HOF 2016

I might add on a separate note, it looks like Larry Walker does not stand a chance of making it.

This really surprises me, a multi year gold glove winner with a .965 career OPS. I'd like to see how many other candidates or even Hall of Famers have similar numbers (Edmonds is one that is similar). OPS is widely regarded as the best measure of a player as a hitter, I'd think it should carry some weight.

Really, I'm not sure how Enos Slaughter makes it in compared to Walker and Edmonds. His career run produced numbers are similar, 2551 for him, 2666 for Walker, 2450 for Edmonds. He trails both by a very good measure in Homeruns, and is inferior for his career in OPS by a decent margin. I've heard he was a very good defender, but Edmonds and Walker were one of the top couple of defenders in their position compared to their contemporaries.

I also think trammel should be in the HOF.

My theory on not voting for obvious hall o famers is the limit of 10 votes. If there are 13 guys you think deserve the hall you can't vote for them all and so, I imagine you could justify not voting for a shoe in like Griffey and give one to say Edmonds in an attempt to keep him on the ballot. That's what I'd like to think anyway. The randomness of who you're up against for the vote seems unjust.

What might make more sense is every voter has to give a pass/fail for every candidate on the ballot, and it requires X percentage to get in. I think this would hold the voters more accountable, I guess not something they really want

I really like Garyt's idea here. Forget the 10 name limit. Just put all the names down with a simple yes or no. Maybe give a third text field so someone could give reasons they said yes or no. The comment field would have no bearing on whether a player got in. It would just provide some historical context. Perhaps fodder for a notebook of comments that might be attached to a palyer's plaque/display.

But whether any player gets in is a simple math equation. Did they get 75% of ballots showing yes vote.

Perhaps even better I think a very good method would be every voter has to rank eligible players top to bottom and assign points based on where you ranked. The top 3 get in. The bottom 3 drop off eligibility for future years. Or all players with X% of the possible points gets in and anyone who gets below X%.

With this method every voter would have to put in some thought and arrange their ballots from most deserving to least deserving.

I applaud the 3 guys who did not vote for Griffey. They knew he was obviously going to make it on first ballot... so if it was a no vote it would probably be because.... if Guys named Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Williams, Musial and every fabulous ballplayer did not get 100% of the vote ...then no one ever does. I think we should also start figuring out a way to get out all of the pedestrian ballplayers out of the hall. I will start with Mazeroski and Reese. Many have forgotten the Hall was supposed to be only the most elite....not the pretty good. If there is any doubt about that, then just look at the picture of the first class. The other issue is building cases for todays players with a lot of the new stats. Two things for that.....for the people who believe in all the new defensive stats for range and other absurd defensive saber metrics....you obviously never played ball. You measure a players defensive prowess by watching him.....not applying unbelievable idiotic stats to him. Lastly for goodness sake stop with the comparisons of the Trouts and Harpers to the May's, Mantle's and Aaron's. First we need a longer time frame and more importantly come back and talk to me when today's players are striking out less than 150-200 times a year.....where have you gone Joe Dimaggio.