What makes a HOFer?

[jstu9]

I've been a baseball fan my entire life, rtead BIll James HOF book, and I know more or less what *I* look for in a Hall of Fame player.

And seeing these threads on the board now on hall of famers, it really is interesting to know what each person thinks makes a Hall f Famer.

For example, I tend to be more inclusive in my Hall of Fame. And I would recognize greatness. What I mean by that last part can be explained by Jeff Bagwell and Frank Thomas. I think they both are Hall of Famers if they don't play another game.

Thomas put up a series of seasons where he just dominated the game. 2 time MVP. Bagwell pretty much is the same way. MVP, series of great seasons.

Ken Griffey would make my HoF as well. Pedro Martinez as well. But these guys only make it because they were the best or among the best for a series of seasons.

Kirby Puckett would be a decent example of a player who did get in with a shortened career but one where he was among the best at his position for a number of years. Albert Belle would be another guys I would seriously consider for the hall of Fame.

But only because of greatness for a sizable number of years. Then there are the guys who are trying to reach milestones to show what kind of players they were. Rafael Palmeiro. Fred McGriff etc. And this is where (to me), it is hard to divide players. Is Palmeiro a HoFer because he has been one of the more productive 1B over a sizable number of years without really being the best at any one time? He will finish with over 500 HR's and I think he is already over 1600 RBI's. That's impressive, so I would say someone like that, who has put up some very good numbers for a number of years probably is Hall of fame worthy.

[JamesI]

I think everyone has their own criteria. Some people have suggested removing players like Killebrew I consider automatich, while at the same time putting in players I would not let near the hall of fame.

Its hard to say. I can't say with 100% certaintiy that if I had a vote, I would vote Griffey or Thomas right now. I probably would, but am not certain. Palmeiro I would put in, probably McGriff as well although he is lower in most stats...

[pwdennis]

Some level of excellence needs to be involved - a player who played 25 seasons putting up a string of seasons such as 22-71 .258 is not a Hall of Famer regardless of what the counting stats add up to (although I would accept a 2B or SS who put up such numbers).

Take the much maligned Fred McGriff, for example. Fred had his moments of excellence. He won two home run championships (both in a lesser offensive period) and was in the top four seven times. His closest comps are not a bad bunch either :

Willie Stargell (905) *
Rafael Palmeiro (899)
Willie McCovey (888) *
Andres Galarraga (855)
Billy Williams (843) *
Chili Davis (841)
Orlando Cepeda (840) *
Jim Rice (829)
Eddie Mathews (826) *
Jose Canseco (817)

True he was never a Jim Rice or a Carl Yastrzemski but he has enough peaks , when added to his counting stats to warrant entry

Harold Baines presents a different problem - he is all counting stats without much in the way of peak activity. Similarly Rusty Staub. I like both Baines and Staub but they are not Cooperstown material.

Pitchers are a whole different thing - since it is very difficult to stay healthy for an extended run of seasons , a string of twenty-two 14-11 seasons (cumulative total 308-242) would definitely reach my Hall of Fame unless this record was compiled for teams that had better records when he wasn't pitching, and even there I probably would vote to enshrine. Needless to say, I haven't a clue as to how I would evaluate relievers for Cooperstown since comparisons between eras are impossible - I think I would have Gossage, Fingers, Eckersley, Sutter, Quisenberry and old timers Wilhelm, McMahon, McDaniel, and Face

[TGwynn19]

I guess my criteria for the HOF is simple. If I have to wonder about a person's worthiness, then he is not in. I have always been in favor of a one time vote for someone to get into the HOF. Either you are worthy or you are not. All the talk of 'first ballot' v. 'he should have to wait 5 years' is silly, IMO. Either you are in or you are not.

[JamesI]

Originally Posted by TGwynn19

I guess my criteria for the HOF is simple. If I have to wonder about a person's worthiness, then he is not in. I have always been in favor of a one time vote for someone to get into the HOF. Either you are worthy or you are not. All the talk of 'first ballot' v. 'he should have to wait 5 years' is silly, IMO. Either you are in or you are not.

I could agree to a one shot vote. Then I would give the voters the right to vote for as many candidates as they wish instead of ten as it is now.

[sweaver]

That's why I started the threads, jstu9, to get at the answer to that question. I tried to ask it another way, but didn't get a satisfactory answer---at least, not satisfactory to me.

The results have been very interesting, and we'll pick up again after "Deadline Day" hysteria dies down. But the original question I asked at want to get back to still is out there, and it is similar to the one asked here: How many belong in the Hall?

[Jim Rice]

Originally Posted by sweaver

But the original question I asked at want to get back to still is out there, and it is similar to the one asked here: How many belong in the Hall?

I think a fair rule of thumb is anywhere between 1 and 1.5 players at each position for each decade of baseball played. We've had "major league" baseball since 1871, which means we're in our 14th decade of baseball. Subtract the last one because it's still ongoing. That leaves 13, which means at any given position it would be fair to have from 13 to 20 (if we round up) in the HOF. That would allow for a rough rule of thumb that the best player in the game at a given position for a decade would be Hall-worthy, but would allow for the occasional overlap when two or more great players played the same position simultaneously (i.e. Mays and Mantle; Williams and Musial; Josh Gibson and Bill Dickey).

Looking at the current roster of HOFers, that seems to be just about where things have settled as well.

14 catchers;
19 first basemen;
16 second basemen;
22 shortstops;
11 third basemen;
19 left fielders;
20 center fielders;
22 right fielders;
65 pitchers (13 decades x 5 per decade = a neat fit of a full 5-man rotation or a 4-man rotation plus a relief ace)

Third basemen are under-represented using this rule, for mysterious reasons many have speculated about. Shortstops and right fielders are over-represented. Overall, they average about 18 members per position, and I think that's a fair number to have to date.

Now, getting a little closer to that average for a couple of positions and, of course, choosing the proper 18 for each position is an entirely different question, one Sweaver has been trying to get us to focus on.

[WiredTiger]

I look at a couple of things:

1. How great a player where they compared to their peers.
2. How long did they sustain that greatness.
3. What positions did they play in their career.
4. How good defensively were they.
5. Intangibles: playoff performance, etc.

I tend to be very tough on 1b/DH/RF/LF. They have to be either great and sustain it for 10 -15 years or be very good and sustain it for 15-20 years.

On the hitting side I don't think there are many automatic stats that get you in anymore. 500 home runs isn't enough anymore to get you in automatically. 3000 hits probably gets you in though.

The pitching side is much more difficult. You have to be very good for a very long time. But pitching doesn't lend itself to healthiness.

[KCBOOMER]

The Veterans Committe needs to be scrapped. Just get rid of it. Yes there are deserving players that have been missed, but we are getting to the point that those guys are mostly in their graves (except Santo). The Negro Leagues are more than adequately represented. The VC is also responsible for electing pioneers, managers, executives, umpires, etc. This group of non-players contains way to many people and way too many mistakes.

If we stop using the VC then we will only be voting on people that we have seen. We the explosion of media outlets ESPN, WGN, TBS, NES, etc) and the internet we are so much more informed than previous eras on the players. If we don't bog ourselves down with players from prior eras (the very thing that got the HoF screwed up in the first place) then the BBWAA 15 year process is plenty.

While the BBWAA takes its shots they really don't do a terrible job. Sometimes they are a little slow, but they usually get it right. They certainly are much better informed than the current VC which consists mostly of living HoFers. Frankly I would like to see the voting overhauled to include more qualified people it probably isn't going to happen. I really like Bill James idea of common folk like us paying a fee to take an annual test to see if we qualify as a HoF voter and if we do we get to vote.

As for me I want to see dominance before I put a guy in the hall. I'd much prefer to put Sandy Koufax in the HoF as Don Sutton. I recognize longevity has value but that is the rub. Once you accept longevity then you have to give counting stats some level of validity. If a guy plays a long time but isn't dominant his claim to the HoF is his counting stats. If guy is dominant for a sufficient period of time we don't care what his counting stats are and if he's dominant long enough his counting stats are stratospheric.

With 70 years of history the HoF is what it is. We will continue to elect dominant players who lack great counting stats and we will continue electing long career good players with great counting stats.

[Firpo Marberry]

The first thing any fan needs to do is get objective about their heroes and home-town players.

95 percent of the people who think, "X" should be in the HOF are speaking of either their hero of someone who played for their favorite or hometown team. There goes your objectivity.

I grew up watcing Tony Oliva. He was a better ballplayer than Rod Carew, Kirby Puckett or Harmon Killebrew. He's not in the HOF. They are. He probably shouldn't be in the HOF. He's borderline because of the short career, a career that would have been longer had today's medical techniques been available to a man who had 7 knee operations, not to mention wrist and shoulder. I can't make a convincing case for him. I believe had he started playing in 1978, he'd have made the HOF. Medical advances and lousy pitching would have vaulted him in.

Most Twins' fans think he should be in, no question, and after they hear it enough from announcers and former Oliva teammates and such, they start to believe it. I respect Harmon Killebrew's opinion, but he's not unbiased about Tony. Harmon and Bert Blyleven and Herb Carneal all might think Oliva should be in the HOF, and they all probably know more about baseball than me, but they're aren't objective, and that shoots them down.

The second thing is you have to separate "pretty damn good ballplayer" from "greatness." If you start putting some of these guys in the HOF, suddenly it's just a place for guys who did some neat things on the ESPN highlights and were solid, coveted ballplayers. There are lots of solid, coveted ballplayers. Just because some guy was above average and tugs at your heart strings doesn't make him a HOFer.

Munson is the quintessential case for this. His career was all but over when he died. He wasn't going to turn around and have one more great season, let alone three or more, as his supporters always contend. He could barely finish a game behind the plate, and he was all beat up. It's too bad he died, but if that's all it takes to let a guy in, hello Ken Hubbs.

