Hall of Fame standards

[ChrisLDuncan]

With certian players reaching career milestones very soon (i.e. 300 wins 3000 hits 500 home runs), all of which seem to be a ticket into the hall of fame. What do you think of this? Should we put so much focus on reaching certian career milestones, or should we focus on how special a certian player was? Furthermore, are these milestones even valid for gaurenteed entrance into the hall?

[Captain Cold Nose]

With certian players reaching career milestones very soon (i.e. 300 wins 3000 hits 500 home runs), all of which seem to be a ticket into the hall of fame. What do you think of this? Should we put so much focus on reaching certian career milestones, or should we focus on how special a certian player was? Furthermore, are these milestones even valid for gaurenteed entrance into the hall?
"Special" is a term that is extremely prone to bias. What exactly is "special"?

[ChrisLDuncan]

"Special" is a term that is extremely prone to bias. What exactly is "special"?

Well I guess that's up to the indvisual to decide. For example I think Bernie Williams had a special career, I think Jeff Bagwell had a special career, I think Pedro Martinez had a special career. The term is very subjective.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Well I guess that's up to the indvisual to decide. For example I think Bernie Williams had a special career, I think Jeff Bagwell had a special career, I think Pedro Martinez had a special career.
All fine players, certainly special compared to the average player.

In the early years of the HOF, guys like Frank Chance and Tommy McCarthy got in with less than overwhelming stats because of what they meant during their time. Kirby Puckett and Sandy Koufax don't have awesome career numbers, but they were special when they were at their best, and in cases like that, it was enough. It really has to be looked at on a case by case basis.

[KCGHOST]

Many times "special" and "reaching milestones" go hand in hand. Tony Gwynn, Roger Clemens, and Greg Maddux are players who will have both things going for them when they are up for election. Players like that are mortal locks for election.

For others we reward the milestone even if they weren't special. This would be guys like Don Sutton and Early Wynn. Other than longevity and durability these guys weren't special. You hate to do it but it helps keep the accounting clean. Guys like this can wait a number of years before they are awarded a plaque.

Other guys are special, but don't reach milestones for various reasons. Joe DiMaggio, Ralph Kiner, and Sandy Koufax come to mind. These guys were so dominant despite shortened careers that they are inducted into the HoF promptly (not necessarily 1st ballot, but close)

[Brad Harris]

It's important to have benchmarks for a player's performance. 300 wins or 3,000 are merely traditionally used benchmarks. They aren't the only benchmarks, nor should the benchmarks necessarily remain at those numbers. Performance standards aren't written in stone (nor should they be), but these statistical plateaus can be useful measuring sticks for a player's career.

[Seattle1]

It depends.