Less than 10 years in MLB?

[Appling]

How rigid is the HOF requirement that a nominee must have at least ten seasons of MLB to be selected as a PLAYER?

I was thinking of Jackie Robinson -- who played exactly ten seasons in the Majors, and was approved on his initial HOF ballot. If he had only NINE years of active MLB services, would he be automatically excluded from the HOF?

Or might there have been a special exemption to allow him in the Hall?

[THE OX]

HOF pitcher Addie Joss had only 8 full seasons plus 12 starts in a 9th season before dying of meningitis. I suppose there was some sort of special dispensation for him.......

[DTF955]

Yes, there was; i think he was actually signed and ready to start in his 10th season nuerically ( though it wasjn't a full one) before dying, but I could be wrong.

Jackie could have gotten in as a pioneer, though by the VC (which wasn't that strict in those days).

I think someone dying in a war might also merit it if they had 8-9 years. DiMaggio only had 7 (but then, there were some votes for him in '45) but Ted Williams might have been looked at...hmmm, actually, he had had ten when we went to Korea, but someone like him, with 9, who is then killed in war might make it.

It wonder if the enemy ever thought of trying to bomb one of bases where major leaguers were at. Can you imagine if they did that while there was some benefit game going on, and most of the big league stars were killed or wounded so they couldn't play anymore? I wonder how the HOF would have handled that? Probably they'd have a special wing to honor them or something.

That would make for an interesting, though sad, piece of fiction. (And, also, an interesting start to a dynasty, for anyone who plays Baseball Moful, since the database of players doesn't include said major leaguers if you load in a year while they were at war and not on rosters. Good one for the gaming board, if anyone on there plays and reads the Baseball Mogul discussion boards.)

[538280]

I've always thought having a minimum of 10 seasons played is strange. So what if you played less than 10 seasons, it's still possible, based on your best seasons, that you still might be qualified for the HOF. Why does there have to be any playing time limit, of course not having longevity should count against players, but I don't see why there should be a definite requirement on it. And I doubt it would be enforced anyway if there was a player that really tried the rule.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I've always thought having a minimum of 10 seasons played is strange. So what if you played less than 10 seasons, it's still possible, based on your best seasons, that you still might be qualified for the HOF. Why does there have to be any playing time limit, of course not having longevity should count against players, but I don't see why there should be a definite requirement on it. And I doubt it would be enforced anyway if there was a player that really tried the rule.

I think the rule is fair. To be a HoF player shouldn't a player play for a long enough time to show the quality of your career? Ten years sounds like a good round number.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The rule counts parts of a season as a full season. Bobby Tiefenauer (http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/tiefebo01.shtml), with his frequent cups of coffee, qualifies for election. Lyman Bostock (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bostoly01.shtml), a superior player, murdered in his prime, does not.

I think the rule could possibly be amended to where players with less than 10 years of service can be placed on the ballot with a vote of 10 percent of the sportswriters. Or they will be placed on next year's ballot if 10 percent of the writers cast a "write-in" vote, a vote that would be counted not for induction, but for future ballot placement, only.

Still, the rule requiring 10 years isn't terrible. Exceptions have been made, and they have been rare exceptions. I agree with that. My example of Tiefenauer vs. Bostock is kind of a picky point, in that neither really should go into the HOF, even though Bostock might have had a HOF career if he had lived and played a full healthy career. This issue may be a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

[538280]

I think the rule is fair. To be a HoF player shouldn't a player play for a long enough time to show the quality of your career? Ten years sounds like a good rounf number.

Not necessarily. If you shows you're a good enough player in 9 years that many people are definitely going to vote for you then why shouldn't you be allowed in? If you do enough in 9 years or less there is no reason why you should be out. It's just that you have to do enough-and that's hard in less than 10 years but it's still possible and I don't get the logic that you should be ineligible if you don't play 10 years when it's possible to do enough in 9 or less.

[nerfan]

What about Parisian Bob Caruthers- 9 years of service, a 123 ERA+, a 135 OPS+.

What about Koufax, if you took away '55-'57?

I think the 10-year-rule is rigid.

Though it does weed out cup o' coffees.

[KCGHOST]

I think now it is probably pretty rigid, but you never can say for sure. The HoF can change it rules wheneve it wishes for however long it wishes. Fir example, if Albert Pujols puts up his normal numbers in 2007-9 and then something happens to take him from the game I think the HoF would give him a special exemption.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Not necessarily. If you shows you're a good enough player in 9 years that many people are definitely going to vote for you then why shouldn't you be allowed in? If you do enough in 9 years or less there is no reason why you should be out. It's just that you have to do enough-and that's hard in less than 10 years but it's still possible and I don't get the logic that you should be ineligible if you don't play 10 years when it's possible to do enough in 9 or less.

