What the "Fame" in "Hall of Fame" Really Means

[Brad Harris]

There is an occasional debate on these boards (as elsewhere) over what kind of people the Hall of Fame should be inducting based on differing interpretations of the word "fame." This was explicitly recognized over at Baseball Think Factory when Joe opted to call their project the "Hall of Merit" to leave no doubt in people's minds as to their intent.

In some recent research, I stumbled over two little nuggets that should help shed some light on what the intentions of the Hall's founders were in establishing a Hall of Fame. To wit:

The Sporting News' January 9, 1936 edition carried a piece in their regular "In the Press Box" column about the progress of the inaugural veterans committee election in which the writer specifies that "The idea [of a Hall of Fame] is modeled closely upon the plan followed in establishing the Hall of Fame at New York University. The Cooperstown project will be a real baseball shrine, and not merely a place designed solely for inscription of the names of players who have gained a certain measure of fame." The Hall of Fame (at NYU) which opened in 1900 and was the first of its kind (and spawned many imitators since) was immensely popular throughout the country, receiving generous private support. It held elections (majority to be inducted) every five years for great Americans who had been deceased (not merely retired) at least 10 years and honored inductees with a bronze bust in a part of NYU's campus specially designed for the purpose.

Talking about the Hall of Fame, "it was to be designated 'Hall of Fame' - with 'fame' applied with the intention of transmitting the value-laden meaning that is very close to the word 'renown' (rather than today's more common meaning of 'celebrity')" according to "The Mall of Fame", an article by R. Rubin in The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 280, No.1 (July 1997).

So it appears there was a common understanding that "fame" was indeed implied to derive from merit and not the reverse. A not uncommon misconception about the National Baseball Hall of Fame appears to be the misunderstanding by some that Don Larsen, Bobby Thompson, etc. are among the types of people who should be inducted. I think it's clear from the sources I cited that Cooperstown has, from the beginning, sought to honor greatness, not popularity.

[Captain Cold Nose]

There is an occasional debate on these boards (as elsewhere) over what kind of people the Hall of Fame should be inducting based on differing interpretations of the word "fame." This was explicitly recognized over at Baseball Think Factory when Joe opted to call their project the "Hall of Merit" to leave no doubt in people's minds as to their intent.

In some recent research, I stumbled over two little nuggets that should help shed some light on what the intentions of the Hall's founders were in establishing a Hall of Fame. To wit:

The Sporting News' January 9, 1936 edition carried a piece in their regular "In the Press Box" column about the progress of the inaugural veterans committee election in which the writer specifies that "The idea [of a Hall of Fame] is modeled closely upon the plan followed in establishing the Hall of Fame at New York University. The Cooperstown project will be a real baseball shrine, and not merely a place designed solely for inscription of the names of players who have gained a certain measure of fame." The Hall of Fame (at NYU) which opened in 1900 and was the first of its kind (and spawned many imitators since) was immensely popular throughout the country, receiving generous private support. It held elections (majority to be inducted) every five years for great Americans who had been deceased (not merely retired) at least 10 years and honored inductees with a bronze bust in a part of NYU's campus specially designed for the purpose.

Talking about the Hall of Fame, "it was to be designated 'Hall of Fame' - with 'fame' applied with the intention of transmitting the value-laden meaning that is very close to the word 'renown' (rather than today's more common meaning of 'celebrity')" according to "The Mall of Fame", an article by R. Rubin in The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 280, No.1 (July 1997).

So it appears there was a common understanding that "fame" was indeed implied to derive from merit and not the reverse. A not uncommon misconception about the National Baseball Hall of Fame appears to be the misunderstanding by some that Don Larsen, Bobby Thompson, etc. are among the types of people who should be inducted. I think it's clear from the sources I cited that Cooperstown has, from the beginning, sought to honor greatness, not popularity.

When do you think that ended? Tinker to Evers to Chance?

[Brad Harris]

When do you think that ended? Tinker to Evers to Chance?
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

As with many things in life, there is often a margin of discrepancy between the intent and the practice of the Hall of Fame. Honestly, the more I look at the history of the election process and the information available to the voters at the time, the more I'm convinced that the voters - by and large - elected players that they truly believed were indeed great. Certainly the poem brought Tinker, Evers and Chance to mind, but at least two of the three have a pretty solid claim as the greatest at their position in the deadball era, all were key figures in one of the greatest dynasties in baseball history and voters didn't have the kinds of statistical tools that are available to us today to dissect offense to a greater degree (much less treat defense with anything resembling an objective study.) The voters relied, particularly as they dealt with older players, more on the opinions of contemporaries than on many other things.

While Tinker/Evers/Chance may seem egregious to us today, it certainly wouldn't have seemed so at the time and fans and writers in the 1940s were no less vocal about who should (and shouldn't) be elected than they are today. Had these choices been roundly criticized as mistakes at the time they were made, I think we'd have more examples of that available to us with very little research to uncover it.

To be completely frank, the more I read contemporary accounts of the elections in the early years of the Hall, the more I'm beginning to see just how influential The Politics of Glory has been in reshaping our attitudes and prejudices about those selections.

[dgarza]

"The idea [of a Hall of Fame] is modeled closely upon the plan followed in establishing the Hall of Fame at New York University. The Cooperstown project will be a real baseball shrine, and not merely a place designed solely for inscription of the names of players who have gained a certain measure of fame."

I know they're trying, but...
Taken literally, this still does not explicitly exclude players who have gained a certain measure of fame only.

[dgarza]

Talking about the Hall of Fame, "it was to be designated 'Hall of Fame' - with 'fame' applied with the intention of transmitting the value-laden meaning that is very close to the word 'renown' (rather than today's more common meaning of 'celebrity')" according to "The Mall of Fame", an article by R. Rubin in The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 280, No.1 (July 1997).


They can say that in 1997, just like it can be said today, but where is the source in the context of this article?

Also, while "renown" is more value oriented than "fame" alone is, it also carried it's own weight of "fame".
It's hard to say that a great hitting player who wallows in obscurity is "renown" for his batting. He has to have some fame to be recognized to be "renown".
And let's face it, Dave Kingman was "renown" for his power, Joe Carter was "renown" for his RBIs, and Don Mattingly was "renown" for his batting.
"Renown" does not mean the exact same thing that "fame" does (although it's not far off either), but it is equally open-ended.

[Paul Wendt]

If "renown" once carried strong evaluative meaning, perhaps a positive antonym for negative "notoriety", I think 1997 was too late to take that for granted. But the 1997 writer does clearly explain what he means. Is that in reference to the baseball Hall or the Great American one?

I think "shrine", emphasized "real shrine", does clearly mean exclusion as well as inclusion. If all the right elements are included a shrine may be profaned by what else is also there, not a "real shrine".


> While Tinker/Evers/Chance may seem egregious to us today . . .

IT doesn't seem egregious to me.
Bill James is in love with hyperbole. ;)