How to fix the Hall
The National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York. (Photo: Major League Baseball)
Today, former Major League Baseball (MLB) player(s) will “get the call” that they’ve been inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. The culmination of a career for former MLB players, getting their own plaque and being immortalized forever is an achievement all players desire.
Located purposely in Cooperstown, New York, where baseball was founded, the hall’s first class is one of the best, if not the best ever in any of the National Sports Hall of Fame’s in the United States. It doesn’t get much better than Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Honus Wagner, and Babe Ruth, who were all inducted in 1936.
At the official opening of the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1939, 10 of the 11 living members of the Hall of Fame attended that year’s induction ceremony. Front row: Eddie Collins (Class of 1939), Babe Ruth, Connie Mack (Class of 1937), and Cy Young (Class of 1937). Back Row: Honus Wagner, Grover Cleveland Alexander (Class of 1938), Tris Speaker (Class of 1937), Nap Lajoie (Class of 1937), George Sisler (Class of 1939), and Walter Johnson. Christy Mathewson passed away in 1925, and Ty Cobb, the only other living member of the Hall of Fame at the time, refused to attend. (Photo: Baseball Hall of Fame)
The Hall of Fame standard was set with baseball. It was considered the best presentation of the game’s former greats among all sports. Since that first class, 342 people have been inducted, including:
270 former MLB players
40 executives/pioneers
23 managers
10 umpires
The election process as of 2024 for new hall members comes via the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA), or the Veterans Committee, which has four subcommittees. Each of those groups votes for candidates from the many eras of baseball.
Ballots each year are compiled of players who have been retired for at least five years, and have at minimum 10 years of MLB experience. Each player goes through a screening committee before being considered for the hall. Ballots each year consist of 25-40 former players, and writers can vote for up to 10 candidates each year.
Players who appear on 75% or more of ballots cast are elected, and any player whose name appears on 5% or fewer of the ballots has their name dropped from the following year.
Any player who receives 5% or more, but less than 75%, is eligible to appear on the following year’s ballot.
Players can appear on consecutive ballots for 10 years, and if they aren’t elected after year 10, their name also comes off the following year’s ballot. Players used to have a maximum of 15 years they could appear, but a 2015 change dropped it to 10. These players can be considered by the Veterans Committee in a future year.
For those players whose names are dropped, they can no longer appear on any future ballot, but can instead be selected by one of the Veterans Committees.
The Hall of Fame isn’t what it once was - and if you were to ask any baseball fan, they would agree. Nobody seems to know what quantifies a hall of famer any more, and rightfully so. My definition may be different than yours, and yours may be different than the next person. For the BBWAA writers who have the tough job of electing players every year have come under a lot of criticism in recent years.
This has had an effect on the hallowed grounds in Cooperstown.
I’ve talked in other articles about how the game has evolved, and I believe the Hall of Fame is still somewhat “stuck in its ways when it comes to its selection process, and what the hall of fame truly means to the game and its fans.
There are three things I believe the hall should consider to bring it back to its true glory days and make it the best example of a hall of fame in all of the major professional sports.
Enhance the voting process
I led off with this one, because to me, it’s the one issue that has caused the hall of fame so much turmoil as of late.
Going into each election year, we have no idea how many players will get elected. In recent years, two to three have been the max, but baseball wants to avoid not electing anyone in any given year. In fact, there were no players elected in both 2013 and 2021.
Because of this, I believe the hall of fame should set a minimum and maximum amount of players that can be elected in each class. Other hall of fames like the Pro Football and Hockey Hall of Fame have these limits and that way they can celebrate their respective game’s greats each and every year.
To me - electing two as the minimum, and up to eight as the maximum, is plenty. Sure - the hall of fame ceremony may go on longer each summer, but if you can set a limit on players inducted, you can also tell those hall of famers they have a time limit on their acceptance speech too.
For that minimum and/or maximum number to be met, the BBWAA, who has all the power, should be given one simple rule in order to be able to keep their vote: You must vote for at least two candidates.
