HOF Rule of 10

[calsnowskier]

What are your thoughts on this rule? A lot of writers have been complaining about this rule recently because they feel there are more than 10 guys who deserve enshrinement so they need to leave names off.

My feelings are that if you cannot make a top-10 list, then by definition, you should not be a HOFer. I am a BIG supporter of the "Rule of 10". However, I just heard an idea on the radio that I may be OK with. Once every few years, remove the limit to purge the rosters a bit. Is this a good idea?

 

[Voltaire26]

I think there is plenty of time to enter deserving players in the HOF ... that said - Alan Trammell belongs

 

[calsnowskier]

I think there is plenty of time to enter deserving players in the HOF ... that said - Alan Trammell belongs

I agree that Trammell should be in. But if there are constantly 10 players ahead of him by most people's standards, doesnt that show that he SHOULDNT be in?

 

[DragonfromTO]

What are your thoughts on this rule? A lot of writers have been complaining about this rule recently because they feel there are more than 10 guys who deserve enshrinement so they need to leave names off.

My feelings are that if you cannot make a top-10 list, then by definition, you should not be a HOFer. I am a BIG supporter of the "Rule of 10". However, I just heard an idea on the radio that I may be OK with. Once every few years, remove the limit to purge the rosters a bit. Is this a good idea?

I think this would be a lot better standard if they'd actually been putting the deserving people in over the years rather than letting the ballot clog up with names over mostly speculative PED bullshit.

 

[DragonfromTO]

I agree that Trammell should be in. But if there are constantly 10 players ahead of him by most people's standards, doesnt that show that he SHOULDNT be in?

I think that assumes that a lot more voters (even more so when Trammell first appeared on the ballot) list 10 names on their ballot than actually do. He could have been a lot higher than 11th on a lot of voter's ballots and still not gotten their votes.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I like the rule of ten... WHY?? there should NEVER be more than ten HOF worthy players... If you think there are then your definition of HOF is too lose... And NO trammel is not a HOFer IMO... neither is Kent...

 

[calsnowskier]

I think this would be a lot better standard if they'd actually been putting the deserving people in over the years rather than letting the ballot clog up with names over mostly speculative PED bullshit.

Agree 100%

 

[calsnowskier]

I think that assumes that a lot more voters (even more so when Trammell first appeared on the ballot) list 10 names on their ballot than actually do. He could have been a lot higher than 11th on a lot of voter's ballots and still not gotten their votes.

Of course. But the "Rule of 10" does not affect those ballots.

 

[DragonfromTO]

I like the rule of ten... WHY?? there should NEVER be more than ten HOF worthy players... If you think there are then your definition of HOF is too lose... And NO trammel is not a HOFer IMO... neither is Kent...

Even if they open up the ballot you're never going to see more than 10 players get 75% of the vote, so that won't be a problem.

 

[calsnowskier]

Even if they open up the ballot you're never going to see more than 10 players get 75% of the vote, so that won't be a problem.

Sure, but the number WOULD go up. There would be AT LEAST one jack-ass voter who decides to vote for everyone, and other who would vote for 20+. I just do not trust the voters not make the whole thing even more of a farce than it already is. The Rule of 10 keeps them, at least in somewhat, in line.

I can understand occasionally going to 11, 12 or 13. But that should be an exception, and those bottom guys really probably should be cut off anyway.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Of course. But the "Rule of 10" does not affect those ballots.

I wasn't saying that it would, I was challenging your point that those who would be helped by relaxing the rule of 10 were players who constantly had 10 players ahead of them by most people's standards.

 

[calsnowskier]

I wasn't saying that it would, I was challenging your point that those who would be helped by relaxing the rule of 10 were players who constantly had 10 players ahead of them by most people's standards.

It would not effect EVERY ONE of their votes, but it certainly would effect their overall vote totals, and potentially effect either their induction or their inclusion on future ballots.

Without the "rule of 10", do you think Edmonds would still be off the ballot, or do you think he would have made it to a second year?

 

[DragonfromTO]

It would not effect EVERY ONE of their votes, but it certainly would effect their overall vote totals, and potentially effect either their induction or their inclusion on future ballots.

Without the "rule of 10", do you think Edmonds would still be off the ballot, or do you think he would have made it to a second year?

I think he probably would have gotten to a second year I suppose, and I think that's a good thing.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Sure, but the number WOULD go up. There would be AT LEAST one jack-ass voter who decides to vote for everyone, and other who would vote for 20+. I just do not trust the voters not make the whole thing even more of a farce than it already is. The Rule of 10 keeps them, at least in somewhat, in line.

I can understand occasionally going to 11, 12 or 13. But that should be an exception, and those bottom guys really probably should be cut off anyway.

I don't think there would be nearly enough of those guys to make any kind of difference. And I don't think there would be anybody voting for everyone. I think close to all of the voters who didn't take their votes seriously were probably purged when they eliminated everyone who hadn't covered baseball recently.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I still think voters for HOF is stupid in the first place baseball is a game of stats... Find a good statistical way to decide who makes the HOF... I really don't think that is too hard IMO...

 

[calsnowskier]

I still think voters for HOF is stupid in the first place baseball is a game of stats... Find a good statistical way to decide who makes the HOF... I really don't think that is too hard IMO...

Disagree. There is no way anyone would agree on a statistical line. You like counting states. Someone else likes rate stats. A third person likes weighted rate stats. Also, stats change over time. In the '80s and earlier, it was all about Wins, BA and RBIs. Today, no one even looks at those stats anymore.

 

[tducey]

I like the rule as well, brings attention to a lot of guys. Congrats to Piazza and Griffey for their induction as well.

 

[obxyankeefan]

I still think voters for HOF is stupid in the first place baseball is a game of stats... Find a good statistical way to decide who makes the HOF... I really don't think that is too hard IMO...

Disagree. There is no way anyone would agree on a statistical line. You like counting states. Someone else likes rate stats. A third person likes weighted rate stats. Also, stats change over time. In the '80s and earlier, it was all about Wins, BA and RBIs. Today, no one even looks at those stats anymore.

As much as I am a mathematician and believe that math transcends all languages I have to go with Cal here. If you put a set value on each stat and said your value has to be this high for you to enter the HOF, you would end up with players like Manny Mota and Julio Franco in your HoF. While players that had their career cut short for one reason or another like Koufax and Ed Delahanty would not be in your HoF.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

As much as I am a mathematician and believe that math transcends all languages I have to go with Cal here. If you put a set value on each stat and said your value has to be this high for you to enter the HOF, you would end up with players like Manny Mota and Julio Franco in your HoF. While players that had their career cut short for one reason or another like Koufax and Ed Delahanty would not be in your HoF.

You can easily make a formula and use a variable for MLB averages...

Actually the way I would do it, is each major counting stat use a milestone... the milestone uses a variable for MLB averages, so it will ever change(really only needs to change for HRs)...

For those players who don't reach the milestone they go to test B...
Test B would take your 162 game average AND your best 9 seasons... points are given per season. each season is graded 1-10 points( Needs a 70 to pass)

Test A and Test B is only for offense...

If a player fails test A, he automatically goes to Test B. If he passes test A OR Test B he makes it to the HOF.

If he fails Test B(only taken if failed Test A) then he goes to test C

Test C includes defense... And really just asks if the player was a SPECIAL defender...
Test C adds 10 points to Test B...

 

[Clayton]

Its so very obviously a bad rule

Baseball’s Hall Of Fame Is Stuck In The ’60s