Defining what is a "Hall-of-Famer", according to the REAL Hall of Fame

[Fuzzy Bear]

I finally found my BILL JAMES HISTORICAL BASEBALL ABSTRACT, circa 1986. In that book, James wrote a long essay about how vague the criteria for HOF enshrinement was, and listed four (4) possible definitions of a HOFer.

"Definition A" was , according to James, "any player who could reasonably be argued at the position he played". This is the definition to cover the Ruths, Mayses, Cobbs, et al.

"Definition B" was, according to James, "a player who is one of the greatest ever at the position he played. Such a player should be the dominant player at his position at the time he is active, with the exception of the relatively rare occurrances of doubling up at a position, such as Mantle and Mays." James goes on to say that a player meeting this criteria should normally be the biggest star on the field, and should be the biggest star on a pennant-winning team. Joe Morgan and Al Kaline, to name a couple, were cited as examples.

"Definition C", according to James, was "a player who is consistently among the best in the league at his position. Such a player would ordinarily be the biggest star on his team unless it was a pennant-winning team, in which case he would be regarded as one of the most valuble members of the team." James cited Billy Herman, Willie Stargell, and Harry Heilmann as examples, amongst others

"Definition D", said James, was "a player who rises well above the level of the average player, a player who would be capable of contributing to a pennant winning team, and would be one of the outstanding players on an average team". James cited Joe Rudi, Wally Schang, Eppa Rixey, Lloyd Waner, Eppa Rixey, and Tommy McCarthy as examples of players who meet this criteria.

It is my observation that the standard for enshrinement to the
REAL Hall of Fame is Definition C. Most players, though certainly not all, who fit that description, ultimately end up in the HOF, IMO.

Definition B, IMO, appears to be the standard, more or less, for the B.B.W.A.A., although they are by no means consistent on this.
Tony Perez certainly doesn't qualify by Definition B, (and does not present the strongest set of Definition C credentials, either) IMO, and Gary Carter easily does. Definition C is the standard of the Veterans' Committee at their best. Frankie Frisch and his cabal were Definition D men, if you were a Giant or a Cardinal.

I do not think that the HOF would be damaged or diluted if Definition C were the definition applied. Players who meet that criteria have been enshrined since the 1940s. Definition A is the definition of choice by many who post here, but has never REALLY been the standard. I personally think it would be unfair to the stars of today if the HOF began selecting inductees only from Definition B or above.

I also don't think that Definition C opens the floodgates. Definition D would, but C? How many guys fit Definition C that are active right now? I don't think it's fair to raise the bar after the fact because a few Definition D's got in.

Anyway, these definitions express HOF possible criteria in a compact was that I am unable to say. Which definition do you subcribe to? Which definition is the one actually used?

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear "Definition A" was , according to James, "any player who could reasonably be argued at the position he played". This is the definition to cover the Ruths, Mayses, Cobbs, et al.

I'm not sure I understand this, Fuzz.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by CpUltravox
I'm not sure I understand this, Fuzz.

People have different ideas of what is a HOFer, and at what level should someone be considered for enshrinement.

Definitions A through D were Bill James' ideas of possible minimum criteria for HOFers (from the most exclusive to the least exclusive). My post expresses an opinion as to which of these definitions is the one that is the actual, in practice, standard for HOF selections (granted that this is an unwritten thing as Gary Geiger could be enshrined if the stars lined up and he had 10 years ML service while Gary Carter waits).

no.. I mean definition A

"any player who could reasonably be argued at the position he played"

argued as the greatest to ever play the position?

[mandamin]

I agree with everything you said there. There aren't MANY definition D Hall of Famers in there right now, but there are still way too many.

What about players who played at vastly different levels at different points in their careers (above and beyond the normal curve of a player's career)? What would Sandy Koufax fall under? He played like a definition A for a few years, and the rest of his career he'd have had to be a D, if anything.

I like James' idea (probably from the same article) of establishing different circles of the Hall of Fame--the inner circle for the Definition A guys, Ruth, Mays, Bonds (might as well get used to saying them in the same breath now...), etc., and going outward three or four times from there. So we have a way of making it clear that while they were both very good players and worthy of some recognition, Fergie Jenkins really has no right to be honored in the same room as Lefty Grove; Jenkins would be in maybe the second circle from the outside (I don't remember how James labeled them) and Lefty would be in the inner circle.

[moose]

Originally posted by CpUltravox
no.. I mean definition A

"any player who could reasonably be argued at the position he played"

argued as the greatest to ever play the position?

i assumed that's what he meant.

[KCBOOMER]

A and B are certainly fine criteria other than a real time element has to be tied to it to make it more objective.

C is workable but this level of player needs to have a lengthy career to so that his career value outweighs his peak value.

D sucks.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by CpUltravox
no.. I mean definition A

"any player who could reasonably be argued at the position he played"

argued as the greatest to ever play the position?

That would be for the elite of the elite. Mays and Cobb would qualify. Ruth and Aaron. Walter Johnson and Tom Seaver. You could make a good argument that any of those guys were the best ever at their position. Ted Williams would fall under Definition A; Yaz would not (he's under B).

Under that definition, applying it today's players, I would feel safe to say that, among LF, Barry Bonds qualifies. Rickey Henderson doesn't (though he certainly qualifies under Definition B).

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER


D sucks.

Tell that to Jesse (Pop) Haines and George (Highpockets) Kelly. Or, better yet, tell it to Frankie Frisch and cronies!

[SmedIndy]

Obviously, the A list and B list belong, and the C list needs to be scrutinized, but most shall past the crowbar test.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It should be noted that there ARE more Definition D guys in the HOF than just the Frisch selections. Some examples (IMO) are:

Phil Rizzuto
Tony Lazzeri
Rabbit Maranville
Tinker and Chance (Evers, IMO, qualifies under "C")

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
It should be noted that there ARE more Definition D guys in the HOF than just the Frisch selections. Some examples (IMO) are:

Phil Rizzuto
Tony Lazzeri
Rabbit Maranville
Tinker and Chance (Evers, IMO, qualifies under "C")

Though you could argue Chance belongs in the "good player / excellent manager" wing, too.

[rcartman28]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Obviously, the A list and B list belong, and the C list needs to be scrutinized, but most shall past the crowbar test.

Works for me.....

I generally think that strict criteria for something like this are bad.

I've always thought that members should basically just be a "yes" answer to the question - Is this one of the very best players to ever play the game?

For Smed, the HOF has 6, maybe 7 members in it.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

I like these criteria because they help define the quality of players by those arguments.

For example, if you're arguing about whether a Hall-of-Famer is the best ever at his position, then it's pretty clear that he belongs in the Hall of Fame. Note that he doesn't have to BE the best ever at his position, just great enough that you could make that argument.

If you're arguing that a Hall-of-Famer was consistently among the best at his position during his era, then it is pretty clear that he is helping the Hall of Fame by being in there.

If you're arguing whether a player belongs in at all, you're probably talking about the line between Definition C and Definition D. If the argument is that he isn't hurting the Hall of Fame, then he probably doesn't belong in there.