How high should the HOF standard be?

[538280]

How high do you think the HOF Standard should be?

This is a subjective question. What it is really asking is, how many people would you want the HOF to be limited to? Would you want it to be very selective, with only the 50 or so best players of all time (or maybe even more than that-the top 25 or so)? Do you like the HOF being where it is now (about 200 players)? Do you think it should have even more? What do you think, it's up to you.

For me, I like the HOF Standard similar to how it is now. Obviously many of the horrible selections in there confuse the standard, but in general, I have a pretty good idea of what makes a HOFer and what isn't. I like it this way because it gives us an opportunity to discuss a variety of players, but not SO many where it just becomes silly. I don't like the idea that we should have a HOF with only 50 or so players because that would limit the amount of players we would discuss. If that were the case, we would have much less reason to talk about players who may not have been true all time greats, but were very good for a long time, and may be deserving under the current standards. I certainly don't like the idea of an extremely selective HOF, and indeed I would be upset if it was that way.

But, I also don't want the amount of players to just get silly, when we're talking about anyone who played a decent amount of games, and just certainly wasn't an extremely special player.

So what do you guys think?

[Mariano_Rivera]

How high do you think the HOF Standard should be?

This is a subjective question. What it is really asking is, how many people would you want the HOF to be limited to? Would you want it to be very selective, with only the 50 or so best players of all time (or maybe even more than that-the top 25 or so)? Do you like the HOF being where it is now (about 200 players)? Do you think it should have even more? What do you think, it's up to you.

For me, I like the HOF Standard similar to how it is now. Obviously many of the horrible selections in there confuse the standard, but in general, I have a pretty good idea of what makes a HOFer and what isn't. I like it this way because it gives us an opportunity to discuss a variety of players, but not SO many where it just becomes silly. I don't like the idea that we should have a HOF with only 50 or so players because that would limit the amount of players we would discuss. If that were the case, we would have much less reason to talk about players who may not have been true all time greats, but were very good for a long time, and may be deserving under the current standards. I certainly don't like the idea of an extremely selective HOF, and indeed I would be upset if it was that way.

But, I also don't want the amount of players to just get silly, when we're talking about anyone who played a decent amount of games, and just certainly wasn't an extremely special player.

So what do you guys think?
I like it the way it is now with a few exceptions that really don`t deserve it. Maybe raising it by a little bit and I think voters should pay less attention to BA and Wins/Win % and World Series wins then they do. Or in other words team/luck dependant stas.

[john1972]

How about raising the standard to include in the evaluation how a player performed in the playoffs- if the opportunity was available of course. This would help to eliminate many of the players who seem to thrive in the regular season, posting big numbers year after year in an age when it appears relatively easy to do, yet who bite the bullet so to speak when the real game begins. I'm a firm believer in the playoff environment being the true measuring stick of how good, or great, a player really was. :p

[RuthMayBond]

How about raising the standard to include in the evaluation how a player performed in the playoffs- if the opportunity was available of course. This would help to eliminate many of the players who seem to thrive in the regular season, posting big numbers year after year in an age when it appears relatively easy to do, yet who bite the bullet so to speak when the real game begins. I'm a firm believer in the playoff environment being the true measuring stick of how good, or great, a player really was. :pYou'd knock out Cobb/Ted Willliams because of a few AB?

[jalbright]

If the current numbers had been better selected, I tend to think it would be about right. I think guys who consistently play at an all-star level deserve the honor, and it seems the current number would approximately accomodate that group of players. If a guy is not quite at that level but lasts longer and thereby achieves a milestone like 3000 hits still represents, I have no problem including those players as well. The only problem with milestones is that they don't necessarily remain constant, as the career homer number would demonstrate.

