We usually reserve all of our Hall of Fame arguing for late December and early January when we can devote sufficient time to the obnoxiousness that requires, but any time is a good time really.
Today Jim Caple has a suggestion to improve the process: (1) eliminate the 15-years-on-the-ballot rule; and (2) eliminate the if-you-don’t-get-five-percent-of-the-vote-you’re-dropped rule.
I’m definitely in favor of the second one, as I’ve never understood its purpose. If we can see players go from very little support in the early years of their candidacy to ultimately being elected, why does it matter how low their vote total is in the early years? If they simply have no support, they won’t be clogging anyone’s ballot for multiple years and eventually even the hardcore voters will stop voting for lost causes. Make it like, a bunch of years with sub-five percent before doing it. Who knows what make us reevaluate someone’s candidacy over time? Wouldn’t it be great to be able to talk about Lou Whitaker now?
I’m not as sure on the 15-year thing, because it can prevent someone getting moderate though not overwhelming support from clogging things up. We’ll see this more in the coming years when half the voters refuse to vote for the steroid guys and gridlock results. Still, I’m not adamant in opposing such a thing and could be persuaded because there still is an arbitrary feeling to the rule.
This would all be fun to debate. Too bad the folks that run the Hall of Fame never seem all that interested in joining in that debate.