A recent “trend” with the writers is to release their ballots on X (formerly Twitter) and watch their feed of followers critique every selection made.
Recently, some BBWAA members have released their ballots with no players receiving any votes. By holding all of the power as to who gets immortalized, these writers - to me - are abusing their privilege when they don’t vote for anyone.
The voting process allows for a minimum of zero, and a maximum of 10 on each ballot. In 2021, 14 ballots were left blank, and four in 2022.
Being able to elect former baseball greats to the hall of fame is the result of hard work and dedication to the game. BBWAA writers are given hall of fame votes after covering the game for 10 years, and they themselves, going through a selection process, as well.
To raise the standard, having those minimum votes will help in more ways than people realize. It will help keep deserving players on the ballot each year, and ultimately, will hopefully help get at least someone elected.
Finally, I think the hall of fame seriously needs to consider a hard look at the requirements to be inducted.
I think they need to move the maximum amount of years former players can appear on ballots back to 15 years. Nobody knows when people will be nominated by the Veterans Committee, and for those players that fall just short on their 10th and final year, the heartbreak has to be gut wrenching.
Recent examples include both Barry Bonds (66%) and Roger Clemens (65%) - two players I will discuss later in this piece - who both fell off the ballot in 2022 after their 10th time appearing.
By extending it five more years, it gives players the opportunity to “get the call” and to be able to enjoy being elected. There have been many instances of players who have fallen off that have been in poor health. Those players, like Ron Santo of the Chicago Cubs - who was eventually inducted by the Golden Era Committee - passed away before his induction. It’s players like Santo - who if they had a few more years on the ballot - would have been rightfully inducted.
I also believe the 75% of votes required to get in is awfully “steep” - especially if we are trying to have at least some players inducted every year. Sure there are givens in recent years (Ken Griffey Jr., Mariano Rivera, Chipper Jones, and Derek Jeter). By reducing the number to say 65%, it would help us accomplish our goal of getting at least someone elected. In fact - if 65% were the threshold, there would have been three new members elected in the past two cycles. With it at 75%, there’s only been one player elected each of the last two years.
The minimum threshold of votes should also be dropped to 2%. By allowing this number to be lower, it gives certain players their rightful due to be considered more than one year before having their fate decided by the Veterans Committee.
This will give players like Tim Lincecum, a two-time Cy Young Award winner and four-time All Star for the San Francisco Giants, and Kenny Lofton, a six-time all star and four-time gold glove winner for the Cleveland Indians, the opportunity to be considered more often. Both received less than the needed 5% their first year on the ballot, and were subsequently removed.
Both of these players have a “knock” on them - Lincecum’s career was cut short because of injury, and Lofton bounced around the league a lot - even though I believe his tenure in Cleveland is enough to be considered. But yet both put up numbers that many may not be aware of.
Lincecum led MLB in strikeouts in 2008 (265) and the National League in the same category in 2009 (261) and 2010 (231). Not an overpowering pitcher in stature, Lincecum helped the Giants win three world titles (2010, 2012, and 2014), in which he compiled a 2.25 ERA, struck out 23 batters, and posted a 0.80 WHIP. Many believe if he pitched for another eight to 10 years, he’d be a hall of famer.
Lofton was always a threat to steal a base. He led MLB three times in stolen bases during his career (70 in 1993, 60 in 1994, and 75 in 1996), and you could always count on him to make a stellar play in the outfield. In fact, he ranks 9th all-time in putouts as a centerfielder, from 1992 to 1996, he was in the top 2 when it came to centerfielder assists (1st three times), and for his career, finished five times in the top 5 in fielding percentage as a centerfielder.
Players like Ron Santo (left), Tim Lincecum (top right), and Kenny Lofton could have benefitted from enhancements to the Baseball Hall of Fame voting process during their time on their respective ballots.
These stats I’m sure many of you were unaware of. Winning Cy Young awards says enough, and being a league leader for multiple years to me should get more consideration than it does. Sure these guys weren’t the face of baseball at any point during their career, but there should be some set of standards voters can lean on.