Jim Albright

[Mariano_Rivera]

How about raising the standard to include in the evaluation how a player performed in the playoffs- if the opportunity was available of course. This would help to eliminate many of the players who seem to thrive in the regular season, posting big numbers year after year in an age when it appears relatively easy to do, yet who bite the bullet so to speak when the real game begins. I'm a firm believer in the playoff environment being the true measuring stick of how good, or great, a player really was. :p
IMO it's the exact opposite. Playoff time suffers from small sample size and it won`t show how good a player actually is. If a player reaches the playoff once in his career and just HAPPENS to fall into a slump October first and it carries over for a month and is therefore a "choker" and that tiotle could kill a borderline HoFer. The reverse could happen as well and that could save a borderline HoFer. Kevin Brown had a tough series in the 2004 ALCS does that mean he's not a great pitcher and (IMO) a HoFer? Of course not, you can`t base your decisions on a player's career and HoF chances on how he did in one month out of a brilliant 20 year career. Randy Johnson had a bad series in the 2005 ALDS, does that mean he's a mediocore pitcher and undeserving of baseball's highest honor even though he is third on the all-time SO list? No. Bernie Williams has some very impressive numbers especially in the playoffs, however without those playoff numbers he can`t even be considered for the HoF. Playoff numbers are not a good indicator of how great a player is unless they play in the playoffs every year of their career like Derek Jeter.

[Mariano_Rivera]

You'd knock out Cobb/Ted Willliams because of a few AB?
My point exactly.

[538280]

How about raising the standard to include in the evaluation how a player performed in the playoffs- if the opportunity was available of course. This would help to eliminate many of the players who seem to thrive in the regular season, posting big numbers year after year in an age when it appears relatively easy to do, yet who bite the bullet so to speak when the real game begins. I'm a firm believer in the playoff environment being the true measuring stick of how good, or great, a player really was. :p

I agree with Rickey here. I generally think postseason performance or a few special moments in a player's career is something weighted too much by the HOF voters. It shouldn't be completely thrown to the curb, as those are real games they played in, but it's not a big deal with me if a guy was a postseason hero or really choked in the postseason-it is a very small sample size. Perhaps not much more than a tiebreaker in VERY close cases.

[Pine Tar]

I agree with Rickey here. I generally think postseason performance or a few special moments in a player's career is something weighted too much by the HOF voters. It shouldn't be completely thrown to the curb, as those are real games they played in, but it's not a big deal with me if a guy was a postseason hero or really choked in the postseason-it is a very small sample size. Perhaps not much more than a tiebreaker in VERY close cases.
What about players like David Cone that played a significant number of games in the postseason? I mean, Cone played in the playoffs, in what amounts to half a full season. Bernie williams has played nearly what amounts to a full season in the playoffs. If these games are not going to count much for their hall chances, should they be added to players career totals? If you added each players' playoff numbers to their career numbers, Cone would have over 200 victories and Bernie's stats would look more hall worthy with over 300 home runs, 1300 rbi, and 1400 runs scored.
Just a thought.

[leecemark]

--I think postseason games should count for as much as 2-3 times as much as regular season games when evaluating a player. If a guy flops or shines in a series or two over the course of his career that still isn't going to affect his chances a great deal. If a player gets lots of postseason chances then those performances could make or break him. Of course, that only applies to borderline guys. If Babe Ruth had been the worst postseason player ever he is still a slam dunk Hall of Famer. If Matt Stairs had been the best post season player ever it still wouldn't get him up to standards.

[538280]

--I think postseason games should count for as much as 2-3 times as much as regular season games when evaluating a player. If a guy flops or shines in a series or two over the course of his career that still isn't going to affect his chances a great deal. If a player gets lots of postseason chances then those performances could make or break him. Of course, that only applies to borderline guys. If Babe Ruth had been the worst postseason player ever he is still a slam dunk Hall of Famer. If Matt Stairs had been the best post season player ever it still wouldn't get him up to standards.

Yes, I agree with this. There are cases when it can mean a lot, and certainly get a player over the hump IMO. Bernie Williams is a case of this.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Do you mean, how LOW should the standard be?

The highest the standard could possibly be would be such that no one ever becomes a member ... in other words, perfection. Every player ever inducted actually lowers that standard a little bit, starting with Babe Ruth.

So you probably really want to know how low the standard for induction should be set.

Hard to answer that, since some HoFers are actually the best ever defensively at the position they played, even if they weren't truly great hitters; and some pitchers had very long careers and set loads of records, even though they weren't truly great pitchers most of the time; and some batters accrued lots and lots of counting stats by playing forever, even though they never had a true peak that would define greatness.

[STLCards2]

I agree that postseason should be used when considering borderline players, which is how Schilling and Smoltz, who were both very valuable postseason players, get in. Most candidates will either be too far out or too far in to be affected by their postseason success.

