Hall of Fame- the Numbers Game?

[sweaver]

How many players should be in the Hall of Fame?

We talk sometimes about an "inner circle," for the truly great, but if we were doing our own standards, how many would be qualified?

Steve has 113 "Apicals," the best of the best, on his list at the main site. http://www.netshrine.com/apicals.html

Lee Sinins honors 253 players, at his Baseball Immortals site.

The official Hall of Fame has 208 players enshrined for their playing, as opposed to managing or executiving. http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof.shtml

This is a number that must change somewhat, as more players become eligible. But how many should be in now? 100? 150? 200? 300? And why?

[JamesI]

I wouldn't give an exact number, but there are probably around 200 players who deserve to be in now.

[gyb13]

how about a percentage of players? ;)

[LeGrandOrange]

Major league baseball will have 16,000 players, counting the NA, UA, and FL, who've played major league baseball by the end of 2003, as we started the year 35 debuts away from that number.

Not accounting for active players who aren't eligible, this currently means 1.3% of people who've played major league baseball well are enshrined, or 1 of every 80 players who's played is a hall of famer. With the amount of new players and HOF inductees being fairly consistent lately, this isn't going to change much.

This strikes me as disturbingly low. The amount of players that got in earlier on was good for the old days but it's just too restrictive now.

The problem is that the way I'd want it done, 2%, would require over 100 new inductions. No way that's ever going to happen in my lifetime, or the lifetime of my next generation if I have anything to contribute for it.

I'd like to see more but unless Cooperstown de-antiquates the voting process, that ain't going to happen.

[LeGrandOrange]

BTW, gyb, you had not posted when I started analysing so that was just merely ironic I was doing what you were suggesting. :)

[gyb13]

true, and i'm glad you did the dirty work for me! :)

the problem with this method is that it counts every player that ever played the game - there were a lot of them who had no business in a major league uniform, so there needs to be some sort of restriction based on seasons, games, or plate appearances...

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally posted by sweaver
Steve has 113 "Apicals," the best of the best, on his list at the main site. http://www.netshrine.com/apicals.html

Lee Sinins honors 253 players, at his Baseball Immortals site.

The official Hall of Fame has 208 players enshrined for their playing, as opposed to managing or executiving. http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof.shtml


I think it's 114 Apicals - - and 126 Supernals, which also would meet Cooperstown standards to most - - so, NetShrine has 240 to Lee's 253 and the HOF's 208.

Sorta close - - no?

[JamesI]

Originally posted by Wolf Hopper
I think it's 114 Apicals - - and 126 Supernals, which also would meet Cooperstown standards to most - - so, NetShrine has 240 to Lee's 253 and the HOF's 208.

Sorta close - - no?

I agree, we all draw the line at different places. I disagree with many of Lee's choices, and some of Netshrines. PErsonal taste.

[LeGrandOrange]

Many of the NetShrine things are more reputation based, so we're allowed to have bad selections. Trust me, I nominated some. ;)

[nyy26wc]

Originally posted by sweaver
Lee Sinins honors 253 players, at his Baseball Immortals site.

That's inaccurate for 2 reasons.

First, I just checked Baseball Immortals homepage and it says, "Baseball Immortals has 237 members, with 53 of them (22%) not in Cooperstown. Of Cooperstown's 253 members, 71 of them (28%) are not in Baseball Immortals."

It's no big deal, but I'll point out that you mixed up the numbers.

But, that 237 number is also way off and is out of date. That number was before I decided to remove the nonplayer section and the Negro Leaguers.

The current total is 183, but that also deserves an asterisk. That 183 is 127 nonpitchers and 56 pitchers. But, I've also decided to temporarily remove the list of pitchers from the site. I'm not pleased with the original list and want to review all of those picks.

I plan on reviewing the pitchers after I create the areas for all of the hitters. I hope to have a program written sometime in the next few weeks that will help drastically speed up the process for creating player areas and that would then speed up when the review of the pitchers occurs.

