Upper Level of Hall of Fame [Archive]

everythingbaseball

07-08-2009, 04:01 PM

Most people could argue almost every inductee ever even considered for the Hall of Fame, whether it be for or against, for many reasons and almost all of them are completely legitimate.

As a small child I always thought that every baseball fan could name every HoF player by heart. As I grew older I knew that was obviously not the case and am saddened to say that even though I consider my self a baseball fan I do not know the name of every player in the hall. I do, however, know the names of some of the greatest players to ever play the game like Ruth, Gehrig, Aaron, Young, and Ryan. And I am sure that most people familiar with baseball are also familiar with these players because of the amazing legacies.

So what I suggest is that an upper level of the Hall of Fame is introduced that only inducts players that could be considered the absolutely greatest in the sport. Something like only the top 5-10% of current HoF players should be inducted. The players should be not only memorable to people who saw them but also to people who never saw them.

I wanted to start this thread to see what everyone thinks of the idea and who everyone would want inducted.

Just of the few I would like to see are Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron.

futurehalloffamer

07-08-2009, 05:44 PM

You might find this article interesting:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/020108a

How does everyone feel about his examples? Did he place anyone in too high/low a level?

jjpm74

07-08-2009, 06:20 PM

futurehalloffamer

07-08-2009, 06:39 PM

I'd go with Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, Honus Wagner, Ted Williams, Walter Johnson, Hank Aaron, Stan Musial, Mickey Mantle, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Tris Speaker, Oscar Charleston, Cy Young, Mike Schmidt, Eddie Collins, Greg Maddux, Josh Gibson, Lefty Grove, Joe Morgan, Jimmie Foxx.

I'd get rid of Gibson (as well as Charleston). I'd flip a brick if I saw that urban legend in the upper tier of the hall with Johnny Bench nowhere in sight.

everythingbaseball

07-08-2009, 07:24 PM

You might find this article interesting:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/020108a

How does everyone feel about his examples? Did he place anyone in too high/low a level?

That is a very interesting article and I wish that was the way the HoF worked. As it is now it almost taints the best players in the game by putting them on the same level as guys who you could argue don't even belong in the Hall.

I would say as an adjustment to mine and possibly the pyramid idea is that to reach the upper level or level 5 there should be an extended amount of time after the player retired like 20 years or 15 years after originally being inducted before you could be considered. It should be a requirement that not only does your legacy last but that a discussion about your career should still be relevant a couple of decades later.

jjpm74

07-08-2009, 11:12 PM

I'd get rid of Gibson (as well as Charleston). I'd flip a brick if I saw that urban legend in the upper tier of the hall with Johnny Bench nowhere in sight.

Josh Gibson is solidly documented as the best catcher ever to have fielded the position. Oscar Charleston is documented as the best negro leaguer ever to play with the exception of maybe Josh Gibson. Please elaborate on the "urban Legend" comparison. Even if Gibson wasn't the best catcher, which he is by a large margin, Yogi Berra and Mike Piazza have an edge on Johnny Bench.

JDD

07-08-2009, 11:24 PM

futurehalloffamer

07-09-2009, 12:08 AM

Josh Gibson is solidly documented as the best catcher ever to have fielded the position. Oscar Charleston is documented as the best negro leaguer ever to play with the exception of maybe Josh Gibson. Please elaborate on the "urban Legend" comparison. Even if Gibson wasn't the best catcher, which he is by a large margin, Yogi Berra and Mike Piazza have an edge on Johnny Bench.

HAHAHA!!! Let me guess, it's because of those 800 home runs (struggles to hold back laughter) he supposedly hit?

Hargrave

07-09-2009, 12:31 AM

Great topic, great idea.

My way:

1. Figure replacement value for every era.

2. Count only years above replacement value. Discard early seasons below replacement level during which a player was in the lineup based on his potential, and likewise, discard later years during which it was below replacement level because management was too stupid or sentimental to know the day had passed.

3. Establish a baseline of years above replacement level, a minimum standard. I think you need at least five years above replacement level to be eligible. Ten? Fine with me.

4. Create a statistical consensus based on the recognized metrics, be it Win Shares, its rivals, whatever. Kind of like when they took a poll of polls to name football all-Americans or whatever they were doing. Adjust for ballparks and run environment. Ignore sportswriters, fans and fellow players, especially old ones.