I also feel that the HOF has done a pretty good job, overall. The Frisch picks were poor as a whole, but except for 10-15 players who are clearly not HOFers but are in, and 10-15 or so players who clearly should be but aren't, a pretty good case could be made for everybody else who is in or isn't in.

[brett]

Considering that today the regular season accounts for the elimination of 73% of teams from a shot at the championship, and the entire post season eliminates 23% (7 of 8) and that a complete post season run would be about 16 games, I would say 16 post season games is worth about 23/73 of the 162 regular season games, or about 3 times more value per game.

Back when just the World Series was played, the regular season eliminated 14 of 16 teams (87.5) and the series eliminated 6.25% I would put a average 6 game world series equal to 6.25/87.5 of the 154 game regular season. That would make a world series game worth just under double a regular season game.

As for the hall, I would like to see about 8 position players and 4 pitchers per generation (20 years) post 1900, and 8 and 4 for the pre 1900 period and maybe 16 and 8 from the negro leagues.

These players would be "inductees" and other players who set records, or were very good and key parts of great teams, or otherwise "famous" would be in the halls leading up to the hall of inductees. They would not be enshrined for their specific careers, but as part of the history or record that they achieved. Lou Brock would be an example. Perhaps even Rizzuto would be in as a part of history. Maybe Mazeroski, McGwire, Nolan Ryan, Dizzy Dean or others would go in here. It's not them, its the hisorical events surrounding them.

There would still be tough calls though as to who would make the true "inductee" list. Brooks Robinson? Jackie Robinson? You could put in a plaque that reads "Pete Rose record breakers" but he would not be the one going in. Same thing for Joe Jackson. If a guy was one of the clear top 5 at his position, or one of the top 12 ncluding pitchers in a 20 year period he should be in. Dick Allen would be in for the 70s and 80s I think. He probably is one of the top 12 players during that 20 year period.

Who would go?

For sure (among those who currently qualify):

Cochrane
Bench
Berra
Gehrig
Foxx
McCovey
Anson
Lajoie
Hornsby
Collins
Morgan
Wagner
Vaughn
Yount
Banks
Schmidt
Matthews
Brett
Musial
Williams
Yaz
Aaron
Ott
Frank Robinson
Babe Ruth
Cobb
Dimaggio
Mantle
Mays
Speaker
Alexander
Grove
Johnson
Matthewson
Seaver
Young
Thats 36

and probable "inductees":

Koufax
Carlton
Gibson
Spahn
Feller
Nichols
Planck
Radbourn
Hubbell
Clemente
Fisk
Campanella
Snider
Simmons
Heilman
Frank Baker
Brooks Robinson
Jackie Robinson
Appling
Ozzie smith
Dick Allen
Greenberg

(22 more)

Remember that that is probable under a stricter hall. The second list guys are sure things in todays standards, but each one might be argued to be more the product of an amazing peak, a shorter but great career, being not quite the best at there position, all time great career numbers, but not necessarily being a generationally great player or for a very long period of time. You could modify the second list and maybe add a couple more, plus 12 more active or recently retired players.


--I think postseason games should count for as much as 2-3 times as much as regular season games when evaluating a player. If a guy flops or shines in a series or two over the course of his career that still isn't going to affect his chances a great deal. If a player gets lots of postseason chances then those performances could make or break him. Of course, that only applies to borderline guys. If Babe Ruth had been the worst postseason player ever he is still a slam dunk Hall of Famer. If Matt Stairs had been the best post season player ever it still wouldn't get him up to standards.

[RuthMayBond]

and probable "inductees":

Carlton
Gibson
Spahn
Feller
Nichols
Hubbell
Jackie Robinson
Tough crowd

[W_Marone]

The only problem I have with it being say the fifty best players is this, where is room for the future? We all know eventually there will be a player better than a Ted Williams or Ruth, if its fifty best ever, do we only put in 35 from the past and leave the rest for the future?

[Ubiquitous]

One could always say that in order to be inducted when they retire they should be considered one of the 50 best players of all time or whatever number one chooses. That way the hall has no size limit but you are practically guaranteeing that only the best get in.

