Comments on: Crowd the Hall

By: Ember Nickel

Ember Nickel — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 03:21:00 +0000

Having been nice to the media during one’s career and succeeding in simplistic (and overrated) statistical categories?

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:34:25 +0000

That brings up a good question. What exactly would be the baseball equivalent of buying indulgences? (Besides just paying people off, which would spread things pretty thin.)

By: Brad

Brad — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:29:18 +0000

For me, the HOF should be a little more like getting into heaven in the 15th century. Some people will obviously make it on their own merits by having a long career of devout success. Other cusp players might need to prove their merit due to less than overwhelming numbers or some damning indiscretion. These players must pay indulgence by boosting their “ambassador of the game” status.

The point is that baseball and the HOF can move into the 21st century by acknowledging players’ repentance. (see Mr. 3,000 (2004))

Eric, I’m glad you wrote this because it has forced me to explore the dissonance resulting from my indifference toward the idea of the Hall of Fame and my strong desire to eventually visit the edifice.

By: Kenneth

Kenneth — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:12:02 +0000

@Harry—
I can respect that you would like to see a smaller Hall of Fame but one problem with MLB is that there will be too many “Patrick Ewing-like exceptions”, even under your restricted standards. The amount of impact one player can possibly have in a baseball game pales in comparison to say 2009 Lebron James or 1992 Michael Jordan. The elite players in baseball usually contribute 8-10 wins above a replacement-level player over the course of 162 games, while in Basketball Lebron and Kobe have been estimated to contribute 15-18 to their teams’ 55-60 wins. This makes because of how much control an NBA player has over a game. I’d argue that “team chemistry” is much more important in the NBA. So, I guess my point is that postseason success in baseball should be factored into the debate in the form of “brownie points” here and there. Off the field accomplishments/anecdotes should also be handled in the same way.

Re: basketball. I just finished The Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons and thought his Hall of Fame Pyramid concept was awesome. I think this idea would be fun to apply to the Baseball Hall as well. I suppose we already have enough of a problem trying to decide get WHO gets in; what level they would be on would cause too many riots.

@Bomberboy—
Edgar deserves national recognition and acceptance and I’d hope that all Mariners fans would be disappointed if he were to fail to make the Hall of Fame in all 15 tries.

By: Kenneth

Kenneth — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:42:45 +0000

I agree that the Hall should open its doors a bit wider. I believe that the Hall should be a celebration of the history of the game rather than an elitist club. How “elite” or “sacred” of a place is this when you have: Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Phil Rizzuto, and a whole host of older players who were snuck in the back door by the Veterans Committee before their voting process became more transparent.

When I eventually visit the Hall of Fame (hopefully for an Edgar induction’s speech) I am not going to turn my nose in disapproval when I walk by Bill Mazeroski’s plaque. I will be happy to stop and read about his accomplishments and history, and I would hope that most who visit the Hall would do the same.

My suggestion to future voters is to weigh players’ accomplishments WITHIN their era much more heavily than to players from other eras. It becomes quite a mess when we try to control for all of the variables for players 40 years apart(pool of talent (quantity, quality, foreign/racial player exclusion), specialized relief pitchers, height of the mound, ballparks, etc. etc. etc.). So to make things simpler in the future let’s just analyze Bert Blyleven’s resume under the lens of 1970-1992. How did he stack up to other pitchers within this time frame? Do this before comparing pitchers across generations. After that is where it gets tricky with the various arbitrary thresholds voters establish. But I enjoy these debates a lot because I’m exposed to many perspectives.

By: Paul Catalano

Paul Catalano — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:03:08 +0000

Actually, I tend to disagree. I think, on the whole, the Hall is too lax. I would let fewer players in rather than more. I agree some sort of standard needs to be set up—have no idea what they should be—but I think sometimes very good passes for great in our society (watch the Grammy’s and you’ll see what I mean). I’m sorry, but Andre Dawson, for me, shouldn’t make it. Yes, he was a very good, very complete player. But .279 with 27 HRs a year, a nice, but not overwhelming 119 OPS+ just doesn’t cut it. (Mantle had +172, Mays had 156+. Frank Thomas had a 156+. Heck Danny Tqrtabull had a 133+.) Did he dominate his era? Or was he a nice player when you think of players from that era. “Oh yeah, Dawson was good too.”

By: Ted

Ted — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:38:18 +0000

Pursuant to the laws of entropy, I have to agree that the Hall can only get more lax moving forward, so we either cling to the fantasy that it’s only the true gods of the sport, or we move forward into Eric’s Obama-esque Yes We Can drum circle HOF love-parade (I watched the Woodstock documentary last night).

@Timmy, I dig your point but I can’t help but suggest that the Astros were one of the better teams of the late 90s and early 00s, so your comment about them not being consistently competitive clouded anything that followed it, no matter how prescient. With that for logic, it looks like I’m qualified to vote for the Hall of Fame, now! Bada-bing!

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:42:41 +0000

Oh please, you well know how much pissing and groaning goes on about Edgar and his HOF chances in Seattle. Mariner fans are absolutely desperate for that validation.

Also, I like the idea of a better veterans committee, and I think Eddie Murray was totally deserving of his HOFness.

By: Bomberboy

Bomberboy — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 05:14:03 +0000

“standards”? I am not aware there are any standards for inclusion in the HOF. Obviously any significant change to the process (70% votes, fan voting) would taint everything that has happened in the past. My view of all fan voting is it should be confined to slecting the best pizza, beer or SI swimming suit models.

Fans should be limited to buying tickets and watching games. As hallowed as the HOF is and always will be, exclusion takes nothing form our most revered players. Many of us hope for the day Edgar gives his acceptance speech. If it never happens he will remain in the Mariners fans hearts forever. “Edgar”, his career and “the double” need no validation from an institution.

By: timmy

timmy — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:45:04 +0000

I’m with you on every point. The fact is, the damage has already been done. There are plenty of borderline guys in the Hall of Fame, and not only are they not leaving, but they’re wedging the door open for more and more borderline guys. The successful argument for Kirby Puckett makes the argument against Don Mattingly that much less persuasive, to cite one of dozens of examples. Why keep pretending that the Hall contains only the very brightest of baseball’s stars?

I think the joy and fun issue is something that the curmudgeonly voters of the Baseball Writers Association rarely, if ever, acknowledge. The Houston Astros have never won a World Series, and they’re not consistently competitive. But they have had great players, and it would mean the world for that fan base to see their beloved Craig Biggio and Jeff Bagwell make it into the Hall on the first ballot. Ditto for Cleveland fans, who have been suffering for decades: would it have killed the voters to let Robby Alomar in on the first go-around? In the meantime, I think even the average baseball fan can process that Babe Ruth ≠ Jim Rice, although both players are Hall of Famers. Open those doors!