5. Then agree on a cutoff. I say you need to be an A+ player, and in my book, that means you have to be better than 95 percent of the players you are competing with for induction.

6. Defense is the tricky part. I say ignore it, at least until valid measurements evolve.

I say if a MLB team sees fit to put a guy on the field for an extended period, he probably fields OK.

As is, it is impossible to calculate the differences between MOST players. While some players are clearly superior defenders, just how much that superiority contributes to victory over what Joe Average does is not known at this time.

Who I want out of the HOF are pure glove men. You can't field enough to overcome hitting .260, or whatever. Catchers cannot call a good enough game to slug .387. Root them out, and stand mute before the press box ninnies who will glorify their pedestrian achievements by pandering to blue-collar virtues. What they mean are virtues so intangible that they do not exist.

everythingbaseball

07-09-2009, 12:54 AM

Hargrave you make some interesting points and a good solid way to take the biased opinions of the authors out of the equation but I think there should be at least some emphasis put on defense considering that half of a position players career is on defense.

everythingbaseball

07-09-2009, 01:03 AM

That was an interesting article, but the idea of tiers in the HOF predates the work.

The author will be happy to know that Jim Rice eventually did make the HOF.

I won't read another article from him, as he thinks Don Sutton did not have a HOF-type career.

You kind of lose your street cred when you write that.

He did say that he would put Sutton in the 5th-level of the Hall and it's not the players so much as it is the idea he was suggesting for the HoF itself. He was just using the players as examples.

stejay

07-09-2009, 05:32 AM

I think that DiMaggio should be added to the list of the greatest. Mantle, Williams, and yet no Clipper?

baseball junkie

07-09-2009, 05:33 AM

Freakshow

07-09-2009, 05:59 AM

So what I suggest is that an upper level of the Hall of Fame is introduced that only inducts players that could be considered the absolutely greatest in the sport. Something like only the top 5-10% of current HoF players should be inducted. The players should be not only memorable to people who saw them but also to people who never saw them.The top 10% of the HOF is 23 or 24 players, depending who you include as a "player". A current project here, The Collaboration Game v2.0, has given us this list of the top 24 in the Hall:

Babe Ruth
Ty Cobb
Willie Mays
Honus Wagner
Ted Williams
Walter Johnson
Hank Aaron
Stan Musial
Mickey Mantle
Lou Gehrig
Rogers Hornsby
Tris Speaker
Oscar Charleston
Cy Young
Mike Schmidt
Eddie Collins
Josh Gibson
Lefty Grove
Frank Robinson
Joe Morgan
Pete Alexander
Jimmie Foxx
Joe DiMaggio
Mel Ott

Captain Cold Nose

07-09-2009, 06:06 AM

jjpm74

07-09-2009, 06:12 AM

HAHAHA!!! Let me guess, it's because of those 800 home runs (struggles to hold back laughter) he supposedly hit?

No, it has to do with his batting titles, 11 HR titles in the Negro Leagues and his being the main contributor on one of the greatest Negro League teams ever assembled.

If you actually want to learn more about him, as opposed to making immature condescending comments, I'd be happy to point you to some reliable sources that actually document Gibson's hitting ability as opposed to the anecdotal information you allude to.

baseball junkie

07-09-2009, 06:25 AM

The HOF, a museum and tourist attraction, isn't there for the SABR-crowd.

Not yet. But if it wants to be relevant in ten or fifteen years it had better start catering to the SABR crowd, which I am not one of.

I also proudly end sentences with prepositions!

Buzzaldrin

07-09-2009, 06:25 AM

The top 10% of the HOF is 23 or 24 players, depending who you include as a "player". A current project here, The Collaboration Game v2.0, has given us this list of the top 24 in the Hall:

Babe Ruth
Ty Cobb
Willie Mays
Honus Wagner
Ted Williams
Walter Johnson
Hank Aaron
Stan Musial
Mickey Mantle
Lou Gehrig
Rogers Hornsby
Tris Speaker
Oscar Charleston
Cy Young
Mike Schmidt
Eddie Collins
Josh Gibson
Lefty Grove
Frank Robinson
Joe Morgan
Pete Alexander
Jimmie Foxx
Joe DiMaggio
Mel Ott

and Ed Delahanty

baseball junkie

07-09-2009, 06:56 AM

Okay, I'm looking at the list above and it all seems good BUT if the idea is to create a HOF that actually consisted of the best players why isn't Sadaharu Oh on that list somewhere?

