Gentlemen, I want to bring up a topic for discussion here on the BB. It is Hall of Fame time once again, both for MLB and the CDMSBL. We will be announcing our 2020-21 selections very soon, and this topic of discussion has absolutely ZERO to do with who will be announced as our HoF inductees this year. The one or two gentlemen that will be receiving this honor are some of the most deserving players in any HoF class in quite a few years! It is just something that I really want your opinions heard on. Please speak your mind freely!
As part of the Committee that elects new members to our HoF, I wanted to get your opinions on something that has been bothering me quite a bit. There have been two candidates that I feel are "no brainers" for induction. One for his dominance on the field, and the other for his service to the CDMSBL in an Administrative manner. Both of these candidates finished this year well below the 75% total that are needed to induct. Both candidates are having problems getting the necessary traction due to personality issues (plainly said: they are disliked by too many of the panel members). Neither of these two players credentials are debated. The debate is should we vote for them, when there are many more "popular" candidates. During the discussion phase, not one of the voters said that the first player was not one of the most dominant players to ever play in our league; or that the administrator/manager/player had done enough for our league. In fact they agree that he has done quite a bit more than many of the other Hall of Famers that were voted in for what they did in service to the league, and not due to their prowess on the field.
I try to take my personal feelings for each candidate out of the equation, when voting. I have refrained from voting for some of my best friends and voted for others that I really have no love for. That is not how fully half of the voters (if not more) do it! That is quite obvious. In fact they have said so while deliberating. These deliberations are confidential, so I won't reveal who said what about who, but I can tell you that we have elected quite a few candidates with a ton less credentials, due to these personality conflicts, with others that are more deserving. This is my opinion. I want to hear yours.
Please let me know how you feel about personality entering into the equation when deciding who should be elected to OUR Hall of Fame. This Hall of Fame belongs to all of us, not just this small group of voters, and we all need to hear your thoughts on the topic. We want to hear from you, loud and clear. As a group, we work hard to get the most deserving players honored, but my feeling is that too many "friends" are getting in, and at least two very deserving candidates are on the outside looking in again, with very dim hopes of ever getting the honors that they have earned in the future, without something changing. Please let us know how you feel.
If I am off base and I get a resounding "Personality definitely should be factored in," then I will drop it and go along with the gang. The majority should always rule!
Here is my one vote: I just induction should be for the most qualified, period. It should not be a popularity contest.
I am comfortable with the judgement of how various committees in CDMSBL vote. They are the ones charged with making the sometimes tough decisions. There is much we in the rank and file are not privy to regarding executive session conversations and comments. Sometimes there might be more to it than popularity contests and personality. Thank you for your hard work Mike.
Theres a lot to unpack on this post. To boil it down to one statement is difficult but Ill attempt to keep it as terse as I possibly can:
Qualifications for any Hall of Fame should be debated. I dont believe in no brainers. There are qualifications set by the rules for induction and debates should be made based on those qualifications.
With that said, I also dont like the nature of people winning popularity contests in order to get into a Hall of Fame of any kind. A person should be inducted based on their merits of meeting the qualifications.
Most specifically to our Hall of Fame, I think the rule of induction based on sportsmanship is entirely too subjective and lends itself to illogical debates. Everyone has an opinion on what sportsmanship means and everyones definition is different. I dont think its possible to have a logical debate about what is sportsmanlike and what is not. So, I think the only factor about playing conduct and sportsmanship that should be considered is whether or not the candidate has done anything that has caused damage or embarrassment to the league as a whole and not just individual people within the league. If we are to take other peoples personal opinions on sportsmanship into consideration, then there are a few people I think we should reconsider candidacy for who are already in the CDMSBL Hall of Fame - including one person I helped to gain candidacy.
Just my two cents.
-- Edited by The_Hurricane on Wednesday 27th of January 2021 11:16:21 AM
Seems to me there should be some sort of general criteria that would be a general guide for the voting members. I just went to look for info on the website and I don't see any link to the HOF anywhere.
I looked up the MLB criteria and it didn't get into whether it was for talent/accomplishments on the field or service to the league. I do believe there are some admin/exec types in the MLB HOF?
Personal likes/dislikes and friendships shouldn't come into play unless the dislikes are related to issues involving the league or games being played. Anyway that's why you guys get the big $$
Thanks for the input gentlemen. I was hopping for a lot more from more people, but Rob makes a great point: Individual "grudges" should be left out of consideration. If the Player/Manager/Administrator has embarrassed the league, that is a different story. Personal opinions on "sportsmanship" are too arbitrary for panels like this. If you are reading this, please add your thoughts, they are all important to us. We want to get this right.
Mike - I can only say that I have heard comments from league members that reflect both of your concerns - that some HOF inductees are voted in based on friendships and what team(s) they have played for while other, deserving candidates are overlooked based on personalities. Neither scenario is good for the hall of fame.
Girard is correct: Induction shouldn't be based on like or dislike of a player's personality. Sportsmanship, talent level (subjective to a degree), what a player has VOUNTARILY done for the league, GM/managerial success, tournament success, etc ...
Joe Jackson said, "Ty Cobb wanted to play. But none of us could stand the son of a bitch when we were alive so we told him to stick it, hahahahahaha!!!"
Changed to, "The boys didn't want Ty Cobb to play. I told them I ain't playing unless he plays too."
Several other MSBL affiliates have written criteria that could be incorporated into our own rules, such as the following example from Chesapeake Bay. Most put a lot of emphasis on sportsmanship, character and respect. Of course, there will always be a lot of debate over these qualities. Tough choices for you HOFers!
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Any Current Player, Manager, Umpire or League Sponsor who is currently affiliated and in good standing with the Chesapeake MSBL who has participated in the Chesapeake MSBL for twelve (12) or more years and consistently demonstrates good sportsmanship, character and respect towards teammates, opponents, and umpires; competitive skill; and, provides unselfish devotion to the continuing improvement to the quality and experience of Amateur Adult Baseball within the Chesapeake MSBL and the community at large.
All good comments! Thanks for taking the time! Lets hear from others! I want to make this the most responded to post of all time. Should we get votes from Team Managers? Should the rank and file get to vote? How do we make the HoF more representative of our League as a whole?
If there were set criteria to qualify for induction there wouldn't be a need for a committee or a vote for that matter. But much like MLB there is a committee that has their own opinions and criteria for how they vote. Not all members will agree and for good reason. Thus explaining why Roger Clemons gets 61% of the vote. Some criteria weighs heavier for some committee members than others. I don't know how many members we have that actually vote and debate, but I would say it seems the candidates you mention have something questionable enough on their resume's not to garner the votes they need. A unanimous vote says alot about the totality of a candidates attributes. The Hall Of Fame is a great honor and should be set aside for a select group of people. It appears the system we have in place is pretty good. Perhaps we could look at who we put on the committee or open it up to more voting members. Democracy can be a great thing. JJ
