Hall of Fame Rules

[Yankeefan94]

In the major league baseball hall of fame, there is a rule that states:
A. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.

B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).

I have a problem with rule B. Let's say that a player played 9 outstanding seasons. He was a natural born star. He was in contention for the MVP for each year. He was an all around great player. He hit 500 homeruns, had 400 steals, and had 2500 hits. He won 8 gold gloves. However, he suffered a career ending injury just after the peak of his career. Shouldn't he deserve to be in the hall of fame? Of course. If the hall of fame decides to make an exception and let him in the hall of fame, why have the rule in the first place if exceptions can be made and the rule can be avoided?

[dgarza]

If the hall of fame decides to make an exception and let him in the hall of fame, why have the rule in the first place if exceptions can be made and the rule can be avoided?A case like that happens so rarely. The HOF will deal with that if it has to when or if it happens.
Otherwise, the 10 year rule saves the HOF and committees a lot of time that would be wasted dealing with the "less than 10"s.

[jalbright]

The 10 year rule is a bit of a relic from before we had baseball encyclopedias, much less uber-stats like Win Shares. It was a way of not only saving time, but guaranteeing the Hall would not go for poor players. There are now better ways to do that, to be sure. The Hall has made rare exceptions, such as Addie Joss, and would likely do so for the mythical player described in post one, so long as his career wasn't ended by criminal activity on his part, Pete Rose or Joe Jackson-style rule violations or the like. Even so, their argument would run along the lines of making up oh-fer AB to get a guy a batting title--the standard is still ten, he just did enough that the extra year could only have been gravy. Unless you count Chino Smith from the Negro Leagues, there's basically no one other than Joss (and he's questionable IMHO) who had a HOF-caliber career as a player and played less than 10 years. I don't think there are any, but if there are exceptions, they're from the 19th century. Viewing the 10-year requirement in the way of the batting title AB requirements isn't outlandish.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

In the major league baseball hall of fame, there is a rule that states:
A. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.

B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).

I have a problem with rule B. Let's say that a player played 9 outstanding seasons. He was a natural born star. He was in contention for the MVP for each year. He was an all around great player. He hit 500 homeruns, had 400 steals, and had 2500 hits. He won 8 gold gloves. However, he suffered a career ending injury just after the peak of his career. Shouldn't he deserve to be in the hall of fame? Of course. If the hall of fame decides to make an exception and let him in the hall of fame, why have the rule in the first place if exceptions can be made and the rule can be avoided?
Your superhuman ball player's seasonal average comes out to 56 HR, 44 SB, and 278 hits!

[jjpm74]

Your superhuman ball player's seasonal average comes out to 56 HR, 44 SB, and 278 hits!

Ah, so Albert Pujols. :hide:

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Unless you count Chino Smith from the Negro Leagues, there's basically no one other than Joss (and he's questionable IMHO) who had a HOF-caliber career as a player and played less than 10 years. I don't think there are any, but if there are exceptions, they're from the 19th century. Viewing the 10-year requirement in the way of the batting title AB requirements isn't outlandish.
What if Albert Pujols passes away or is forced to retire after the 2009 season? Would Pujols be HoF worthy?

[jjpm74]

What if Albert Pujols passes away or is forced to retire after the 2009 season? Would Pujols be HoF worthy?

There are active two major leaguers with less than 10 major league seasons who are already HOFers, IMO: Ichiro Suzuki and Albert Pujols.

[Paul Wendt]

What if Albert Pujols passes away or is forced to retire after the 2009 season? Would Pujols be HoF worthy?
The Board of Directors would consider him, perhaps at its next annual meeting. They would decide whether he would be included on a regular BBWAA ballot, or they would make another exception, or they would pass for now. They have set it up so their administration cannot simply make the call. I suppose the executive could make the call pending approval by the board, and resign if not approved.
. . . why have the rule in the first place if exceptions can be made and the rule can be avoided?
These rules give no discrection to the executive and any lower-level employees who work with the BBWAA in determining the ballot. They have no nominating authority. In effect the staff makes a list and handles inquiries about the list, and the screening committee (writers) decides whether each one is on the ballot or not, but they can't add anyone.