Yes, I know he's not enshrined in Cooperstown! But if Oscar Charleston and Josh Gibson make the list -- based on their ability and being in Cooperstown, despite never playing in MLB, why not Oh?

I mean he did hit .301 with 868 HR and 2,170 RBI. Can anybody establish any concrete stats for Charleston or Gibson?

I think Oh should be included in CG v2.0, even if Cooperstown continues to act like he doesn't exist.

Buzzaldrin

07-09-2009, 07:24 AM

Well, I don't have a problem with Oh per se, but since the HOF is called the National Baseball Hall of Fame, I would imagine that it enshrines those men who contributed to that particular nation's baseball (and before we talk about Expos and Blue Jays- remember, if you played your whole career for Toronto, then you played every single game versus a national American team).

A World Baseball Hall of Fame would be cool.

gman5431

07-09-2009, 07:26 AM

I'd get rid of Gibson (as well as Charleston). I'd flip a brick if I saw that urban legend in the upper tier of the hall with Johnny Bench nowhere in sight.

Fact is we will never know for sure because of the racist attitude of the day. So, mostly what we have to go on is legends and accounts. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt because of what these players had to go through and the conditions they played in. When i saw the list, i was wondering why Leonard and especially Paige werent included.

G Man

Captain Cold Nose

07-09-2009, 08:06 AM

Not yet. But if it wants to be relevant in ten or fifteen years it had better start catering to the SABR crowd, which I am not one of.

I also proudly end sentences with prepositions!

What's "relevant" ? :D

I have nothing but respect for the SABR crowd. Well, for the most part. But I don't see why they should do this? It's a popular museum, not a denizen for the scholarly. If they are going to cater to the SABR crowd they're going to turn off a great majority of the people so inclined to bother to visit. It's a semi-interactive history museum, not a symposium.

JDD

07-09-2009, 08:26 AM

Great topic, great idea.

My way:

1. Figure replacement value for every era.

Step One here would require a lot of work with no guarantee of accurate results. Determining replacement value is one of the great divides in the study of baseball stats. Is it zero, is it "below average"...

The best way would be to gather up about fifty hitters and fifty pitcher from each season, you know the ones who split time between the majors and the minors, and look at their stats. Using replacement players to find replacement value appears to me to be the way to go. But no one does that.

Do you?

ol' aches and pains

07-09-2009, 08:34 AM

What's "relevant" ? :D

I have nothing but respect for the SABR crowd. Well, for the most part. But I don't see why they should do this? It's a popular museum, not a denizen for the scholarly. If they are going to cater to the SABR crowd they're going to turn off a great majority of the people so inclined to bother to visit. It's a semi-interactive history museum, not a symposium.

As far as I'm concerned, the upper level of the HOF is the 3rd floor. The pool of inductees has become diluted, I agree, but the Hall is fine as it is. As for the SABR folks, the game is played on the field, not on a computer. Some of their measurements are valid, most of them leave me cold. I'm still trying to get my mind around how Warren Spahn was not an all-time great pitcher because he didn't have a high enough ERA+.

Captain Cold Nose

07-09-2009, 08:43 AM

As far as I'm concerned, the upper level of the HOF is the 3rd floor. The pool of inductees has become diluted, I agree, but the Hall is fine as it is. As for the SABR folks, the game is played on the field, not on a computer. Some of their measurements are valid, most of them leave me cold. I'm still trying to get my mind around how Warren Spahn was not an all-time great pitcher because he didn't have a high enough ERA+.

How has it become diluted? I say they've been pretty consistent since they've begun, with a few overly glaring omissions here and there and some bad choices, but nobody worse being elected now than was 50 years ago.

The all-time greats of greats do not need an additional honor to be remembered. I see an upper level, as it were, as superfluous.

davewashere

07-09-2009, 09:24 AM

In your initial post about an upper-tier to the Hall of Fame was that Nolan Ryan you were referring to?

Really, Nolan Ryan? Jeepers, wait till the SABR-posters see this thread.

I don't mean to be a jerk or anything but I can think of about 150 pitchers I'd put way ahead of Nolan Ryan.

