How Exclusive is the HOF?

[BravesWin!]

I was thinking about all the discussion (not necessarily on this thread but partly so) about how its getting too "easy" relatively to get into the hall of fame. there have been certain theories bantered about such as only admitting 100 members, and to add someone, someone has to be kicked out, keeping the number at 100. others have had other ideas. but according to my numbers (which could be wrong- but i dont think they are) there have been 15,685 Major League Players. And I believe there are 196 Major League Players in the Hall of Fame. I dont think these numbers include Negro Leagues...however, for the purposes of my argument those small numbers do not make much of a difference. What that comes out to is 1.2% of every player to play in the Major Leagues is a Hall of Famer. When you think about it, that number seems to be about right. I would think that the top 1-2% is the perfect number for the Hall of Fame. In fact, if you add in the number of Negro League players and Negro Leaguers in Cooperstown, that percentage would drop.

The point Im trying to make, is I really dont think the Cooperstown is quite as watered-down as some people would like to make us believe...

Any comments??

Andrew

[Max Power]

Originally posted by BravesWin!
there have been 15,685 Major League Players

You have to play 10 years to be eligible for Cooperstown, no?

How many of the 15,685 played 10 years? Not many, I assume. That changes your odds.

[JamesI]

Cooperstown is exclusive. Just doesn't always let in the right people and keep out the right people.

[Skip]

Here's an interesting related question. Would you rather the HOF be as it is, drawing debate over both those left out and those let in - or would you rather it be more exclusive to the point where all we argued about was who was unfairly excluded? Presumably the debate in the second case could be even more rancorous as there'd be more cases of 'obvious' INJUSTICE which would fire people up much moreso than the cases of LENIENCE in which unworthies have been admitted tends to (Lee Sinins notwithstanding ). It can be argued that the current situation is 'funner' for those of us who are interested because we get to look at things both ways!

[JamesI]

Skip, I like it the way it is. 1.2% of all players seems like a good ratio. At least most teams can have a player that has a viable shot at the hall most of the time.

[pwdennis]

I think the current ratio is about right - it should be exclusive but not impossible to gain admission. According to Bill James, at any given moment in time about 10% of all the playing time is held down by a Hall of Famer. That seems about right to me

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by Skip
Here's an interesting related question. Would you rather the HOF be as it is, drawing debate over both those left out and those let in - or would you rather it be more exclusive to the point where all we argued about was who was unfairly excluded?

The HOF, as it is, has a large gray area, as Bill James has pointed out in many of his writings. This is obvious to us all.

In The Politics of Glory , later retitled Whatever Became of the Hall of Fame? , James documents how, in the 1940s, the writers were loath to enshrine anyone. Consequently, the Old-Timers committee (its name back then), in order to get the HOF to take on new enshrinees, tapped a number of selections that resulted in a large gray area.

What keeps HOF discussions lively is this gray area, and the fact that there will ALWAYS be some players who are in, while others, of comparable careers will not be. Part of this stems from the extremes of the voting bodies; the writers who were ridiculous in the stringency of their standards, and the Old-Timers, who swung the pendulum too far the other way.

It would be unfair to players AND fans if we adopted a more stringent standard. Fans have an interest in their favorite players being enshrined. Just ask Cub fans about Sandberg these days.

James had an idea that, while expensive, may be the best solution. The current HOFers have plaques. The HOF could create an inner circle. Those players would have statues. Life size. Only one per every five years. I'm not ready to sign off on this yet, but it was interesting. (I believe he suggested that in his 1985 Historical Baseball Abstract .)

[SmedIndy]

It would NOT be unfair to fans or players to hold to a more stringent standard.

We cannot undo mistakes of the past - we can only prevent them in the future.

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
It would NOT be unfair to fans or players to hold to a more stringent standard.

We cannot undo mistakes of the past - we can only prevent them in the future.

I beg to differ here, but I guess the question that needs to be asked is "for whose benefit does the Hall of Fame exist" If it is for the fans, rather than the purists, then it would be unfair to hold to a more stringent standard.

Fans exist primarily in the here and now. They want to see the great players of their memory honored. They also may want to see the greats of the more distant past honored, but it is of lesser importance to most of them.

