Dave Studeman was called a "national treasure" by Rob Neyer. Seriously. Follow his sporadic tweets @dastudes.
5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen Johnson
11 years ago

Been saying for more than 20 years to change Baseball Hall of Fame voting process. MY SUGGESTION pick board (15 to 20 people) of current Hall of Famers and current or former MLB managers. A much better evaluation of talent, character,and knowing the game.

0
Greg Simons
11 years ago

Stephen,

I’m not sure a group of managers and current HOFers would do better.  Based on what they’ve said in the past, some current enshrinees (Reggie, Schmidt) seem to have a higher standard for election that the BBWAA does.  There’s a financial side to this, too, as more HOFers could dilute the value of their signatures.  It’s a slippery issue.

Also, based on his many anti-sabermetric rants, Joe Morgan seems to have little idea why he was such a tremendous player.

0
Stephen Johnson
11 years ago

Greg,
Can’t believe that statement, Joe Morgan was a smart and good ballplayer.

The suggestion having a board of current Hall of Famers and current or past Managers hands down would be a better choice to make selections than writers.I would change it tomorrow if I could change it!***Off the record you want ballplayers making choices for writer awards, come on get serious!

The writers job is to report, do research and write good stories or articles period!

0
Greg Simons
11 years ago

Stephen,
Morgan was a fantastic player, and he seems very intelligent.  But his repeated bashing of sabermetrics, and specifically Moneyball, which he acknowledged he’s never read, indicates an unwillingness to consider the statistical side of the game much beyond the Triple Crown and wins.

I think players and managers could do a good job of selecting Hall of Famers, but comments from the players I mentioned and the Frankie Frisch fiascos of yesteryear make me wonder if such a board would be far too lenient or far too strict.

0
Derek Ambrosino
11 years ago

Stephen,

Your suggestion is possibly one of the few that I feel confident would produce a worse outcome than today’s system.

A shrewd evaluation of “talent” is a gross oversimplification of is needed to qualify somebody as a capable HOF voter. You also need to be knowledgeable about the history of game in order to understand the historical “bar” for inclusion and put production levels of various eras into context. You also need voters who are willing to consider the best information and metrics available to quantify on-field productivity – this is a science that is constantly evolving, so drawing from a group that boasts many proud Luddites is probably not a good idea. …Add to that problem the myriad potential conflict of interests and you have a veritable boondoggle.

0