Which takes me to my next suggestion.
Distribute Standards
“What is a Hall of Famer?” As mentioned earlier, one’s definition will surely be different than the next baseball fan. So why hasn’t the Hall of Fame defined one?
These should not be what gets a player into the hall of fame, but instead a list each year - given to the voters - on the hall’s career averages for those enshrined.
The standards, or numbers provided, should be updated on a yearly basis based on the current year’s inductees. And if this were to ever come to fruition, getting input from the voters is key - What standards would they want to see.
The vision is to take those voted upon standards, and present averages of each hall of famer to the voters every year.
Hall of Fame standards would look something like this:
NATIONAL BASEBALL HALL OF FAME STANDARDS
Career WAR: 94.6
Batting
Batting Average: .298
Home Runs: 402
RBI’s: 1,109
Slash Line: .298 Batting Average / .392 Slugging % / .431 On-Base Percentage
OPS: .819
Pitching
These numbers are fictional, but this is an example of what could be provided to voters with their ballots each year. My thought is that by having these, it could help some middle of the road candidates garner potentially more votes on a yearly basis.
With the voting wishes mentioned above, going along with these provided stats, the hall of fame may get more players in on a regular basis. A few more votes “here and there” can go a long way, as statistically players who are on the hall of fame “trajectory” receive more votes on a yearly basis.
For instance: Scott Rolen, who was inducted in 2023 received the following percentage of votes during his march to the hall:
2020 35.3%
2021: 52.9%
2022: 63.2%
2023: 76.3%
Will Billy Wagner finally the “call to the hall today?” He appeared on 18% more ballots from 2022 to 2023, and if suggested standards were available, would he have gained entry to the hall sooner? (Photo: Houston Chronicle)
Granted he had some big names fall off the ballot in 2022 (Bonds and Clemens), but by having these standards he could have been inducted a few years sooner to go along with what else should happen.
Those three listed, takes me to my final fix - something that is controversial, but in the end, represents what the hall is about.
Drop the Clause
When the hall of fame was established, it decided that hall of famers “shall be chosen on the basis of playing ability, sportsmanship, character, their contribution to the teams on which they played and to baseball in general.”
This statement, which has been deemed the “character clause,” something that has come under scrutiny the last 20+ years.
Judge Landis, MLB’s first commissioner, installed this clause for the hall of fame - something that no other hall of fame has. It was established as a case for players to be enshrined in Cooperstown.
It started with Eddie Grant - A third baseman who was killed in World War I. Grant was never enshrined, but the clause was and still is a part of the voting process today.
The character clause has been atop most voters minds since 2007 when former slugger Mark McGwire first appeared on a hall of fame ballot. He was the first true test of the clause, and just two years after he admitted to using performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) during his playing career.
McGwire received 23.5% of votes during his first year, and followed with a 23.6% (2006), 21.9% (2009), and 23.7% (2010). He appeared on his 10 ballots, and never broke 30% of the votes.
Mark McGwire was the first big time player of the steroid era to appear on the Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot. McGwire would not be voted in by the BBWAA, but is currently being considered by the Veteran’s Committee (Photo: The Sporting News)
In 2013, suspected PED users Bonds and Clemens first appeared on the ballot, each garnering 36.2% and 37.6% respectively. Both had their 10 years, as well, reaching the doorstep of the hall but were denied entry.
I believe at some point, McGwire, Bonds, and Clemens will get the call to the hall through the Veterans Committee. The wait to be inducted is part of their “punishment.” Unlike Pete Rose, who is still banned from MLB, I believe these three (and others) will get elected while they’re still alive. Rose will some day get in when he’s passed away, unfortunately.
We are towards the tail end of those players appearing on ballots who were a part of the “steroid era.” One of the last remaining ones is Alex Rodriguez, who appears on this year’s ballot in his third year of eligibility.
Rodriguez, who has a career 117.5 WAR, 696 home runs (5th all-time), and a career .930 OPS, appeared on 34.3% of ballots in 2022, and 35% percent in 2023. He tested positive for PED’s in 2014.