The "logic" is that the HoF decided to have some minimun requirements for induction. Can you name me one player that played for nine seasons or less and would be a well qualified HoFer if it were not for the 10 year rule? Ten years in the majors is not asking a lot of a Hall of Fame caliber player.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I think now it is probably pretty rigid, but you never can say for sure. The HoF can change it rules wheneve it wishes for however long it wishes. Fir example, if Albert Pujols puts up his normal numbers in 2007-9 and then something happens to take him from the game I think the HoF would give him a special exemption.
So when does it stop? Lets say the minimum is pushed back to nine seasons required. Then why not eight seasons? If eight seasons then why not seven seasons? If seven seasons then why not six seasons?...etc...

[Calif_Eagle]

Addie Joss, as previously mentioned, has had an experience exception made for him. So, he was deemed HOF worthy with less than 10 years. Koufax may have pitched 12 years but only the last 6 or even 5 made him Hall worthy. Dizzy Dean played only 12 seasons but in 3 of those he appeared in only 1 game! In 3 others 13, 19, and 10 games. He is in the HOF. You can surely argue that in a sense none of these 3 pitchers really earned their credentials in 10 MLB seasons. As for position players, I'm a bit more stymied there. Ralph Kiner is in with 10 seasons exactly. Hack Wilson made it with 12 years. Basically 5 of these are what put him in the HOF... the other 7 are rather ordinary. (Is he really that much better a player than his single season HR record AL counterpart Roger Maris? I think not myself...) A comparison of the 2 would make for an interesting thread if it hasnt been done already.

[Freakshow]

The HOF was not founded having the ten year rule. It was created in the mid 1950's when they decided they would start making a ballot to vote from. Ten years was arbitrarily picked as the number of years that seemed OK.

Prior to this time there was no limit. Joss received votes from the BBWAA in a couple elections.

After about a decade they decided it was too generous, that too many scrubs were on the ballot. Rather than raise the years limit, he BBWAA appointed a screening committee to decide who would be on the ballot, which exists to this day. Probably to make their job easier, the ten year rule was kept.

While it's easy to conceive of players deserving the Hall with less than ten years played, in reality it's hard to see anyone after Joss that might belong, and even he's borderline. (Caruthers did play ten years, only pitching in nine.)

Where the rule is unjust is for someone like Rusty Greer. Like most players, he's clearly not a hall of famer. For many, just being on the ballot is the highest honor they can hope for. And it IS an honor, make no mistake. But Greer is denied this honor that many lesser players recieve. Not really a big thing, but definitely unfair.

[KCGHOST]

So when does it stop? Lets say the minimum is pushed back to nine seasons required. Then why not eight seasons? If eight seasons then why not seven seasons? If seven seasons then why not six seasons?...etc...

The HoF can do whatever it likes to include changing requirements for a short period of time. If the HoF decides to let a particular 9 year player on the ballot it does not obligate them to let any other 9 year players on the ballot. You may contend this is not fair, but it is not unreasonable.

[Freakshow]

Right. The point is, there is no reason to have the rule with the screening committee in place. Also, the ten year rule demonstrates why you cannot have absolute statistical qualifiers for the Hall of Fame.

Why should this rule be the sole statistical qualifier embodied in the HOF rules? It's the "weight of the evidence", as James has said, beyond any statistic or manipulation of numbers. The ten year rule is an anchronism that has no place in deciding who does and does not deserve consideration for the Hall.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The HoF can do whatever it likes to include changing requirements for a short period of time. If the HoF decides to let a particular 9 year player on the ballot it does not obligate them to let any other 9 year players on the ballot. You may contend this is not fair, but it is not unreasonable.

That's fine with me.

[Brian McKenna]

HOF pitcher Addie Joss had only 8 full seasons plus 12 starts in a 9th season before dying of meningitis. I suppose there was some sort of special dispensation for him.......

I believe the rule states "10 campaigns."

Joss died during spring training of his 10th season. If spring training counts as part of a "campaign" than the rule was satisfied by Joss.

IMO Joss is properly enshrined as an elite pitcher stricken at the verge of HOF qualification.

BTW it is interesting to note that Joss' stats popped the eye of baseball fans, who had long-since forgotten him or never heard of him, after the publication of the first MacMillian encyclopedia. That book literally changed many's historical view and directly led to the sabermetric explosion of the last few decades.