Evidently the board feels that exceptions should be so few that it is reasonable to handle them specially rather than make them part of anyone's job.

[White Knight]

In the major league baseball hall of fame, there is a rule that states:
A. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.

B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).

I have a problem with rule B. Let's say that a player played 9 outstanding seasons. He was a natural born star. He was in contention for the MVP for each year. He was an all around great player. He hit 500 homeruns, had 400 steals, and had 2500 hits. He won 8 gold gloves. However, he suffered a career ending injury just after the peak of his career. Shouldn't he deserve to be in the hall of fame? Of course. If the hall of fame decides to make an exception and let him in the hall of fame, why have the rule in the first place if exceptions can be made and the rule can be avoided?

2,500 hits and 500 HRs in 9 years? This guy sounds like he would be better than Ruth and retire with nearly 5,000 hits and 1,000 HRs.

[White Knight]

Your superhuman ball player's seasonal average comes out to 56 HR, 44 SB, and 278 hits!

And he says he was just "in contention for the MVP for each year" and just "an all around great player." Wonder how many times he walked, and what his BA and OBP were...:)

[DoubleX]

In the major league baseball hall of fame, there is a rule that states:
A. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.

B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).

I have a problem with rule B. Let's say that a player played 9 outstanding seasons. He was a natural born star. He was in contention for the MVP for each year. He was an all around great player. He hit 500 homeruns, had 400 steals, and had 2500 hits. He won 8 gold gloves. However, he suffered a career ending injury just after the peak of his career. Shouldn't he deserve to be in the hall of fame? Of course. If the hall of fame decides to make an exception and let him in the hall of fame, why have the rule in the first place if exceptions can be made and the rule can be avoided?

An exception from the 10 year rule has been made before for Addie Joss who died before he could play 10 years.

Anyway, if the hypothetical player you mention ever exists, I think an exception could be made because that player is so obviously exceptional. One of the good things about baseball is that it's been played for so long now that we have a pretty good idea of what is achievable and what's not, and your hypothetical, while hypothetically possible, is very unrealistic. Such a player would have to average 56 homeruns a year and 278 hit a year. He would have to stay completely healthy, and he would have to adjust to the ML game immediately and not over a couple of years which is typical. He would also need the other team to pitch to him enough to get 56 homeruns and 278 hits, which his unlikely if he's that good. I just don't see him getting enough ABs to get to the 278 hits. Moreover, the 278 hits is 16 more than the current single-season record, so you'd be expecting the guy significantly exceed the current record for 9 years? The stolen bases I can give you though, that could be possible as it would take about 45 a year, but if he's such a great hitter, chances are he'd cut back on the stolen bases (much as A-Rod does now, or Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle did in their time).

[jalbright]

What if Albert Pujols passes away or is forced to retire after the 2009 season? Would Pujols be HoF worthy?

I think so, and I think the HOF would as well if that remarkable and unfortunate event came to pass. The Ichiro example would be far more likely to happen, and if it were to do so, they might well tinker with the rule to allow some consideration of professional play outside the majors.

[digglahhh]

Intuitively, it seems like a minimum amount of plate (or pitching) appearances would be a better way to establish a baseline.

I also think that this minimum was not intended to deal with things like untimely deaths, a situation like that would probably be handled on an individual basis. As was stated before, the rule was probably instituted to make the procedure more efficient - before the days of computers and the like.

[jalbright]

Intuitively, it seems like a minimum amount of plate (or pitching) appearances would be a better way to establish a baseline.

I also think that this minimum was not intended to deal with things like untimely deaths, a situation like that would probably be handled on an individual basis. As was stated before, the rule was probably instituted to make the procedure more efficient - before the days of computers and the like.