I'm a very small hall fan and I generally only want the 5 or so best per position in the hall. Meaning when the player retires if I don't think he is one of the 5 best or so of his position I don't think he should get into the hall.

[leecemark]

One could always say that in order to be inducted when they retire they should be considered one of the 50 best players of all time or whatever number one chooses. That way the hall has no size limit but you are practically guaranteeing that only the best get in.

I'm a very small hall fan and I generally only want the 5 or so best per position in the hall. Meaning when the player retires if I don't think he is one of the 5 best or so of his position I don't think he should get into the hall.


--That is fine for your personal Hall of Fame. For the one in Cooperstown that isn't really feasible though. That standard would mean some players better than the average current Hall of Famer would be excluded. Being better than the worst players in the Hall of Fame is not a compelling arguement. Being better than half the members is a compelling arguement. One which can not, in fairness, be ignored.

[Ubiquitous]

Why would that happen? OR I should say why is that a big deal? So you are better then the average hall of famer, so what? This about being the best of all time. 50 years from now you might be better then 20 guys in the hall and not be one of the top 5 players but that doesn't you get slighted. Not getting in recognizes the ever changing game and your impact on the game. When you retire are you one of the greatest player to have player your position? If the answer is no then you shouldn't get in. Regardless of whether or not you are better 5 or 10 or 50 guys in the hall. The hall to me is about greatness not about who you are better then.

Example:
When Pie Traynor retired he was one of the greatest third basemen of all time. He isn't anymore, or I should say he isn't in the top tier anymore. Some player nowadays can have a career greater then Pie but that doesn't mean he should go into the hall. Because Pie is no longer the standard. Mike Schmidt is, Eddie Mathews is, George Brett is, Wade Boggs is. Just because player X is better then Baker, Traynor, Lindstrom, Kell, and Collins doesn't mean we should put him in. Putting him in because of that ignores the evolution of the game, and reward somebody simply because of statistics. While even ignoring the proper context of those statistics.

[leecemark]

--Except many players have already been inducted who were NOT amoung the best ever. Cooperstown has already set a standard that allows for second tier (or even third tier in the worst examples) stars to be inducted.
-- How does it elevate the standards of the Hall to exclude more recent players who are clearly better than a significant number of existing members? It demeans the Hall to have an underclass of old timers who are clerly inferior to a large pool of more recent players (and who were inferior even in the context of their own time).
--If we blew the whole thing up and started over with a higher standard that would be one thing. To tell modern players that "better than the average Hall of Famer" is not good enough serves no purpose.

[Ubiquitous]

So because we made a mistake in the past we must live with it for the rest of existance? We are doomed to magnify the mistake? It is better to admit a mistake on move on from there in a corrected manner than to simply ignore the problem and continue on. The Hall of Fame is about rewarding greatness not about being better then some other hall of famer. To get in the hall one should be great, and just because they made mistakes in the past should that be ignored.

[jalbright]

Ubi,

I agree with you about the idea of not perpetuating mistakes (I believe leecemark does as well), but where we differ is over how many mistakes they've made. Your proposal would allow what, 6 or 7 guys per everyday position and 15-20 pitchers? That's less than 80 players, which means the Hall has made at least 145 mistakes. I think that is too many. I'd say more on the order of 15-25 mistakes have been made. That means you and I differ on 120-130 players.

Your view clearly separates the hall into two classes, one which includes all the mistakes your clearly new standard allowed in the past, and those who pass muster under the new standard. It wouldn't be good for the Hall as an institution to do that. Now to treat only the worst errors as ones we're not going to repeat may still leave some inequities, but not nearly as many as your proposal would. I think the institution can survive my approach, I'm not sure it could survive yours.

Jim Albright

[Ubiquitous]

There wouldn't be that many mistakes. There wouldn't be any size limit on the hall. Most of the players in the hall when they retired were one of the greatest of their positions. VetCom made a lot of mistakes that help kill this notion off.

How many players in the hall were not one of the greatest of their position when they retired? That is how many I think were mistakes, and I don't think it was 140 or so. My view probably would have more players viewed as mistakes then say yours but it wouldn't be a gigantic difference.

And yes as time moves on one can certainly increase it to say top 10 of his position if the top 5 or so are so great that nobody can crack the list despite what they do.