Most are expecting him to gain more votes in 2024, and I expect at some point Rodriguez to make it through the traditional voting process and be the first PED user to gain entry. He’s made strides to try and repair his image since his playing days ended - something I believe hall of fame voters are taking into consideration.
The hall of fame isn’t, and won’t ever be the same without these players in it. The hall’s purpose is to recognize those players who made MLB what it is today and to allow them to be a part of baseball history - and not on the outside looking in.
The clause has focused solely on PED users over the last 15+ years, but like the evolution of the game, the voting has evolved to. Currently, there are handful of “questionable” members to the hall with tarnished pasts who are in the hall of fame.
Ty Cobb, who was a fortunate to be a part of the hall’s first class, holds MLB’s record for lifetime batting average (.366), and was MLB’s all-time hits leader for 58 years until Pete Rose surpassed him in 1986. The four-time MVP led MLB in hits seven times during his 24-year career. He also had multiple assault accusations, including one time going into the stands during a game to assault a fan. Cobb was also a documented racist, and reports have surfaced that he bet on baseball games.
Rogers Hornsby, who was elected in 1942, had a stellar career. A lifetime 127.1 WAR, Horsby’s career saw him compile a lifetime batting average of .358, earned two triple crowns, and is the only player in MLB history to hit .400 in a season with 40 home runs (he hit .400 in three seasons during his 23-year career including .424 in 1924). Off the field - Hornsby was a member of Ku Klux Klan, and his prejudices among many were well documented.
There are many other hall of famers who character comes into question - but “fortunately” for them, their checkered pasts came to light after their induction to baseball immortality.
While the focus on players like Bonds, Clemens, and Rodriguez, and their link to PED’s, it’s time to move past that.
Barry Bonds (top left), Roger Clemens (bottom left), and Alex Rodriguez were all garnered as first-ballot hall of famers when their careers started. After suspected (Bonds and Clemens) and proven (Rodriguez) PED use, that honor has since diminished. The hall of fame should drop their infamous character clause, and let these baseball greats into the hall of fame. (Photos: 408)
Bonds is MLB’s all-time leader in home runs with 762. There’s no reason the all-time home run leader shouldn’t be admitted. He’s also the single season home run king (73 in 2001), and has the most walks (2,558) and intentional walks (688) in MLB history. He led MLB six times in OPS during his career, and placed as a top five hitter in 12 of his 17 qualifying seasons. He has many other records and numbers that are astounding.
He’s never tested positive in an MLB sanctioned drug test, and although he’s remained steadfast that he never took steroids, nobody may ever know the full truth.
The same goes for Clemens. He was the modern era’s most dominant power pitcher, winning 354 games, seven Cy Young awards (most all time), an MVP, and striking out 4,672 batters during his career. 300 wins and 3,000+ strikeouts is almost a guarantee you’ll make the hall, and Clemens deserves it.
Like Bonds, Clemens later admitted to using PED’s, but never tested positive during his 23-year career.
Both were named in the infamous 2007 Mitchell Report, which highlighted the history of steroids and human growth hormone in MLB. The full report listed current and former players who reportedly tested positive during their career. The results are seem as “flawed” because MLB didn’t start testing for PEDs until 2007.
For the longest time I was against players like this being enshrined, but with the records they hold, some that may never be broken, they deserve their spot in Cooperstown. The hall may come under fire eventually for admitting them, but like with most things, and the passing of time, their rightful spots will be seen (by most - not all) in Cooperstown.
Because in the end it comes down to this: Is the hall of fame there to honor the greatest or just to be a museum to highlight’s baseball’s history. The character clause puts a lens on that question and voters need to take into consideration what they’re voting for.
As new members join baseball’s elusive fraternity today, and these suggestions to improve the hall’s cause (I believe) could go a long way. Granted - I’m just a life-long baseball fan, but if I’m one of many who feel this way, maybe the hall should start consider looking at the big picture to get it back to what it used to be and how its founders envisioned it.