[gyb13]

we're moving away from the original question at hand....how many players should be in the HoF? should there be a number of different sort of system to quantify this?

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally posted by gyb13
we're moving away from the original question at hand....how many players should be in the HoF? should there be a number of different sort of system to quantify this?

Well, first you have to define what the HOF is - - is it just for the Ruths, Mantles, and Hendersons, or, is it for players at the level just below that too?

[JamesI]

Originally posted by Wolf Hopper
Well, first you have to define what the HOF is - - is it just for the Ruths, Mantles, and Hendersons, or, is it for players at the level just below that too?

Just below too. If we limit to the quality of Ruth, Aaron, Cy Young, et al, we get 30 players.

[SmedIndy]

Everyone should have to pass the Crowbar test! I alone will review all candidates!

Seriously - I don't think there should be a "cap" or a set number. Those who are worthy should be enshrined. Let the undesirable sort themselves out.

[KCBOOMER]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Seriously - I don't think there should be a "cap" or a set number. Those who are worthy should be enshrined.

I don't think the question is about a cap but rather of all the players to date how many merit induction? My personal feeling is that we have inducted many more unworthies than we have missed who were deserving. My guess is that if we clean up the HoF without getting carried away we would end up with 150-175 players.

[sweaver]

Originally posted by nyy26wc
That's inaccurate for 2 reasons.
Well, I was going by your numbers, but apparently I flipped yours with Cooperstown's. Sudden-onset acute dyslexia. The Cooperstown number I got by going through the baseball-reference list I linked. And Steve, I counted yours by hand, so I could well be off by one.

And yes, as KC said, what I really want to ask is how many you would be currently comfortable with in the Hall. You may give a range, if you wish. Is, as Steve says, the right number 200-250? Should it be more or less? And should we be counting a percentage of total players, or of those who are qualified (played 10 years)?

[gyb13]

the problem with doing this is always gonna be at the margins...

say you cap it at 200 people. what if the gap between #199 and #200 is huge and the gap between #200 and #201 is tiny. does it make sense to enshrine #200? (the same if you do it with a percentage of players)

[sweaver]

I prefer a soft cap to a hard cap. :D

[SmedIndy]

I really don't think using hard numbers (or soft even) is a worthy way of doing it.

I guess I know a HOF player when I see it - and whether there's been 50 or 500 in the entire history of baseball means nothing and should not drive our thinking on what a HOF player truly is.

[sweaver]

Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear. What I am saying is, how many Hall of Famers do you think there are? Obviously, this number will change, because in 20 years we won't be saying, "Sorry, A-Rod, we already have too many Hall of Famers, you can't get in." I am asking, based on what has happened to date, about how many do YOU think should be in the Hall? I suspect that Smed and Fuzzy, for instance, would have different answers to this question.

[SmedIndy]

OH!

I think about 200 or so really qualify - but who is in and who SHOULD be in are two kettle o' fish entirely.

[JamesI]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
OH!

I think about 200 or so really qualify - but who is in and who SHOULD be in are two kettle o' fish entirely.

Yep. About 200. In fact the number in the hall of fame is probably just about right (for now). Just need to switch some of them.

[gyb13]

I'd cut the number down even further than 200...

[Wolf Hopper]

I still think you need to look at the player, and when he played, and see if he was among the Top 10% of players when he played. If you cut that, you're Cooperstown worthy, to me.

Whether it's formula driven or by feel, it's the way to go, IMHO.

Quotas are bad.

[sweaver]

About 10% is what Bill James once said was the historical level....

[Skip]

Originally posted by Wolf Hopper
I still think you need to look at the player, and when he played, and see if he was among the Top 10% of players when he played. If you cut that, you're Cooperstown worthy, to me. I'm not comfortable with the thought that you'd expect the average MLB roster to consist of two or three HOFers at any given time. I'd like my Hall a bit more exclusionary.

[nyy26wc]

That 10% figure refers to 10% of the league's AB and IP are consumed by hall of famers, not 10% of the league's players.

That does end up making a big difference. That does bring the averages down to approximately 1 hitter per team and 1 pitcher for every 2 teams.

Meanwhile, if you are talking about 10% of all of the players, then we're talking about a hall with close to 1600 members.

[gyb13]

how's this then - how many active players do you expect to be in the HoF one day (including someone like ARod, who still has a long way to go but is on the right path)? that should give some indication of players/team at any given point of time...

i think i'm more exclusionary than most, but even so my 'current' list would be: Henderson, Bonds, Sosa, Griffey, Helton, Garciaparra, Vlad, Piazza, Jeter, Thomas, ARod, IRod, Alomar, Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, Pedro...that's 18 (give or take a couple), so about three players for every five teams...

[Wolf Hopper]

I never meant 10% of all players - - again, you look at the player, and the years he played, and then look at all the players that played in that same period of time - - - - among that group, was he in the top 10%.

Yes, in. No, out.

[JamesI]

Current players I'd support or expect to support if their careers continue as is.

Randy, Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Sosa, Bonds, Palmeiro, Pedro, Piazza, Henderson Alomar

I expect to eventually support Nomar, Arod (when he gets toi 10 seasons) Griffey

[LeGrandOrange]

Using the 2% idea, there'd be maybe 24 players playing right now that are going to be enshrined. And I'm very certain there are 24 HOF-calibre players, plus a couple young players and a few imports that will become such over time.

This is something I thought about...do we include the Negro Leaguers into these quotas? I mean, the Biz Mackey's of the world still need to get in even if the VC is thinking otherwise...

[JamesI]

Originally posted by LeGrandOrange


This is something I thought about...do we include the Negro Leaguers into these quotas? I mean, the Biz Mackey's of the world still need to get in even if the VC is thinking otherwise...

I'm not including negro leaguers in my count, but the worthy among them should be in too.

[pwdennis]

It seems to me that 2% borders on an excessive total but it could easily vary by era - I think that 1.5% represents a good working number but again, why get pinned down by a number. I think that the HOF voters have done a reasonably good job of selecting enshrinees, certainly a better job than the American public has done in electing politicians to office

[sweaver]

Be aware that 2% number is based on the total number of players in a season...callups, senddowns, those only on September rosters...while 10% means on a roster at a particular point in time. On a 25-man roster, an average of 2.5 players will make the Hall. On some teams more, on others less.

OK, as many of you know, I have undertaken a project to rank the all-time greatest. I have not included the Negro Leagues, because data is spotty, so I am only considering MLB. Do 100 players belong in the Hall? On my list, player #100 is Joe Torre. To give a fuller picture, 98-102 are Bert Blyleven, Lou Boudreau, Joe Torre, Jimmy Wynn, and Richie Ashburn. Are those guys Hall of Famers?

I would say so.

Should there be 200? #200 on my list is a tie, between Ivan Rodriguez and Larry Doby. 197-203 goes Bid McPhee, Tony Phillips, Jimmy Collins, I-Rod, Doby, Reggie Smith, and Pud Galvin. Are those Hall guys? I would say generally no, except Doby as a "trailblazer."

So, I put the number of deserving MLB Hall of Famers between 100 and 200. Narrow it down? I think it's around 125. 123-127 are Minnie Minoso, Rusty Staub, Kirby Puckett, Billy Hamilton, and Frank (Home Run) Baker. We're getting into debatable territory here.

Add about 30 Negro Leaguers and we'd have in the neighborhood of 150-160 players in the Hall of Fame. That's my number.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I am opposed to limiting the number of HOFers in any way.

The HOF is baseball's way of honoring its own with a "lifetime achievement Oscar" of sorts. There is no other way baseball honors its players, except for the awards they win while active.

The HOF is a business for baseball's fans. Fans have an emotional interest in the players they come to love. This, of course, has to be balanced against historical accuracy and standards for honors (or else we'll see a plaque for Art Shamsky) but it generates interest in baseball when fans know that their favorite stars have a chance at such an honor as enshrinement in the HOF.

The system of selecting players, if it was broke, was broke so long ago that broke is the norm. I think more people would see that if they could get away from the demonstrably false idea that "watering down" the HOF is a recent happening. THE HOF WAS "WATERED DOWN" IN IT'S FIRST DECADE OF EXISTANCE. (It happened because, during the 1st decade of the HOF, the writers were so reluctant to enshrine ANYONE to the HOF that the Old-Timers Committee, to ensure interest in the HOF, selected players for the sake of selecting players. Their selections created a gray area; the picks they made weren't horrible, but they picked players while omitting others that were comparable, and often better. It's been that way EVER SINCE! IT'S THE NORM!)

The HOF really isn't broke. The people who insist on fixing it wish to restore a concept of the HOF that was never established in the first place.

[sweaver]

Not limiting, really. Just a way of asking, how many are there who are deserving?

[--JDD]

The number in the HOF should be close to how many you should honor for being the best at their position during their time in the game.... providing they were great for a long enough period of time.

We've seen about 12 or 13 decades of baseball come and go.... if you honor a team of 25 from each decade (loosely) then that would give you three hundred players in the HOF.

I like it, but I am more inclusive than most.

[sweaver]

So, Bobby Bonilla is a Hall of Famer?

He's one of the top 300 ever in the game.

[Piazzadelivery]

Current players who would get my vote now:

Pedro Martinez
Randy
Maddux
Clemens
Piazza
Glavine
Bagwell
Alomar
Henderson
Griffey
Bonds
Larkin
Frank Thomas
Mariano Rivera
Trevor Hoffman
IROD
Sosa



Players who will get my vote after 10 year of playing
AROD
VLAD
Chipper Jones

Players who one day may get my vote depending on how their full careers turn out:

Bernie Williams
Sheffield
Mike Mussina
Jeff Kent
Helton
Andruw Jones
J Giambi
Schilling
Petite
Juan Gone
Manny Ramirez
Jeter
Nomar
Biggio
Vizquel

Don't Know

McGriff
Palmiero

[sweaver]

We did a thread on that about a year ago. I'll see what I can do about moving PD's post there.

[BigKlu]

Originally posted by sweaver
How many players should be in the Hall of Fame?

We talk sometimes about an "inner circle," for the truly great, but if we were doing our own standards, how many would be qualified?

Steve has 113 "Apicals," the best of the best, on his list at the main site. http://www.netshrine.com/apicals.html

Lee Sinins honors 253 players, at his Baseball Immortals site.

The official Hall of Fame has 208 players enshrined for their playing, as opposed to managing or executiving. http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof.shtml

This is a number that must change somewhat, as more players become eligible. But how many should be in now? 100? 150? 200? 300? And why?

While this certainly wouldn't comprise an "inner circle," the Hall of Fame's total of ballplayers isn't that outrageous. It's that the worst 50 are clearly worse than the best 50 players who aren't in.

[BigKlu]

Originally posted by BigKlu
While this certainly wouldn't comprise an "inner circle," the Hall of Fame's total of ballplayers isn't that outrageous. It's that the worst 50 are clearly worse than the best 50 players who aren't in.

How about 2 players per season of MLB? That'd be about one guy at each position, 5 pitchers and 5 misc. hitters per decade. Sound about right?

For example, here's the 1990s:

McGwire, Bagwell, Thomas
Alomar, Biggio
Larkin, Thome, E. Martinez
Griffey Jr., Bonds, B. Williams,
Belle, Ramirez, Palmeiro,
Johnson, Maddux, Clemens,
Brown, Cone, Glavine

Something like that...the names aren't important...it's the concept. Try another decade on your own if you like.

You'd be saying a Hall of Famer is, on average, the best player in the league in any given year. That certainly sounds about right.

In fact, if that's how we think about it...perhaps 2 per season is too low. Perhaps it needs to be 4 per season? The two best players in the league each year?

[sweaver]

Except, the best player in a particular season is often the best player in several other seasons as well. See under Bonds, Barry.

[BigKlu]

Originally posted by JamesI
I'm not including negro leaguers in my count, but the worthy among them should be in too.

Ditto. It's certainly not unreasonable to expect 20-25 great negro leaguers from a period that stretched from 1900-1950, essentially? That's an average of one every other season, much better than the ratio of major leaguers to seasons.

[Piazzadelivery]

I would never support a quota and would always err in favor of having some who may not deserve enshrinement than keeping out one single player who does based on some sort of quota. Why? The reason is that, despite the debates amongt us fans and announcers about the halls importance and relevance, the fact is that the baseball HOF, far more than the other major sports, is the most exclusive most coveted most respected institution.

Not just by us the public but by the ballplayers themselves both past and present. I believe this will always be the case. Ask Gary Carter how much it means to him. Look at the reverence showed to HOF'er Ted Williams by the current players in the all star game at fenway. Look at how Guys like Canseco try to get 500 hr's just to have a shot at the place.

Baseball is over 100 years old. Look at the list of players in there. Sure there are many questionable choices but the total number of players in for a game this old is nowhere close to being excessive.

The Veterans committee process has bee tightened up. We won't ( I don't beleive anyway) see more slections like George Kelly elected by his cronies. I just wish that great players from the 80's would start getting in. That would add to the halls luster, not detract IMHO

[sweaver]

We continue to fixate on the "quota" in the thread name, to my consternation, so I changed it. Really, I just want to know how many players you think are Hall-worthy to this point. My own answer is about 125-150, plus Negro Leaguers. I think after the first 125, you start to get into the "maybes."

[Rinkster]

I take that the purpose behind this particualr thread was to discuss how many players should be in the Hall of Fame, correct? There has been a few interesting comments, some numbers thrown around, some talk of quota, an discussion or two about percentages and such. How lazy!

Are we not members of NetShrine? We can do better than toss around some arbitrary numbers and percentages around and "guestimate" how many players we feel should be in the Hall of Fame.

I've seen this Hall of Fame numbers debate many times. Many, many times, and I am always completely blown away at what is missing from every single one of them.

The players.

Number of players, percentages, quotas, etc.

Too easy!

So many of us can whine about who we think should be in the Hall of Fame, and about who should not be, but again, we do it in a lazy way. Someone will cry, "Minnie Minoso should be in the Hall of Fame because..." or "I'd rip Rizzuto's placque from the wall if they'd let me." I've done this myself. Too easy.

We've all ripped apart the ridiculous selections of the Frisch/Terry led Veterans Committee choices. Too easy! Okay, they screwed up and took advantage and made indefensible selections/ex-teammates. Done it many times myself. Too easy!

We've whined about how the BBWAA has overlooked players such as Ron Santo. We've whined about how the Veterans Committee has overlooked players such as...well, Ron Santo.
Again, too freakin' easy!

So what do I feel each of us should do--to move this discussion (or at least make it more interesting--from where it has remained for many years on radio talk shows, newspapers, message boards, etc, and tell us who you feel should be in the Hall of Fame.

Yes, YOUR in charge of selecting players to the Hall of Fame.

Go through the Hall of Fame, position by position. Flog out the phonies picked by Frisch's foggies, toss out Terry's terribles. Add in the players still on the outside looking in.See what you come up with. If you go about this in an honest way, you may be surprised at what you come up with.

The key is to be serious, and realistic, about it. I know some of you would love to see a hundred or so players in the HOF. Being from Lawrence, KS on limited means, well, I ain't going to Cooperstown to see plaques of 80 guys. Plus, the HOF could not exist with so few players. Then again, putting someone like Rusty Kuntz or Pete LaCock in the HOF just because they have a funny name won't cut it.

I admit that I've had a head start at this. I got together with a few of my friends of mine and we did this about the same time the 2003 VC results came out, and I struggled once I threw out the obvious players from the Hall of Fame.

So that I would not go too insane, I more or less removed a player currently in Hall of Fame for each player I added to the Hall of Fame that is currently on the outside looking in. In the end, I ended up with fewer players in "my" Hall of Fame than the number of players in the real Hall of Fame, but not that many fewer. I admit I was still a bit lazy by only doing this exercise for MLB players and not Negro League players, managers, etc.

If many of us chose to do this, perhaps this should be a new thread. Even if you don't want to share your picks, it's a blast to really sit down and take some time to do this.

Have fun.

[JamesI]

Rinkster, I bet a lot of people will accept the challenge. I may myself after graduation

[BigKlu]

That was inspiring.

You'll excuse me now while I work on the remaining 99% of that genius idea...

[SmedIndy]

Rinkster - I agree, but many others still play the "numbers" game. Sad but true.

Of course, I alone shall determine HOF worthiness, crowbar in hand. Even if it's only 60 to 80 players, it's still worthy (not that it would be that low). It's a baseball museum anyway and should honor all facets of baseball, yet only the elite need be enshrined. So we can celebrate Maris without enshrining him as an elite.

[sweaver]

Rinkster, I love your posts. You have GOT to come by more often.

What you say is what I was trying to get at, in a much poorer manner. And I have names (names, I got names) but have been holding back. Actually I have teased a bit in other posts, but haven't let loose.

What say all of you?

[BigKlu]

I just spent an hour or so going over lists of Hall of Famers by position and looking at players in the Historical Baseball Abstract for a quick list of possible candidates. I did my swapping around and, while not every insertion or deletion may be 100% consistent with all the rest, I feel it's a significantly better (and more representative) Hall of Fame than the one that presently exists, per its composition.

First off, I excluded anyone who was eligible up thru the 2003 elections. Murray and Sandberg, for example, made my lists. People who will become eligible in 2004 and beyond were not considered. Since the idea is that this is my Hall of Fame, I didn't include the "Pete Rose" which would automatically exclude at least two (and probably three or four) notable players from consideration.

I had the most difficult time with the negro leaguers, of whom I know very little about, so I played it more conservatively there, knocking out guys that didn't seem to be the creme of the proverbial crop and adding just a few that are popular candidates (hence I know a little more about them).

I also made a conscious effort to attempt to represent all of baseball history. I added a few 19th century and deadball-era players (while dumping others from that timeframe).

There were two, primary guidelines, I used.

1. Great peaks with great longevity obviously compose the "inner circle". I'm confident I included 99% of these guys.

2. Great peaks with poor longevity usually won the day over modest peaks with good longevity. I'm more sympathic to a Ron Guidry over a Jim Kaat. I'm more sympathetic towards Al Rosen than I am over Luis Aparicio.

Just my own criteria.

Without handing out names (until such time as we're ready to so), I'll just say that here is the numeric summary of my quick pruning:

Total Hall of Famers
Actual: 256
BigKlu: 216
% Difference of Total: 16% less than actual
% Same Composition: 57% agreement

Total Non-Players (umps, mgr.'s, exec.'s, etc.)
Actual: 47
Big Klu: 38
% Difference of Total: 19% less than actual
% Same Composition: 75% agreement

Total Players (includes negro leaguers)
Actual: 209
Big Klu: 178
% Difference of Total: 15% less than actual
% Same Composition: 54% agreement

I've broken it down further, of course...by positions, with or without negro leaguers included in the position totals, etc. There were also a couple of minor switches involved in "classification." For example, I included George Wright as a shortstop, not as an executive (where the Hall of Fame's website had him listed).

I'll wait to post the whole list until later. I'm confident I've left enough room open to debate about some of my choices that I will definately have to have a "centennial commission" review some of the guys I've left off as I spend more time on the list. In any case...this was a quick start.

[sweaver]

Looking at what I have written down, I think I would put 127 MLB players (that includes some active guys, though) in the Hall. While I am being chastised a bit in another thread for shorting pitchers, 21 of those 127 are pitchers.

So, it's not so much that I'm tough on pitchers, as I'm tough on everybody.

[BigKlu]

Originally posted by sweaver
Looking at what I have written down, I think I would put 127 MLB players (that includes some active guys, though) in the Hall. While I am being chastised a bit in another thread for shorting pitchers, 21 of those 127 are pitchers.

So, it's not so much that I'm tough on pitchers, as I'm tough on everybody.

I dunno 'bout that....

Your Hall's composition - pitchers (16%), hitters (84%) - is very different than the composition of the one in Cooperstown (pitchers are 32%, hitters are 68%).

I think you're mistaken in that you have been harder on the pitchers than on the hitters because, while you've cut the number of hitters by 26%, you've cut the number of pitchers by 68%. That's a significantly different standard.

If you actually did apply the same standard of toughness, you'd probably have about 25 or so more pitchers on your list.

Now that I'm thinking along these lines, I'm curious how similar a standard I applied to my own list.

Apparently, I cut pitchers by 28% of their actual total while cutting position players by 9%. Now that's interesting!

While you cut deeper, across-the-board, than I did, we had similar ratios of cuts. That is, both of us tended to gut pitchers around 3 times more than we did position players.

I wonder how common that will be as others compile their own lists.

:willis:

[Piazzadelivery]

I can tell you this in my HOF list Jack Moris, Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter, Dale Murphy and Steve Garvey would all be in. I also would like to see Andre Dawson and Tim Raines get in.

[SmedIndy]

I think the guys I'd want in would offset the schlubs I want OUT. And that's with my high standard. Of course, I'd break the rules and put Sweet Lou in there but hey...it's my HOF.

[sweaver]

Originally posted by Piazzadelivery
I can tell you this in my HOF list Jack Moris, Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter, Dale Murphy and Steve Garvey would all be in. I also would like to see Andre Dawson and Tim Raines get in. You must be in favor of inclusion policies, pd. That's a Hall of about 300 players!

[KCBOOMER]

Rink, If we get in to names this thread will grow right out of sight. For example let's discuss the HoF catchers. BTW, I will only consider catchers who are no longer active players.

Currently there are fourteen of them in the HoF: Bill Dickey, Yogi Berra, Mickey Cochrane, Gabby Hartnett, Johnny Bench, Carlton Fisk, Buck Ewing, Gary Carter, Ernie Lombardi, Roy Campanella, Roger Bresnahan, Ray Schalk, Rick Ferrell, and Josh Gibson.

I have no quarrels with Dickey, Berra, Cochrane, Hartnett, Bench, Fisk, Carter, Campanella and Gibson.

Okay who shouldn't be there? Well to my mind Ray Schalk (RCAA -139 and no HoF comps other than managers), Rick Ferrell (RCAA -39 and no HoF comps other than managers), and Roger Bresnahan (less than 1000 games as a catcher, RCAA +132 as a catcher, no HoF comps other than managers) are out.

That leaves Ewing and Lombardi. Ewing only has 701 games as catchers which is pretty damning but I cannot, in good conscience, throw out the only 19th century player on the list. Ewing was highly regarded by his peers and was one of the first players elected by the VC when they had a ton of great players to choose from and I'm going with that. I have more of a problem with Lombardi, but 1800+ games as a catcher, one MVP, and two batting titles, and he has two HoF comps are Hartnett and Dickey tho' they are not strong comps puts him over the top.

Okay we are down to eleven players now. Do we add any? Maybe, Ted Simmons. He is the offensive equivalent of Fisk, but is significantly inferior defensively. His HoF comps include Fisk, Carter, Berra, Joe Cronin, and Bobby Doerr, but the comps are weak. His non HoF comps, though weak again, arevery good with Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, Ryne Sandberg, Joe Torre, and Buddy Bell). I think it's a coin flip and it comes up heads.

What about Joe Torre? Well you can't put Torre in without Simmons going first. Joe also derives half his offensive value as a 3B/1B. Now as a 3B/1B he isn't remotely in the discussion for the HoF. As a catcher he's got got a coin toss chance but I say it comes up tails.

Okay, I am done with catchers. Dumped three and added one. Now if we all jump in with a long discussion of catchers and then pursue it through all the positions this thread will require a server of its own.

[sweaver]

I think Torre deserves to be in as a player, no matter which position you think was his main. He was an excellent hitter in a very strong pitcher's era, and not a defensive zero, either.

I'll agree with KC's picks at catcher, although I think Cochrane is overrated. Hitter's era.

[SmedIndy]

Buck Ewing deserves to be in. You can't hold a 19th century player to a single position because they moved frequently. You probably need to discuss them separately entirely.

I add Simmons for sure, because I think his defense was better than he was given credit for (and I asserted that in another thread).

I can't quite put Torre in there. He's in the coffee shop of the Hall of Very Good with Rice, Parker, Murphy, and Garvey.

[sweaver]

True, Ewing deserves consideration, because things were different in the 19th century.

I think Torre should be in, but Simmons is borderline. Torre was a better player than Simmons, IMO.

[gyb13]

guys, let's keep this to the number of players you would like to see in the HoF. a new thread can be started if you want to discuss names by position, etc

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by sweaver
True, Ewing deserves consideration, because things were different in the 19th century.

I think Torre should be in, but Simmons is borderline. Torre was a better player than Simmons, IMO.

I can't see that, personally. But it's personal taste. It's not like we're arguing about Charlie O'Brien vs. Biff Pocoroba...

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by gyb13
guys, let's keep this to the number of players you would like to see in the HoF. a new thread can be started if you want to discuss names by position, etc

G - this may be the only way to get a number without posts that take up an entire page. But if that makes more sense, then let's close this and open ones on all positions, them sum....

[sweaver]

As I have continued to research this question, I have changed my opinions somewhat. I count about 125 "no-doubt" Hall of Famers (not including Negro Leaguers and other contributors, such as managers and GMs) with a "gray area" extending to about 200 total. Throw in about 25 Negro League greats with those guys, and that's my idea of the Hall of Fame. 150-200 or so guys as players.

[JamesI]

As I have continued to research this question, I have changed my opinions somewhat. I count about 125 "no-doubt" Hall of Famers (not including Negro Leaguers and other contributors, such as managers and GMs) with a "gray area" extending to about 200 total. Throw in about 25 Negro League greats with those guys, and that's my idea of the Hall of Fame. 150-200 or so guys as players.

That's about where I was, 110 no doubters, 20 or so negro leaguers, then approx 50 more that were possibles. Not including managers and execs, who I would give their own wing.

[pwdennis]

I think that 200 is the current number but adjusting the number upward by 1.5 for each additional season that passes

[sweaver]

OK, for those of you who have been playing along with the "Which (position here) belong in the Hall?" game, how many did you list? What is your number of Hall of Famers?

[Batman]

.

About 210.

.

[LeGrandOrange]

2% of all major league players (counting the lesser leagues, NA, UA, and FL, so that more can be selected) is the theory I had for how many should be in the hall on Opening Day and I've kept that theory. My difference is between then and now, I made the % only apply to major league players, everybody else is not bound by a %.

I counted mine in the other thread, but I forgot some in that count. The official number is 367, 316 major leaguers, 25 managers, 25 Negro League personalities, and Sadaharu Oh. This is not counting pioneers, executives, or umpires that I wasn't able to pick, the total number is somewhere between 380-390, most likely.

I honestly believe that the hall should be this big. I can't think of a good way of explaining why...the reasons are not immediately coming to me...but I really truly believe that baseball deserves to induct more people.

[sweaver]

I count 138 eligible MLB players for me. That excludes the Negro Leaguers and the actives I said were qualified. Which is actually about what I was saying before. Cool!