[538280]

I'm just curious-why exactly do you want a small HOF? I've never understood why someone would want that. To make it a better honor? I think the HOF is already the highest honor than can be bestowed upon a player, and as long as they keep it the way it is people will continue to be awed at it and all that.

I just think that if you wanted to make a smaller HOF that would just limit the discussion, and we would never have the fun of talking about a wide variety of players. Look at the first page of this forum now-we have discussions about Reggie Smith, Bernie Williams, Jim Edmonds, Troy Glaus, Ron Cey, Dave Concepcion, and Carlos Beltran. Would those discussions exist if the HOF was so small? Instead we'd be debating much higher level guys-but we alreadly have interest in doing that with the HOF standard where it is now. I'm just interested in what the theoretical explanation behind wanting a small hall is. Personally I do not think discussing these things would be nearly as much fun if the HOF now had only about 50 members.

[brett]

Your probably right. I mentioned my ideal of a high level hall. I'm not really for that. Really, I just got pissed off by about 5-6 veterans committee selections where they just looked like they were trying to find someone to put in, as well as a few recent choices. Sutton and Tony Perez seemed to just get in by default, and really Sutton's career is pretty impressive in terms of the number of 15 win and 500+ seasons with pretty good ERA's. I wouldn't have voted for him. Take out the 5-10 real bad choices and I wouldn't have a problem.

I'm just curious-why exactly do you want a small HOF? I've never understood why someone would want that. To make it a better honor? I think the HOF is already the highest honor than can be bestowed upon a player, and as long as they keep it the way it is people will continue to be awed at it and all that.

I just think that if you wanted to make a smaller HOF that would just limit the discussion, and we would never have the fun of talking about a wide variety of players. Look at the first page of this forum now-we have discussions about Reggie Smith, Bernie Williams, Jim Edmonds, Troy Glaus, Ron Cey, Dave Concepcion, and Carlos Beltran. Would those discussions exist if the HOF was so small? Instead we'd be debating much higher level guys-but we alreadly have interest in doing that with the HOF standard where it is now. I'm just interested in what the theoretical explanation behind wanting a small hall is. Personally I do not think discussing these things would be nearly as much fun if the HOF now had only about 50 members.

[PhillyA_man]

The other point is how much of the HOF selection is subjective vs objective. If one is to raise the bar for inductees with much more stringent requirements, are those requirements based solely on their statistical performance? Many players transcend their stats and have a much greater impact then their numbers suggest.

[Brad Harris]

While that may be true...

(a)...most of those players have good-to-great careers anyhow; and
(b)...how do you quantify that?

Is Bobby Thompson a Hall of Famer because of his "shot heard round the world?" If Bill Mazeroski hadn't hit that Series-winning home run in 1960, would best-defensive-player-at-second case have been enough to get over the hump? Is Jack Morris a Hall of Famer because of 1991? Is Goose Gossage's post-season gaffes enough to keep him out?

While not wanting to apply a hard statistical standard, I would sure like to have the vast bulk of the criteria avoid subjectivity as much as possible.

[digglahhh]

I don't like thinking about the size of the HOF as a precursor to my HOF standard. I'd rather develop my standard and then just count the guys who meet it. That would be the "correct" number for me, whatever it may be. Perhaps, if I was forced to think about it in a numerical form I would propose some sort of percentile system, which would also allow its size to grow while theoretically never comprising the standard. The HOF should consist of the top __% of players to ever play the game.

I don't have one particular standard. The level of dominance and duration of that dominance are inversely proportionate when I'm doing my evaluation. The better you are at your peak, the less important cumulative totals are. Some guys were so good at their best that career totals are almost irrelevant. Some guys put together pretty nice career totals, but weren't good enough at their best for me to consider them HOF players. You have Sandy Koufax on one hand and Harlod Baines on the other.

Most agree that Vlad is on HOF pace, I'd vote for him if he never played another game. He's been basically one of the five best players in the game for about a decade- that's easily good enough for me.

So, I can't really offer a standardized answer to the question. I take each case individually. The best I can do is to say that All Star caliber play for a prolonged period of time is good enough for me, Carter, Winfield etc. But I also look pretty favorably on short stretches of MVP caliber play, Belle, Murphy, Allen.