The Baseball Hall of Fame and Multi-Year Eligibility

In an e-mail, Sports Law Blog reader Thomas Santanello raises an interesting and timely point about voting for the Baseball Hall of Fame:

Why would a player be eligible for more than one year? What does he do for his career . . . during the years he is retired? What makes him more deserving one year than the next? My view is a player played his time, therefore if he is not deserving in 2002, what makes him deserving now. You are either a Hall of Famer or not, you are either the elite of the elite or not.

This year's Hall of Fame vote took place this week, with only Bruce Sutter earning election. Under Hall of Fame rules, any player with 1) at least 10 years of major league experience and who 2) passes a preliminary screening committee is eligible to be elected by long-time members of the Baseball Writers Association of America ("BBWAA"). Players only gain election if they receive at least 75% of the casted ballots, while those who receive fewer than 5% are dropped from future elections. Players receiving between 5.0% and 74.9% of the ballots remain eligible for the following year's vote. If a player fails to obtain membership under this system, he may still be elected by the "Veterans Committee"--a group of living Hall of Famers--provided he fails to be elected by the BBWAA within 20 years of his retirement. The Veterans Committee votes every two years.

Should a player be able to become "Hall of Fame worthy" when he has already been rejected? After all, he was retired when he was first rejected; what could he have possibly done in the interim to enhance his already-complete playing career?

Well, I imagine there are several arguments in favor of this system. Obviously, one might argue that statistics are viewed differently in different eras, and a player should not be penalized for playing in a particular era. A good example of this might be when homerun records were broken in the late 90s, and 35 homeruns in a season no longer seemed very impressive, but now that homeruns have dropped down a bit, perhaps 35 homeruns becomes impressive again.

Another obvious reason is that "electibility" often depends on the other names on the ballot. Why should an "almost-outstanding" player be denied eligibility in a year when there are three or four outstanding candidates while, in another year, a player with identical credentials might "squeak in" when surrounded by a weaker field of candidates? For instance, while former Red Sox great Jim Rice (pictured above) failed for the 12th time to gain election into the Hall of Fame this year, he did much better this time around in part because he was among a less-than-stellar group of candidates.

A more subtle reason may rest in the expected characteristics of voting. According to the Hall of Fame, "voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." Are "integrity, sportsmanship, and character" limited to when the player played in the big leagues, or are we to read those attributes as not connected to the word "contributions"? I'm not sure, but if not connected, then presumably a player may become more "hall-worthy" by enhancing his "integrity, sportsmanship, and character" after his career ends.

But the opposing view may also prove compelling: Shouldn't Hall of Fame players stand out regardless of time or era? Why have a Hall of Fame if it is so situationally-dependent?

Which side do you take: should players be eligible for only one year, or should they remain eligible in future years?

Posted in: