouldn't get 100%" or voting for some local favorites who might have been decent but have no place in the Hall. Jacque Jones? Really???

I would also like to see the limit of ten eliminated. If they deserve it they deserve it and it is possible there might be more than ten in a single year, especially since many deserving candidates haven't gotten in over recent years. The potential class is pretty big this year although when you remove those who are painted with the PED brush and aren't likely to get in there are probably still close to ten names who have some argument for being HOF material.

New members must fit somewhere on the table: