"New" HOF Idea

[Xanadu Dragon]

I thought this was interesting - - - natch.

Any thoughts?

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/020108.html

[chrisfostermusi]

I don't think the article is to far from what I was thinking about having a GOLD, SILVER OR BRONZE. I think mine would be easier to administer and not limited on the top end.

[SmedIndy]

I think they're abysmal ideas. It'd be more complicated than the BCS. And no one now (except for lunatics like me) is going to know a tinker's cuss on how good players like Kid Nichols and Pete Browning were, much less where to rank them in a hierarchy.

I like the LPGAs HOF. You meet this exact criteria, you're in. If you don't; you're not. PERIOD!

[Xanadu Dragon]

Guess, for me, it all goes back to the issue of "fame" - - - you can be famous for 3000 hits, or you can be famous for having 61 HRs in a season. If it's a Hall of "Fame" there should be room for all - - - and not have it based on a number requirement.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
Guess, for me, it all goes back to the issue of "fame" - - - you can be famous for 3000 hits, or you can be famous for having 61 HRs in a season. If it's a Hall of "Fame" there should be room for all - - - and not have it based on a number requirement.

Well, my utopian HOF should be the best of the best of the best. The super-elite. Really, there's no way to categorize numbers but by letting in some guys like Ferrell and Lindstrom.

[TGwynn19]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
I think they're abysmal ideas. It'd be more complicated than the BCS. And no one now (except for lunatics like me) is going to know a tinker's cuss on how good players like Kid Nichols and Pete Browning were, much less where to rank them in a hierarchy.

I like the LPGAs HOF. You meet this exact criteria, you're in. If you don't; you're not. PERIOD!

The LPGA has lessened the criteria for its HOF. There were two very popular players that could not meet the 35 win& 1 major or 30 win&2 major cirteria so they changed it to a point system.

Even the LPGA has felt, and acted accordingly, to the pressure from the public to let fan favorites into their hall.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by TGwynn19


The LPGA has lessened the criteria for its HOF. There were two very popular players that could not meet the 35 win& 1 major or 30 win&2 major cirteria so they changed it to a point system.

Even the LPGA has felt, and acted accordingly, to the pressure from the public to let fan favorites into their hall.

But still they have fairly strict and stringent requirements; they're not someone's drinking buddies or based upon myopic, idiotic jackals who can only look at one column on a stat sheet.

[TGwynn19]

Originally posted by SmedIndy


But still they have fairly strict and stringent requirements;

Not really...Annika Sorenstam at age 28 has already doubled the point total needed for induction, but at least it is cut and dry. Or should I say sliced and watered down

[SmedIndy]

It's STILL a lot better than the ink-stained wretches looking at counting stats and drinking buddies.

[LeGrandOrange]

Originally posted by chrisfostermusi
I don't think the article is to far from what I was thinking about having a GOLD, SILVER OR BRONZE. I think mine would be easier to administer and not limited on the top end.

I know. You oughta sue for plagarism.
The funniest thing about that is that he says that it'll help the hall.
And, of course, my answer to that is "bulls***".
But I won't get into it.
BTW, Tony Pena was a better catcher than Santiago. :)

[TGwynn19]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
It's STILL a lot better than the ink-stained wretches looking at counting stats and drinking buddies.


I don't disagree at all with you. But I don't think you can have it both ways. I don't think that you can eliminate the subjective process. If so then if Roberto Clemente had only 2,999 hits he could be left out if the Hall said you need 3,000 to get in. Lou Gehrig would be 7 HR's short.

[SmedIndy]

Class:

Compare and contrast Tony Pena, Bo Diaz, and Benito Santiago.

Extra credit - Discern how valuable Brian Downing would have been if he remained a catcher and hit like he did late in his career.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by TGwynn19



I don't disagree at all with you. But I don't think you can have it both ways. I don't think that you can eliminate the subjective process. If so then if Roberto Clemente had only 2,999 hits he could be left out if the Hall said you need 3,000 to get in. Lou Gehrig would be 7 HR's short.

I didn't mean to say it would work in baseball. It wouldn't, because of all the statistical variations involved in eras and parks.

However, it is a more straightforward, logical, and fair system than the one in baseball.

[Yogi#8Fan]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
Guess, for me, it all goes back to the issue of "fame" - - - you can be famous for 3000 hits, or you can be famous for having 61 HRs in a season. If it's a Hall of "Fame" there should be room for all - - - and not have it based on a number requirement. Not related to the article or "fame" (or infamy) itself, if I were to pick a number, I'd take the 3,000 hits, since this at least says the person's been out there for awhile. Though not an absolute "must have", anymore than 400+ HRs are, I'd be more impressed that the person had a reasonably good career than a single season.

Several 3,000 hitters, Clemente hitting this on the button, Boggs, Gwynn, Rickey, so I think this would lead me to think "worth looking into" to see their overall stats, defensive play, etc.

[LeGrandOrange]

Straightforward: Yes.
Logical: In some ways.
Fair: That's VERY debatable.

The problem with a multi-tiered hall of fame is that you'll cause more debates, as I said.
One of the problems with multi-tiered halls of fame is that it's judgement that shows who's on the tiers. And judgement is variable.
I mean, using the original idea...is Mark McGwire REALLY better than Rickey Henderson or any other L3 guy for that matter? I think McGwire should be on L3, Henderson should be L4, and I really think he should be L5, but apparently, that section is closed an inaccessible to anyone ever again.
I also think Yastrzemski should be higher. Yaz was a "no doubt" hall of famer. He's not worthy of L2. He should be L3, and probably L4 actually. There's a lot to be said for playing as many games as he did, and with THE SAME TEAM like he did. Talk about loyalty.
Etc.
You can't please all of the people all of the time, and you might please less with a "layered" hall. Bill James has had good ideas, this isn't one of them.
But I'll stop talking about Bill James before I get bum rushed...:)
(BTW, TG, I think your namesake got shafted in the original idea)

[SmedIndy]

I am not an advocate for a layerd HOF. Read my posts above. I'm more of an absolutist.

And I don't think James was, either.

[LeGrandOrange]

The idea was based on an idea Bill James had, according to the article.

[TGwynn19]

LGO,

I don't think he got shafted. When Tony gets into the HOF he will be a solid middle of the road HOF player. He is nowhere near inner-circle or L5 or whatever anyone chooses to call it. Tony really is an interesting case. He hit for no power and did not walk, but everyone calls him the best hitter of his generation. Really strange how reality can get distorted.



BTW..Steve AWESOME new avatar!!!

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by LeGrandOrange
The idea was based on an idea Bill James had, according to the article.

What James' idea was defining what identifying the definitions of hall of famers and stating that they were a "C" or "B" hall of famer, in reaction to the muddled mess that the HOF has become. In his book "The Politics of Glory" he doesn't advocate a layered HOF at all.

[LeGrandOrange]

I think he should be L4 because he had the requirements for it. Maybe he is borderline in that.
I know Gwynn had flaws in his game. I mean, he may not've even had the value of a Dwight Evans. (You know, if they really wanna make the Hall better...start by inducting Dewey) But Gwynn was a pretty swinger, quite gorgeous to watch. He didn't have power, but there's nothing wrong with swinging doubles.
He also has those gold glove years, and the speed he used to have. He's not a complete hitter, but the intangibles like that, and above all, the outright loyalty he has to San Diego...this is why he should be L4.

[LeGrandOrange]

Originally posted by SmedIndy


What James' idea was defining what identifying the definitions of hall of famers and stating that they were a "C" or "B" hall of famer, in reaction to the muddled mess that the HOF has become. In his book "The Politics of Glory" he doesn't advocate a layered HOF at all.

I've never read a Bill James book, so I wasn't aware. Unfortunately, I don't really want to either, but I won't get into reasons why so I can save face...:)

[Skip]

Along with most of you, I think the multi-tiered HOF is a bad idea. As has been said, everyone argues now, more arguments will occur then. I personally prefer a straightforward YES-NO type argument than arguing about layers or levels.

Of course these HOF arguments are all kind of like this thread, i.e. arguing for the sake of arguing. It's not like there's ANY chance of anything remotely like this actually happening anyway. :shakehd: :) The arguing is awfully fun though. :stinker:

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by LeGrandOrange
I've never read a Bill James book, so I wasn't aware. Unfortunately, I don't really want to either, but I won't get into reasons why so I can save face...:)

Aw.............com'on. Don't leave us hanging.

[KCBOOMER]

I totally disapprove of a formal multi-tiered HoF. The idea is so odious it is difficult to even discuss it.

Why is everybody "dumping" on the writers??? Name five people they have put in the HoF who didn't belong there. They may be off-base about not putting someone in but at least they are putting a bunch of people in who don't deserve it.

Its the Veteran's Committee that has run amok. That group of sentimental old codgers has put virtually all the mistakes in to the HoF.

[Yogi#8Fan]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
Why is everybody "dumping" on the writers??? Name five people they have put in the HoF who didn't belong there. They may be off-base about not putting someone in but at least they are putting a bunch of people in who don't deserve it.Please see this "Most Undeserving HOF's (http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1261)" thread, as well as the "If You Had A Vote For Cooperstown (http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1251)" thread, in which your fellow forumers discuss views on existing and potential HOFers, respectively.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by Yogi#8Fan
Please see this "Most Undeserving HOF's (http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1261)" thread, as well as the "If You Had A Vote For Cooperstown (http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1251)" thread, in which your fellow forumers discuss views on existing and potential HOFers, respectively.

Yog - - Boomer's point was the writers. Most of those debated/contested - even in our thread - - were a result of the Vets Committee.

[Yogi#8Fan]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
Yog - - Boomer's point was the writers. Most of those debated/contested - even in our thread - - were a result of the Vets Committee. I hadn't realized the distinction in this case. Hopefully, at least Boomer (reminds me of Wells) will be able to at least find ideas in those links, since I still feel that they're at least somewhat relevant. Oh well.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
I totally disapprove of a formal multi-tiered HoF. The idea is so odious it is difficult to even discuss it.

Why is everybody "dumping" on the writers??? Name five people they have put in the HoF who didn't belong there. They may be off-base about not putting someone in but at least they are putting a bunch of people in who don't deserve it.

Its the Veteran's Committee that has run amok. That group of sentimental old codgers has put virtually all the mistakes in to the HoF.

Well, it's not who the writers left in, it's who they left out recently, players like Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker, who now can't get in without help from the vets committee. Since those guys contributions, especially Grich, were hidden when looking at straight BA but obvious when you do careful analysis, that's where they fall short.

And then there's the sanctomonius SOBs who leave players off ballots.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by LeGrandOrange


I've never read a Bill James book, so I wasn't aware. Unfortunately, I don't really want to either, but I won't get into reasons why so I can save face...:)

You sound like an intelligent person. You really should read them.

[LeGrandOrange]

I'd like to say that I am. There are other issues that cause me to not be able to get the book, for example:
A. I don't get out much so I don't know where to find it in the real world.
B. I don't have a credit card and can't buy it online.
C. I don't know WHERE to find it online other than the obvious places.

Also, while I respect Bill James for creating wannabe sabermetricians like myself, sometimes, he can "abuse" his "power". He can make an opinion that isn't necessarily the greatest one in the world, such as the "rating" of hall of famers, and yet, the Bill James deciphels (sp?) will consider it another of his brilliant ideas. Lately, some of his brilliant ideas seem to have more akin to Blair Warner's brilliant ideas, obviously not so brilliant and criticized by the Jo Polniaczek's of the world. :) (Like myself)
Facts of Life references aside, though, I'm aware that Bill does have other legitimately good ideas. Even though a layperson like me can't entirely grasp them...I mean, I don't even know what RSAA is yet, or even general RS for that matter...there's a lot more ideas of his that are good than ones that really aren't.
I kinda have issues of him being...well..."god" among some writers though. And I have very big issues with some of his opinions. Okay, okay, I'm a Jose Canseco fan boy and I wish he would just shut the hell up with this Canseco should not be in the hall bulls***. And there are many other opinions of his that I don't just disagree with, I strongly disagree with. Or something.
I probably have better reasons for my slight distrust of Bill James, but I'm fairly tired as I type this so I really can't get a better opinion together. :)
I think I'll just get back to my normal postings, though. :)

[SmedIndy]

Anyone who publishes a book has a bully pulpit. I love reading him, and he makes me think, but does he really change my opinion that often? No!

I wouldn't be afraid of reading something that you disagree with. I often have to tolerate the almost brown-shirted editorials of the Indianapolis paper.

[LeGrandOrange]

Originally posted by SmedIndy


Well, it's not who the writers left in, it's who they left out recently, players like Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker, who now can't get in without help from the vets committee. Since those guys contributions, especially Grich, were hidden when looking at straight BA but obvious when you do careful analysis, that's where they fall short.

And then there's the sanctomonius SOBs who leave players off ballots.

Dwight Evans is probably another good example of players who got screwed. Al Oliver and Rusty Staub were too, but I won't show my known biases.
About the Grich that stole base hits...how good of a case does he really have for the hall? I know he's a great 2B, nice hitter, great fielder, etc. But is he the best 2B after Grich not in?
My personal opinion is that Willie Randolph should be in the hall, especially if they can put Mazeroski in. Randolph was not the best fielding 2B of that time, that was Frank White or Lou Whitaker. But he was more than capable of being a good fielder. And, much like Bobby Grich, he was a great contributor at the plate. Not the power hitter that he was, not by a long shot, but he was a GREAT contributor, excellent in drawing walks, slapping base hits, stealing bases, he was a perfect lead off or #2 hitter.
Whether his contribution was more important than Grich's is debatable, but I kind of see Randolph as a worthier candidate.
Your mileage may vary. BTW, I think I'd put Grich after Willie, taking into consideration the eras that Buddy Myer and Cupid Childs played in, and considering Tony Phillips' actual 2B contributions.
Or something.
I'm not the anti-christ for openly admitting that Grich shouldn't be in right away, am I? :)
You know, now that I think about Randolph, I do know some place he should be inducted...someone's gonna get an e-mail about it. :p

[SmedIndy]

My problem is that Grich didn't get a fair look, not that he's not in the hall.

Oliver, Staub, et. al. don't belong, but they may have deserved more of a chance.

The Hall is about greatness, true greatness. If you want good-ness, or nice-guy-on-my-team-ness, then there's other forums for that. But Cooperstown is to be about Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Young and their successors.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by LeGrandOrange
Also, while I respect Bill James for creating wannabe sabermetricians like myself, sometimes, he can "abuse" his "power". He can make an opinion that isn't necessarily the greatest one in the world, such as the "rating" of hall of famers, and yet, the Bill James deciphels (sp?) will consider it another of his brilliant ideas.

Yeah, I can see that.

[LeGrandOrange]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
My problem is that Grich didn't get a fair look, not that he's not in the hall.

Oliver, Staub, et. al. don't belong, but they may have deserved more of a chance.

The Hall is about greatness, true greatness. If you want good-ness, or nice-guy-on-my-team-ness, then there's other forums for that. But Cooperstown is to be about Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Young and their successors.

Understood. I overstate Staub's case a lot, and I'll plead guilty of that. I still think Oliver needs to be considered more seriously.
The problem you have with ANY hall of fame, regardless of the sport, is that...generally, when you've inducted people long enough, you're going to eventually end up putting in all-time very goods instead of all-time greats. I mean, even writers put in all-time very goods, Rabbit Maranville comes to mind. No offense to him, he was an excellent shortstop, but Maranville doesn't generally come to mind in terms of all-time greats. There's various other examples that are strewn about in Cooperstown that writers put in.
The thing about very goods is that there are so many of them. With the considerable dearth (sp?) of greats in some hall years, you will have years where you put in a very good. When the Veteran's Committee isn't putting in average players, they put in very goods.
There aren't many "greats" that've played baseball. Maybe there have been a lot, but they don't retire one after the other. There will be lean years. And with the Veteran's Committee, you are able to argue about players making the hall like this. As a result, it's not the "exclusive club" as it might've once been, thanks to the VC, but it's a still a club where 98% of the players in were highly reputable. Maybe 50% of them are greats, 48% are very goods, 2% have no business being in.
Staub and Oliver might be the latter, but like Grich, they weren't given a fair shake. (BTW, anyone know where I can find the January 1991 hall of fame voting, the ballot where Oliver and Staub debuted? Or can anyone transcribe it from a source...I know one exists) There's a fairly large company for this.
I think as long as you have a hall of fame, there'll be a LOT of arguments about greatness. What are we to do about it, though? Unfortunately, we're not voting them in.
Or something.
Anyway, I understand your point whole-heartedly. I'm just stating...some kind of counter-point. Your mileage may vary.

[sweaver]

If it's my Hall of Fame, Grich and Randolph are in, Oliver and Staub are not. Al and Rusty were good players for a good stretch of time, but never dominating. Grich and then Randolph were the best at their position in their league for several years each, one good qualification for the Hall. Oliver and Staub were never that.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by sweaver
If it's my Hall of Fame, Grich and Randolph are in, Oliver and Staub are not. Al and Rusty were good players for a good stretch of time, but never dominating. Grich and then Randolph were the best at their position in their league for several years each, one good qualification for the Hall. Oliver and Staub were never that.

I dunno - - from 1971 to 1983, Oliver banged out the hits as good as anyone:

AL OLIVER LEAGUE LEADERSHIP RANKINGS

GAMES
1980 AL 1ST 163
1982 NL T8TH 160
1983 NL T10TH 157

AT BATS
1973 NL 4TH 654
1974 NL 8TH 617
1975 NL 5TH 628
1980 AL 2ND 656
1981 AL 6TH 421
1983 NL 9TH 614

RUNS
1972 NL T8TH 88
1975 NL 10TH 90
1980 AL T10TH 96
1982 NL T10TH 90

HITS
1972 NL 8TH 176
1973 NL 5TH 191
1974 NL 4TH 198
1977 NL T10TH 175
1978 AL T8TH 170
1980 AL 4TH 209
1981 AL 6TH 130
1982 NL 1ST 204
1983 NL 4TH 184

SINGLES
1972 NL 4TH 133
1980 AL T5TH 144
1981 AL 6TH 96
1982 NL 6TH 137
1983 NL 6TH 135

DOUBLES
1971 NL 8TH 31
1973 NL 2ND 38
1974 NL T2ND 38
1975 NL T3RD 39
1978 AL 6TH 35
1980 AL 2ND 43
1981 AL 2ND 29
1982 NL 1ST 43
1983 NL T1ST 38

TRIPLES
1971 NL T10TH 7
1973 NL T8TH 7
1974 NL 2ND 12

RBI
1972 NL 10TH 89
1973 NL T7TH 99
1980 AL 4TH 117
1982 NL T1ST 109

CAUGHT STEALING
1977 NL T9TH 16

AVERAGE
1972 NL 6TH .312
1974 NL 2ND .321
1977 NL 9TH .308
1978 AL 2ND .324
1979 AL 5TH .323
1980 AL 8TH .319
1981 AL 8TH .309
1982 NL 1ST .331
1983 NL 9TH .300

SLG
1974 NL 9TH .475
1982 NL 4TH .514

OBA
1982 NL 4TH .392

OPS
1982 NL 4TH .906

RUNS CREATED
1980 AL 10TH 109
1982 NL 1ST 125

RCAA
1978 AL T10TH 32
1982 NL 3RD 50

RCAP
1982 NL 6TH 36

OWP
1978 AL 7TH .689
1982 NL 5TH .718

RUNS CREATED/GAME
1982 NL 2ND 7.83

TOTAL BASES
1973 NL 5TH 303
1974 NL 5TH 293
1975 NL T6TH 285
1980 AL 5TH 315
1982 NL 1ST 317

EXTRA BASE HITS
1973 NL 5TH 65
1974 NL 4TH 61
1975 NL 5TH 65
1980 AL 7TH 65
1982 NL T1ST 67

[SmedIndy]

That's a lot of gray ink, but a lot of his value was on BA, which is overrated. He's not quite where you need to be, and the players most similar to him are Garvey, Buckner, and Mickey Vernon.