[pwdennis]

Firpo - I agree with you to some extent but even considering "hometowning" there isn't a lot of clatter about really unworthy players. A Bosox fan advocating Jim Rice or Dwight Evans is behind the candidacy of a player better than quite a few Hall of Famers (think Lou Brock, Tony Perez, some of the 30s crowd)

A Bosox fan advocating Frank Malzone or Rico Petrocelli for Cooperstown would be guilty of "hometowning" it. Similarly a Twins fan supporting Oliva is supporting a damn fine player, but a Twins fan behind Bob Allison or Camilo Pasqual is off in the ozone somewhere

[Firpo Marberry]

Originally Posted by pwdennis

Firpo - I agree with you to some extent but even considering "hometowning" there isn't a lot of clatter about really unworthy players. A Bosox fan advocating Jim Rice or Dwight Evans is behind the candidacy of a player better than quite a few Hall of Famers (think Lou Brock, Tony Perez, some of the 30s crowd)

A Bosox fan advocating Frank Malzone or Rico Petrocelli for Cooperstown would be guilty of "hometowning" it. Similarly a Twins fan supporting Oliva is supporting a damn fine player, but a Twins fan behind Bob Allison or Camilo Pasqual is off in the ozone somewhere

I hear and read much clamor for players I wouldn't bother with. Maybe it's just my impossibly high standards. (I am finishing the swimming portion of a triathlon as a write this. Me, Affleck and J-Lo are going to Paris this evening.)

Of course, the "Jim Rice is better than Phil Rizzuto" stuff has been shot down many times by people like Bill James. That "if-then" stuff makes no sense. If the worst player in the Hall is the litmus test, let's make it so anyone in the world can nominate any player, and if nominated, they will be inducted. Let 'em all in the Hall.

While Oliva might be "damn fine player" I am not convinced he is a HOFer. I also do not believe there is anything wrong with being a "damn fine player."

I've thought about the HOF enough in recent years and wondered why people think this stamp of approval is needed. It's almost as if they think: "Thurman Munson was my hero. He was a damn fine ballplayer. If they put him in the Hall of Fame, this will validate my opinion and make me feel good about myself, my love of Thurman, and all the world."

I don't understand why people can't be satisfied with the fact "X" was a damn fine ballplayer and I enjoyed the hell out of him and if they put him in the HOF fine, but I don't need it.

Frankly, I'm not sure the HOF is good enough for guys like Oliva.

Oliva's career is the same whether or not he's in the HOF. Same as everyone else.

[Jim Rice]

Originally Posted by Firpo Marberry

Of course, the "Jim Rice is better than Phil Rizzuto" stuff has been shot down many times by people like Bill James. That "if-then" stuff makes no sense. If the worst player in the Hall is the litmus test, let's make it so anyone in the world can nominate any player, and if nominated, they will be inducted. Let 'em all in the Hall.

I don't think anyone is saying that here, particularly pw. He's saying, if I'm reading him correctly, that there is room for people to have a healthy debate about someone like Rice or Oliva, who are or were heavily supported by the BBWAA and a large percentage of fans and analysts.

This is particularly true because Rice was not just better than Chick Hafey and Oliva was not just better than Tommy McCarthy, a.k.a. The Worst Players in the Hall at Their Positions. Rice was also better than Kelley and Manush and Brock and O'Rourke and Clarke and can be argued as the equal of Wheat and Medwick and Goslin and Burkett. Likewise, Oliva was also better than Flick and Hooper and Kelly and Klein and the two Sams (Rice and Thompson) and Youngs and can be argued as the equal of Cuyler.

That's reason enough for a good debate to take place about those players and any others like them. That's the one part of the Hall of Fame that baseball can't take away from the regular fan, so I choose to embrace that rather than reject it.

Jim Rice is a guy who has received more than half of the vote for four straight years from a group of writers who generally detested him during his playing days. If more than half the actual voters support him, why can't I make an argument for a guy like that just because he was also one of my favorite players as a kid? It's not like I'm asking them to induct Rooster Burleson.

[sweaver]

When I look at whether a guy is a Hall of Famer, to decide for myself, I look at a number of things. Bill James did a nice job of defining a Hall of Famer, so I will defer to his work, but also state what I am seeking.

I think a Hall of Famer needs to go a bit of both ways, career value and peak value. A player can be a Hall of Famer with limited career value but a high peak value (Sandy Koufax) or with limited peak value but strong career value and longevity (Don Sutton). There is a certain balance. Now, peak is more important, IMO, for a pitcher than a position player. This is partly because of the higher burnout rate for pitchers. 5-6 great seasons for a pitcher, like Koufax had, is sufficient while the same for a position guys is not. However, if a guy dominates his league, like Albert Belle in the 1990s along with Frank Thomas, he can become a Hall of Famer in my book, especially if he can add some glove work to his hitting.

Longevity is not the only key, however. Rabbit Maranville is not a Hall of Famer, IMO, just because he played for over 20 years. You have to maintain a certain level of quality as well. So there is a certain balance I am seeking when I choose my top players.

[SmedIndy]

If you get rid of the VC you'll never have a shot of real deserving players to get in.

A Hof to me is one I know when I see them (or their stats). Ron Santo is one. Fred Lindstrom is not.