Goose on the Loose

So Goose Gossage got into the hall the other day. I'm going to be honest, I don't have a great deal of baseball watching memories of Goose on the hill. His glory days with the Yankees were well before my time and when he was with the Padres their games against the Mets mostly started at 10:05 Eastern so I didn't exactly have signoff to stay up until the 8th inning of those games at the age of 10. I've heard arguments on both sides of the fence about whether he should be in or not. The numbers aren't there, the numbers don't tell the story, he got in because both his moustache and nickname were badass, and blah blah freakin' blah. Off the top of my head I would have said no to Goose getting in, but it doesn't sicken me that he's in.

What does sicken me is the HOF voting process. Every year there is a guy who falls short, but by fewer votes than the year before. In the year before, he fell short by fewer votes than the year before that, etc. The current example is Jim Rice. Every year he gets a little closer and a little closer and maybe next year he gets over the hump. Is he travelling back in time each year and becoming a better player? Did they comb over the boxscores and uncover an additional 100 dingers that had previously been missing from his stat totals? Did the level of current talent in MLB drop from '06 to '07 to an extent that he was not hall worthy using 2006 players as a gauge but is closer to hall worthy when stacked vs. 2007 players?

Obviously the answer to these questions is no to all. Clearly these guys that stay on the ballot for years and years and years and then finally squirm their way in are getting in because a) endless PR campaigning by them and their writer cronies b) an uninspiring class of new competitors and/or boredom forcing more voters to vote them a yes because they feel like SOMEONE should go in c) a significant change in the individuals voting in which a lot of nay voters no longer cast a ballot and/or d) yes votes because individual voters are simply tired of getting flak for voting no on the chap in question. If it seems cheap it's because it is. But as always, there is another way........

My solution is this: one shot voting. Keep the five year waiting period post-retirement, it gives every voter plenty of time to thoroughly research and reflect on the careers of hall candidates. Remove the cap on the number of inductees per class. If nobody is worthy then nobody gets in. If 30 guys are worthy they all get in. But you get one shot, you're either a hall of famer or you're not. It takes away the campaigning and political bs where good but not great players get in because of their persistence working the phones more than their persistence as players 20 years ago.