[LeGrandOrange]

A lot of Oliver's value was that he could hit doubles...LOTS of doubles. A problem with Oliver is that he moved positions a lot. I think the reason people don't seriously consider Scoops is that he was a lousy fielder. I think he was 7-time all star...but at 4 positions I believe, 1B, CF, LF, and DH.
As I'm sure I've said before, put a few other snubs in the hall, then work on Oliver.
Staub really deserves a lifetime achievement award for his career more than a hall of fame nod. Staub was never "the" best, but during his "great" years, the ones which coincided with the earning of his nickname, he was one of baseball's best RF. He did spend 1968 at 1B, but he was still one of the better players at his position. He was sort of like Vlad Guerrero afield, a terrific arm, but way too risky with his defense. He was a fine hitter in the Astrodome, at neutral-ish Parc Jarry, he was a GREAT hitter. And he drew lots of walks too, a very good skill to have.
Despite the longevity numbers (and it takes at least a "very good" for such numbers), Staub is probably not a serious consideration.
Here's my question about Randolph and Grich, both equally worthy...wouldn't one of them NOT be the best player? They did play in the same league during their primes.
But I digress...

[SmedIndy]

I'd take Randolph and Grich on my team any day, but maybe not in the HOF. They did get the short end, though, by the BBWAA.

I'd also have Rusty Staub cater any party!:D

[KCBOOMER]

I think when you look at Grich, Randolph, Oliver, and Staub, you get caught in the trap of "if you let them in now you have to let so-and-so" in. They were all very good players but Hall of Fame doesn't exactly leap to mind.

As far as the BBWA selections go only eight of 95 or so selections on not on the BaseBall Immortals list (Rollie Fingers, Ted Lyons, Luis Aparicio, Don Drysdale, Kirby Puckett, Pie Traynor, Rabbit Maranville, and Ozzie Smith). None of these eight begin to approach the bone-headed selections of the Veteran's Committee.

For those of us who prefer the HoF to be limited to the "greats of the game" it is worth noting that it is harder to get into the HoF via the BBWA than it is to get onto the BaseBall Immortals list.

If we must err let's err on the side of greatness.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
I think when you look at Grich, Randolph, Oliver, and Staub, you get caught in the trap of "if you let them in now you have to let so-and-so" in. They were all very good players but Hall of Fame doesn't exactly leap to mind.

As far as the BBWA selections go only eight of 95 or so selections on not on the BaseBall Immortals list (Rollie Fingers, Ted Lyons, Luis Aparicio, Don Drysdale, Kirby Puckett, Pie Traynor, Rabbit Maranville, and Ozzie Smith). None of these eight begin to approach the bone-headed selections of the Veteran's Committee.

For those of us who prefer the HoF to be limited to the "greats of the game" it is worth noting that it is harder to get into the HoF via the BBWA than it is to get onto the BaseBall Immortals list.

If we must err let's err on the side of greatness.

Well have to see if the new approach of the vets committee helps it do its work better, and keeps the riff-raff out.

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by LeGrandOrange
I'd like to say that I am. There are other issues that cause me to not be able to get the book, for example:
A. I don't get out much so I don't know where to find it in the real world.
B. I don't have a credit card and can't buy it online.
C. I don't know WHERE to find it online other than the obvious places.


Join your public library, Le Grand. It's free!

[sweaver]

and if the local library doesn't have it, they can often get it through inter-library loan. That's how I read "Politics of Glory."

If Oliver had been a good defensive CF, I could have supported him for the Hall. For his talents, I think he needed 3000 hits to get the Hall, and he didn't.

[Golden Bear]

I think Oliver might be one of those guys who suffered by playing more than one position. Even if he weren't a good CF, just spending most of his career as an average one might have gotten him more recognition. As it was, he really only was able to establish an identity as a one-dimensional player.

[KCBOOMER]

You know of these guys we have mentioned above we didn't mention a guy who probably has better HoF credentials. Vada Pinson.

I never think of him as an HoFer but his numbers are pretty good.