The only problem with appearances would come for players with significant time before the 1890's. Including them would involve ridiculously low levels for later hitters, at least. If you had the following levels pegged appropriately, you could do a little better than the rule now: PA for hitters whose careers started 188(5-6-7-8-9?), PA for hitters whose careers started after that, IP, and games pitched (or finished in relief?).

[digglahhh]

The only problem with appearances would come for players with significant time before the 1890's. Including them would involve ridiculously low levels for later hitters, at least. If you had the following levels pegged appropriately, you could do a little better than the rule now: PA for hitters whose careers started 188(5-6-7-8-9?), PA for hitters whose careers started after that, IP, and games pitched (or finished in relief?).

Yeah, that goes without saying. My post was intended to apply to looking forward.

[jalbright]

You'd need two types of pitching appearances going forward, right? If you want to allow closers in, I think it's clear you do.

[Brad Harris]

You'd need two types of pitching appearances going forward, right? If you want to allow closers in, I think it's clear you do.

How about an average of 5 IP per GS for starters and 3 BF per G for relievers? Anyone who can't reach those minimum appearance levels doesn't need to be considered.

[digglahhh]

You'd need two types of pitching appearances going forward, right? If you want to allow closers in, I think it's clear you do.

Eh...

If you set the bar for starters, then the relievers will automatically clear. You'll get a lot of crappy relievers that qualify for eligibility, but you get that using a simple 10 years anyway.

I guess you could use A OR B, where A is a certain number of innings and B is a certain number of appearances. 1500/500, or something?

[jalbright]

Eh...

If you set the bar for starters, then the relievers will automatically clear. You'll get a lot of crappy relievers that qualify for eligibility, but you get that using a simple 10 years anyway.

I guess you could use A OR B, where A is a certain number of innings and B is a certain number of appearances. 1500/500, or something?

Obviously, I wasn't clear, but that's what I was aiming for.

[JDD]

In the major league baseball hall of fame, there is a rule that states:
A. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.

B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).

I have a problem with rule B. Let's say that a player played 9 outstanding seasons. He was a natural born star. He was in contention for the MVP for each year. He was an all around great player. He hit 500 homeruns, had 400 steals, and had 2500 hits. He won 8 gold gloves. However, he suffered a career ending injury just after the peak of his career. Shouldn't he deserve to be in the hall of fame? Of course. If the hall of fame decides to make an exception and let him in the hall of fame, why have the rule in the first place if exceptions can be made and the rule can be avoided?


Maybe we can take his stats, add in 502 outs, and then look at the results... kinda like how they work the batting title when a player falls just short one year, just give him the extra at-bats (with no hits) until he qualifies.

[KCGHOST]

I think the ten year rule has served us well. Can anyone name a player who played less than ten seasons who merits induction?? Even if Joss is a dubious selection he is at least worthy of discussion.

If something happens to Albert or Ichiro after 9 seasons then I have no problem with relying on the powers that be to make the decision to put them on the ballot with the proviso that they still have to wait the required 5 years before appearing on the ballot.

[Brad Harris]

I think the ten year rule has served us well. Can anyone name a player who played less than ten seasons who merits induction?? Even if Joss is a dubious selection he is at least worthy of discussion.

If something happens to Albert or Ichiro after 9 seasons then I have no problem with relying on the powers that be to make the decision to put them on the ballot with the proviso that they still have to wait the required 5 years before appearing on the ballot.

I think this is really the most sensible approach at this point. While there are players with careers worthy of consideration who played fewer than 10 seasons, there are very few of them and they played almost exclusively in the 19th Century or Negro Leagues.

There's always the exception to the rule but that happens so rarely in this instance that I believe the Screening Committee is capable of accommodating any such instance.

Perhaps if there were a better eligibility standard than "seasons played," but I haven't seen one that wouldn't expand the potential eligibility pool a considerable amount that doesn't have the same drawbacks as the existing one.