There have been a number of errors made in the past but few of them are egregious, and none of them have done real harm to the fans' interest in the Hall of Fame, the baseball purists notwithstanding.

Remember too, that there can be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a mistake. I regard Rizzuto as a mistake, and felt that Ozzie Smith was marginal HOF (and that 1st ballot selection for him was an egregious error) but both were popular selections that had enormous fan support. Heck, Smed supported Oz as a first ballot inductee, something that still leaves me wondering. No doubt PWD's crowbar would not be applied to the same plaques as Smed's crowbar.

I think the current path is acceptable and would hate to see the Hall get overly selective. There should be at least an inductee a year, if only to maintain the public interest in the Hall of Fame as a vital ongoing concern

[sweaver]

Well, by my calculations Ozzie is the 6th greatest shortstop of all time, and the 57th greatest player ever, almost all on the strength of his defense. So, I have no trouble with Ozzie Smith as a Hall of Famer, "first ballot" or otherwise.

I agree Rizzuto is a marginal Hall of Famer. But, he's one of the top 200 players ever, if you give him credit for seasons lost to war service. So I can see it.

I would say the historical standard that 10-15% of active players at any one time are Hall of Famers is a reasonable standard. With the greater numbers playing today, we should probably take care to keep that closer to 10%. BTW, the reason it becomes more like 1 or 2 percent of all players is that a number of players at any one time are up and down, getting in one or two games.

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by sweaver


1) Well, by my calculations Ozzie is the 6th greatest shortstop of all time, and the 57th greatest player ever, almost all on the strength of his defense. So, I have no trouble with Ozzie Smith as a Hall of Famer, "first ballot" or otherwise.

2) I would say the historical standard that 10-15% of active players at any one time are Hall of Famers is a reasonable standard. With the greater numbers playing today, we should probably take care to keep that closer to 10%. BTW, the reason it becomes more like 1 or 2 percent of all players is that a number of players at any one time are up and down, getting in one or two games.

I have yet to see a methodology that convinces me that it can evaluate defense effectively, particularly as to its value vis-a-vis offense. The minors are filled with players who defensively are 90%+ of Maz, Oz or Luis but are marooned because they can't hit. A hitter who is 90% of Ted Williams would make the All-Star game repeatedly even if he was a terrible fielder.

Oz would be in my top 150 (but not in my top 100) so I have no problem with him being in Cooperstown - he's a 3rd or 4th tier star as is Aparico, Mazeroski, etc

2) agree with the notion of keeping it at 10% of total playing time

[KCBOOMER]

The HoF is fairly exclusive and if we could get rid of the mistakes and non-players it would really be nice.

[WiredTiger]

The big thing looking forward for me is how the HOF is going to adjust to the inflation of hitter's stats in this era. I hope that they are more stringent on the hitters and a little more forgiving on the pitchers.

[JamesI]

Originally posted by WiredTiger
The big things looking forward for me is how the HOF is going to adjust to the inflation of hitter's stats in this era. I hope that they are more stringent on the hitters and a little more forgiving on the pitchers.

Good point. Every first baseman from this era can't be a hall of famer.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by WiredTiger
The big thing looking forward for me is how the HOF is going to adjust to the inflation of hitter's stats in this era. I hope that they are more stringent on the hitters and a little more forgiving on the pitchers.

I would hope they would, although they didn't for the players in the 1930s. That's how Earle Combs and Lloyd Waner came about their plaques.

I think we ought to be careful in making too many adjustments for "this era" for several reasons:

(A) We don't really pinpoint well where "this era" started. People want to penalize Canseco and McGriff, but they were hitting HRs BEFORE the offensive surge.

(B) It is not clear that Home Runs have increased solely due to the improvements of conditions for the hitter. Yes, we now have Coors Field and Minute Maid Playground and new ballparks are somewhat more conducive to batters (although Comerica Park appears to be the most extreme pitchers park since the Astrodome). Advances in conditioning have occurred, and these advances, IMO, are advances that hitters are able to take disproportionate advantage of. If the 10th best hitter in the league is as talented as the #1 hitter of 1950, how should future HOF voters take that into account?

(C) Sabermetrics have made it possible to compare different types of offensive players to examine where they rank in terms of their contemporaries.