Hall of Fame Voting

I believe professional sports in the United States should redo how they vote for their members of their respective hall of fames. I disagree with leaving the voting up to strictly writers. Players are the best to judge who are the best players. Coaches as well.

I think sports writers are biased. They'll play hometown favorites, vote against players that might have been jerks to them, or even vote against a type of player completely. One writer voting on the 2011 MLB Hall of Fame ballot said that he will never vote again for a hitter than has played later than 1980 because of the steroids scandal.

The best people to judge players are the ones that have played against them, but how do you decide which players will vote? I believe the main requirement should be that a player has played for ten years. This way, they would have played a variety of players in their sport and judge fairly whom were the best ones. The only exception could be a coach whom has coached for ten years or a combination of both playing and coaching at the big league level.

This system would assure players such as MLB's Craig Biggio gets in. Some players and coaches have called him one of the best second basemen to play in the last fifty years, yet there are writers willing to write him off because he wasn't a home run hitter. If he was, he would probably have been written off by that other writer (and others whom were less vocal) who won't vote for a hitter whom played 1980 and after. Biggio dominated for two decades, even playing catcher at the start of his career and centerfield when his team needed it. He takes bean balls, hits doubles, and was the man scoring runs when Jeff Bagwell, Lance Berkman, Derek Bell, and Ken Caminiti were driving him in.

The NBA's Dennis Rodman was a player that actually surprised me to be voted in. The press hated him, except for the occasional hometown writer, but players like Michael Jordan called him the best defensive player they've played with. Rodman didn't score points, but he rebounded, pounded other players, got in star players heads (see Karl Malone), and did all the other small things that a team needs to win a championship (five times in Rodman's case). Besides not scoring points, he was hated by many of the sports writers. For a player like Rodman to be voted in, surprises me and gives me hope that writers can get over personal biases.

I'm just not confident enough to leave the vote completely to the writers. MLB has a veteran commitee vote that is supposed to cover the players that the writers left off, but even then, I don't believe this is enough. They should get the first votes too. I believe this way, the best players will get voted in by the players that knew their abilities best.