That's the name that caught my attention as well. Ryan is a middle tier HOFer. He racked up huge career numbers in strikeouts because he was a strikeout pitcher who pitched for an incredibly long time. Most of his averages are good but not great. I'll give him some credit for pitching on some pretty terrible teams that didn't give him much support, so that will excuse part of his mediocre career winning % (ex: in 1987 he led the league with a 2.76 ERA and a 142 ERA+. His record that season: 8-16. BTW, does anyone know if that's the worst W-L record for a starter who finished in the top 5 in CY voting?). Ryan was never considered the best pitcher in his league by Cy Young voters, and he was only considered the second best pitcher in his league once. Ryan is a HOFer based on strikeouts, consistency, and career stamina alone, but I wouldn't consider him one of the top pitchers of all time.

Brad Harris

07-09-2009, 09:43 AM

His record that season: 8-16. BTW, does anyone know if that's the worst W-L record for a starter who finished in the top 5 in CY voting?
Yes, it is.

Jsquared83

07-09-2009, 09:45 AM

Captain Cold Nose

07-09-2009, 09:46 AM

That's the name that caught my attention as well. Ryan is a middle tier HOFer. He racked up huge career numbers in strikeouts because he was a strikeout pitcher who pitched for an incredibly long time. Most of his averages are good but not great. I'll give him some credit for pitching on some pretty terrible teams that didn't give him much support, so that will excuse part of his mediocre career winning % (ex: in 1987 he led the league with a 2.76 ERA and a 142 ERA+. His record that season: 8-16. BTW, does anyone know if that's the worst W-L record for a starter who finished in the top 5 in CY voting?). Ryan was never considered the best pitcher in his league by Cy Young voters, and he was only considered the second best pitcher in his league once. Ryan is a HOFer based on strikeouts, consistency, and career stamina alone, but I wouldn't consider him one of the top pitchers of all time.

Most on this site, and I am certainly included here, do not. When we've done our all-time top pitcher polls, he generally is ranked in the thirties.

As the HOF as museum and family attraction, though, few have combined a HOF acreer with celebrity status as Ryan has. If we're talking greats of the great, then Ryan does not belong in the top-tier, no. His overall performance on the mound does not place him there. Big heat or not, his teams were as likely to lose with him on the mound as they were to win because he put a lot of runners on the base paths.

Captain Cold Nose

07-09-2009, 09:51 AM

Wade Boggs a bottom level/borderline guy?! Please...

Reggie Jackson was a 4, but Carl Yastrzemski and Dave Winfield (among others) were 2s?

That must have killed Simmons, Jackson two levels ahead of Yaz.

cavalier1968

07-09-2009, 10:27 AM

You might find this article interesting:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/020108a

How does everyone feel about his examples? Did he place anyone in too high/low a level?

I kinda like the pyrimid scheme......but wouldn't it enrage some current HOFers
:laugh:laugh:laugh:laugh:laugh

Cav

Jsquared83

07-09-2009, 10:32 AM

Reggie Jackson was a 4, but Carl Yastrzemski and Dave Winfield (among others) were 2s?

That must have killed Simmons, Jackson two levels ahead of Yaz.

Winfield is a 2, maybe a 3 tops. Yaz is at least a 3, maybe a 4 and Jackson is somewhere in the middle of those two.

everythingbaseball

07-09-2009, 11:43 AM

Most on this site, and I am certainly included here, do not. When we've done our all-time top pitcher polls, he generally is ranked in the thirties.

As the HOF as museum and family attraction, though, few have combined a HOF acreer with celebrity status as Ryan has. If we're talking greats of the great, then Ryan does not belong in the top-tier, no. His overall performance on the mound does not place him there. Big heat or not, his teams were as likely to lose with him on the mound as they were to win because he put a lot of runners on the base paths.

This is all true and the only reason I mentioned his name was for his celebrity (or name recognition) which I think should be a considerable factor in determining this upper tier or 5th level of Hall of Fame players. I think it should be considered that while Ryan was not near the greatest pitchers of all-time but he does have the record for strikeouts (whatever that's worth) which has helped lead to his celebrity. But again this is probably not worth promotion into the upper level of the Hall

I would like to say when I started this thread I only meant it for people who are in the Hall of Fame currently or will be in soon (Maddux?). So please keep it to MLB players and if you must Negroe League, but please leave players who did not play in the U.S. out.