[azrael492]

With the Hall of Fame voting over and McGwire getting shunned. I started thinking about who votes. I know it is sports writers, but how do they get chosen. There are probably thousands of them. What are the criteria for getting into the Hall. Are there basic rules to get in? Length of service??n certain number of hits?? It seems to me that sports writers are the last people that should be able to vote on anybody. Yes, they watch a lot of games, but do they really know what it takes to play ball at that level? When were they given the power to vote on this? Who did it before?

I think you get what I am looking for. Any help would be appreciated. I could look this up, but am feeling lazy right now.

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by azrael492

I know it is sports writers, but how do they get chosen.

This I know, because it was a big debate on Mike & Mike this week. To get a vote, you need to be a member of the Baseball Writers Association of America for 10 consecutive years. Once you get a vote, you can never lose it, which means that even if you haven't covered MLB for three decades, you still can cast a ballot. It's one of the things a lot of people think needs to be changed about the election process.

[ThePundit]

Originally Posted by azrael492

With the Hall of Fame voting over and McGwire getting shunned. I started thinking about who votes. I know it is sports writers, but how do they get chosen. There are probably thousands of them. What are the criteria for getting into the Hall. Are there basic rules to get in? Length of service??n certain number of hits?? It seems to me that sports writers are the last people that should be able to vote on anybody. Yes, they watch a lot of games, but do they really know what it takes to play ball at that level? When were they given the power to vote on this? Who did it before?

I think you get what I am looking for. Any help would be appreciated. I could look this up, but am feeling lazy right now.

One thing that has to be changed is the yearly limit of 2 people that get intot he hall. Either someone is a Hall of Famer or they're not.

Also, I agree that some of these sportswriters are clueless. I mean, how can there be a Hall of Fame without Jim Rice and Rich Gossage, 2 of the most dominant players at their positions in the 70's? It's a joke.

[legend]

Players that played at least ten years and are not on the ineligible list-(Banned like Pete Rose for example) are considered for the Hall of Fame. They have to have been retired for at least five years. There is nothing in the rules regarding hits, homers, or pitching stats.

[EmpireWF]

There's no rule about just two players getting in each year but the voters are fickle like that.

The unofficial HOF stats that are pretty much guaranteed to get a player in are 3,000 hits for a position player and 300 wins for a starting pitcher. Of course the whole 500 HRs deal use to be considered, but not recently (Sosa, McGwire).

[azrael492]

Originally Posted by ThePundit

One thing that has to be changed is the yearly limit of 2 people that get intot he hall. Either someone is a Hall of Famer or they're not.

Also, I agree that some of these sportswriters are clueless. I mean, how can there be a Hall of Fame without Jim Rice and Rich Gossage, 2 of the most dominant players at their positions in the 70's? It's a joke.

You could put Dave Parker on that list. Who was more dominant than him in the 70s early 80s

[MJHMarc]

Originally Posted by EmpireWF

There's no rule about just two players getting in each year but the voters are fickle like that.

The unofficial HOF stats that are pretty much guaranteed to get a player in are 3,000 hits for a position player and 300 wins for a starting pitcher. Of course the whole 500 HRs deal use to be considered, but not recently (Sosa, McGwire).

300 Wins for a pitcher? Then, that would mean that Tom Glavine is almost qualified!

[ThePundit]

Originally Posted by azrael492

You could put Dave Parker on that list. Who was more dominant than him in the 70s early 80s

I'n not knocking Parker but he was no way as near as dominant as Rice was:

Dave Parker Statistics - Baseball-Reference.com
Jim Rice Statistics - Baseball-Reference.com

And I think the numbers prove my point. Parker only had 4 seasons with over 100 RBI's. Rice had 8. Parker was also only in the top ten in homers, 4 times and never won the HR title. Rice was in the top ten 7 times - and won the HR title 3 different times.

[legend]

Not to take one side over the other but if you were to factor in the fact that Parker played in the NL for the vast majority of his career without a DH to enhance RBI opportunities, he would have numbers almost identical to Rice, who also had the benefit of playing for a great offensive team his whole career. Both belong in the Hall.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by ThePundit

I'n not knocking Parker but he was no way as near as dominant as Rice was:

Dave Parker Statistics - Baseball-Reference.com
Jim Rice Statistics - Baseball-Reference.com

And I think the numbers prove my point. Parker only had 4 seasons with over 100 RBI's. Rice had 8. Parker was also only in the top ten in homers, 4 times and never won the HR title. Rice was in the top ten 7 times - and won the HR title 3 different times.

Parker is Rice...NL version...I have to agree with Legend...he also had a cannon for an arm and did not play at Fenway...