[Paul Wendt]

The Screening Committee (writers) doesn't have that power or responsibility. It decides which of the Art Howes is on the ballot.

Only the Board of Directors can make exceptions or change the rules so that a former exception would no longer be exceptional.
(#8 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1253646&postcount=8))

Roberto Clemente died suddenly,in a plane crash with the 1972/73 BBWAA vote-by-mail underway. The board of directors authorized a special election with Clemente alone on the ballot. The board also introduced a 6-month wait post mortem, parallel to the 5-year wait for living players.
WHEN CLEMENTE EARNED ELECTION TO THE HALL OF FAME (http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070215&content_id=283&vkey=hof_news)
--NBHOFM 2007-02-15, probably the internet reprint of a 2003 press release.

From the timing I infer that the Board made the rule change at a regular meeting but authorized the Clemente election by special action --by telecomms rather than meeting in person, I presume. If so then whoever authorized the extraordinary consultation may be the one who made the call, in effect.

Note that the new, summer 1973 rule
(a) would have put Clemente on the annual ballot 11 months after he was actually put to vote.
(b) amounts to 6-to-18 month wait depending on the date of death. Munson waited almost 17 months because he died in August.
(c) preempts the call for special consideration in the future.

[JessePopHaines16]

Does the veterans committee make the hall of fame kind of overrated?

[jalbright]

Does the veterans committee make the hall of fame kind of overrated?

I don't think the recent VCs since 2001 do so, as they didn't elect anyone. However, some past incarnations of the VC have done quite poorly, which has supplied the Hall with some clearly undeserving candidates. I don't know if that makes the Hall "overrated" or not, but I can see why such candidates might make some folks think so. See this thread for info on a series of polls I did on the work of the various incarnations of the VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=66925)

[Solrac]

B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).

I have a problem with rule B. Let's say that a player played 9 outstanding seasons. He was a natural born star. However, he suffered a career ending injury just after the peak of his career. Shouldn't he deserve to be in the hall of fame?

That rule is like that so that everbody with less than 10 year of play doesn't get on the ballot.
And exceptions could be made if needed (see:Addie Joss)
It's way better than having thousands of players on the HoF Ballot each year.

He was in contention for the MVP for each year. He was an all around great player. He hit 500 homeruns, had 400 steals, and had 2500 hits. He won 8 gold gloves.

Are you a scout that knows something we don't??

[Freakshow]

Briefly (I hope).

In the 21st century, the 10-year rule is anachronistic garbage.

The aim is to limit the players appearing on the BBWAA ballot to the better candidates, right? Towards that aim, the Hall should establish objective qualitative parameters to qualify for the ballot. These parameters should be normalized to the conditions of the game at the time of the players being considered for the ballot. As a check on this, establish a minimum number of new candidates that will appear each year (10 is a nice number).

Doing this would bring an uprecedented level of objectivity and sophistication to the process, eliminating the arbitrariness of the screening committee and letting players know pretty much what they needed to accomplish to make the ballot.

UPDATE: "Objective qualitative parameters" - Like what? To start with, nothing sabermetric-ky. It's unnecessary and it would never fly, anyway. And we're after quality/production, not a simple quantitative measure like seasons played. For position players, quality is about runs, as BJ has written on so many occasions. How about this: you will appear on the ballot if you were ever among the top 50 active players in RBI or Runs scored.

For pitchers, something like this: you will appear on the ballot if you were ever among the top 25 active players in Wins or Saves.

What about short, brilliant careers? Capture them by adding this: you will appear on the ballot if you ever finished in the top 4 in MVP voting or the top 2 in Cy Young award voting.

If you're worried about fielding, don't be. A player recognized as one of the great gloves in history will always have played long enough or brilliantly enough to make one of the above qualifiers. Or, if you must, add in a gold glove award qualifier (maybe 5?).