[mtortolero]

Al Rosen probably is a good case for this issue and something to take in count with Albert Pujols: exactly 10 seasons played but his first three as a "cup of coffe" with no stats adding to his record, and then five seasons playing between the All Star and the MVP level but his final two seasons played as an average player.
Will you vote by a player as Rosen for the HOF today? I think he is a borderline falling short by little to be a HOF.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Al Rosen probably is a good case for this issue and something to take in count with Albert Pujols: exactly 10 seasons played but his first three as a "cup of coffe" with no stats adding to his record, and then five seasons playing between the All Star and the MVP level but his final two seasons played as an average player.
Will you vote by a player as Rosen for the HOF today? I think he is a borderline falling short by little to be a HOF.


Rosen is one of my ideosyncratic choices. I believe he was the greatest 3B ever, in terms of peak value; he was certainly that at the time of his retirement (although Eddie Mathews was having his best seasons early).

No player with less than parts of 10 seasons sticks out in my mind as a serious HOF candidate that is ineligible. Anyone out there have a candidate?

[Freakshow]

No player with less than parts of 10 seasons sticks out in my mind as a serious HOF candidate that is ineligible. Anyone out there have a candidate?
Most of the best candidates are 19th century players, like Ross Barnes, Cal McVey, Larry Corcoran, Dave Orr, Bill Lange, etc. My favorite 20th century candidate is Ray Chapman, who has a good Addie Joss/Ross Youngs argument. Others might like Tony Conigliaro.

[538280]

The "logic" is that the HoF decided to have some minimun requirements for induction. Can you name me one player that played for nine seasons or less and would be a well qualified HoFer if it were not for the 10 year rule? Ten years in the majors is not asking a lot of a Hall of Fame caliber player.

No, it's not, and I don't know that I can name a player. But the point isn't that there's a real example, the point is that there might be. It's not asking a lot, but it's possible still that a player could do enough to meet the requirements in 9 years. What if Albert Pujols has exactly 9 seasons at the level he's having now then gets injured to a point he can't play anymore? Big hypothetical I know but what if something like that happened? Should he be ineligible? Of course not. Everyone should be eligible for the HOF, there shoudl be no playing time limit because someone might still be qualified even in 9 yeras, it's not likely but it's possible.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

No, it's not, and I don't know that I can name a player. But the point isn't that there's a real example, the point is that there might be. It's not asking a lot, but it's possible still that a player could do enough to meet the requirements in 9 years. What if Albert Pujols has exactly 9 seasons at the level he's having now then gets injured to a point he can't play anymore? Big hypothetical I know but what if something like that happened? Should he be ineligible? Of course not. Everyone should be eligible for the HOF, there shoudl be no playing time limit because someone might still be qualified even in 9 years, it's not likely but it's possible.
Well, when a "Pujols" example actually occurs we can discuss it then. I like to see a HoFer put in 10 seasons. Given that the great majority of HoFers put in well beyond 10 seasons I think 10 seasons is a low minimum number. If we allow 9 seasons why not 8 seasons? If 8 seasons why not 7 seasons? If 7 seasons why not 6 seasons? Etc...

[Freakshow]

Well, when a "Pujols" example actually occurs we can discuss it then. I like to see a HoFer put in 10 seasons. Given that the great majority of HoFers put in well beyond 10 seasons I think 10 seasons is a low minimum number. If we allow 9 seasons why not 8 seasons? If 8 seasons why not 7 seasons? If 7 seasons why not 6 seasons? Etc...
Exactly why there should be no rule: whatever you pick is arbitrary, it doesn't really reflect a standard of excellence or even accomplishment. Indeed, there are many more important statistics on which you could base eligibility.

For years, Deacon McGuire officially held the record for most years played, which made him what? Not a hall of famer. Not even well remembered. The holder of a freakish record, nothing more.

If you absolutely have to have a minimum time rule, base it on service time, not on how many championship seasons a guy played a fragment of.

[jalbright]

There's one thing the opponents of the rule haven't addressed: look who it kept the writers and players from possibly inducting, especially when all we had were the traditional statistical measures without any attempt to place them in context. I have a hard time believing there wouldn't be even more poor choices in the Hall than there already are, and such a scenario would not be good for the Hall. Even today, given who actually has the right to vote, do you really want them to be able to do so completely unfettered by rules such as this? At the very least, it seems to me there's a reasonable basis for the rule given this reality. If we had a really knowledgeable set of electors, I tend to agree with the opponents of the rule...but given how the voters were selected, I tend to think the rule may be better for the Hall than if there were no such rule.

Jim Albright