Is Baseball's Hall of Fame Overpopulated? ...or
 

Fans and hobbyists who think the National Baseball Hall of Fame is bloated, watered down, etc., with less-than-HOF talent, might want to consider the following excerpt (taken from the HOF's website):

"[Newly elected Jacob] Ruppert became the 33rd executive [emphasis added] elected to the Hall of Fame and owned the Yankees from 1915-39. Ruppert. who received 15 of 16 votes (93.8 percent) from the Pre-Integration Era Committee, bought the Yankees in 1915 and quickly turned a second-division team into the game’s most prominent franchise..."

According to Baseball-Reference.com, 18,040 different men have played baseball at the Major League level. Even given that many were there for the proverbial cup of coffee it does seem that the population of Executives in the Hall of Fame might be excessive.

A different view, however, might be that a field of 18,000+ of the finest ballplayers of all-time ought to produce a Hall of Fame numbering 300-500 players - particularly when a few thousand Negro Leaguers who had no opportunity to play in the majors are also added to the pool.

Steve, that's a good point. But my personal feelings are the Hall of Fame should be for players and managers only. Executives and writers etc. hold no interest for me but if anyone else wants them in, that's fine too. I only pay attention to the players and I do think there are MANY players who don't belong.

A Hall of Famer should be someone who went above and beyond the game, not just a stat or playing performance but how great were they their whole career. I agree being a hall of fame collector there are too many and writers/executives should have their own hall of fame.

I am less stringent in what I believe a hall of famer to be. Roger Maris should be in IMO. Record breaker, 2 time MVP, and FAMOUS.

I totally agree that the number of executives inducted has become excessive. The Hall should be for the players first and foremost. Being a 19th century guy, I find it ludicrous that there are probably more executives in the HOF than 19th century players. Many 19th century players played fewer than 10 major league seasons because their careers started prior to 1871 and the beginning of professional baseball. These players are excluded from HOF consideration. Yet an executive is not held to this standard. That's just nuts.

I also agree that the HOF should be for players and managers only, including:

1. Major Leagues
2. Negro Leagues
3. Pre-Major Leagues

I would rather the executives and umpires have their own HONOREE wing, like the broadcasters and writers currently have. (Broadcasters and writers are not technically INDUCTEES, despite how their peers in the media refer to them). I believe it is still possible for a pre-major league player to get inducted as a "pioneer," e.g. George Wright and Candy Cummings. But I agree that many of those early players have been overlooked. BTW, I am one HOF collector who does NOT believe that the Hall is watered down by the currently inducted players.

I believe George Wright and Candy Cummings are the only players elected as pioneers and this happened in 1937 and 1939. Wright played more than 10 major league seasons and Cummings less. Cummings is the only 19th century player elected that played less than 10 major league seasons. The pioneer category has been lost for players since then, while many executives have been inducted under this category. I believe the HOF has forgotten the pioneer category altogether for players. No 10 years, no consideration.

As far as executives, I really think it should be solely for executives that helped change and shape the game as it's known today. Obviously, the game is still evolving, but eventually we will get to a point, where there won't be very many highly influential executives/pioneers, and will simply be owners and dude's doing their jobs.. 50-100 years from now, I believe that the ratio's will even themselves out and that a smaller percentage of the total inductees will be executives. But for now, while it may seem high, but we're at an early enough point in the game's history, where there is still a large percentage of executives who have had great influence on the game and are deserving of inclusion..

Honestly, within the last 30 years, how many executives do we really see as having had a significant impact on the game? Not many...Maybe Billy Beane and his moneyball? Maybe Theo? but mostly because he was the youngest GM ever and helped the Sox end the curse. Significant? yes. Impactful though, maybe? Yes, there are some very well known executives(like Steinbrenner), but true impact, game changing executives are becoming few and far between. And I expect that trend to continue..

Yes, and because Frankie Frisch pushed to have so many guys elected by the veteran's committee, there should actually be more than the number that is in there based on stats and the era they played in.

David- What about the pioneer players of baseball from the pre-professional era? There were probably more changes in the evolution of baseball in the 19th century than any time in the game's history, yet the true pioneer players are virtually unrepresented in the HOF. Why no outcry for their inclusion from the baseball community? It is the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, not the National Professional Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.

That's basically, what I was getting at. There should probably be more(even more than there currently is) at this point. While I expect there to be significantly less in the future.

The problem with many of the pre-professional pioneers is the lack of proper documentation to really know who was ultimately responsible for what. If evidence appears to really show some new people that had a significant impact on the game, I'm all for their inclusion.. I think Abner is a prime example of a reason to be skeptical of many pre-professional pioneers without definitive evidence. I find it hard to include someone based on speculation..

Idea - 2 "Hall's"
 

How about keeping the Hall of Fame - no easy entry - only major dominant for their era players - no on the fence players.

Then, another second but different Historical Baseball Museum. To honor the almost dominant yet still all-star caliber players...AND all the other historic figures. You could include Negro players, all the 1800's players who were top notch, managers, administrators, and the like.

Time for baseball to expand to honor its past. Helluva idea, yes?

I'd like to see more pioneers from the 1800's included.
I'm also ok with owners/executives getting in.

Both groups shaped the game, at different times, and in different ways, but the influence is there.

I'm surprised Ruppert wasn't already in. The team he built basically remade baseball in a lot of ways, and in some ways prepared it for broadcast on radio at a time when that became a huge influence in the country. And without that, pro sports itself in the US could be very different.

Steinbrenner I think should be in eventually, his use of free agency made its own changes in the game.

Billy Beane probably should be as well, there just isn't enough history yet to tell just how large of an impact he will have had. But a change away from paying a lot of money for free agents and building competetive teams on a small budget is just as big a change as Steinbrenner paying as much as he did for some players. Maybe in a few years when some information comes out about how the teams that were on the list to be contracted out of the league survived that impact can be measured a bit better. Would we even have the Nationals? Would Baseball have changed to a system like some international sports with a couple "major league" levels sort of like soccer?

The early pioneers shouldn't be held to the arbitrary 10 year limit. There's enough information out there that the influence someone had on the game in the mid 1800's should be something that can be researched, if it's not well known yet.

Steve B

How about Jim Creighton?

+1
 

+1

And when he goes in, let's also put the guy in who hit almost 200 more homers, stole 10 times more bases, had higher peak AND career average, slugging %, and OPS. Plus he had far more RBI, even accounting for his 5 more seasons. While he only had 1 MVP, he was a ROY, and I say he was even MORE FAMOUS: Jose Canseco.

Yes, there are two many players in the HOF. IMO, they should recognize the more of the early pioneers of the game. How can Ross Barnes not be in the HOF? He's one of many. If Bobby Mathews won 3 more games he'd be in the HOF. Soooo many really cool stories for the pioneers.

Definitely a few weak ones got in from the 20s and 30s. Frankie Frisch pushed a few of his buddies through.

Hof
 

+1

Gary, does the Hall of Fame credit the National Association years (1871-75) as Major League? Actually, does MLB now do that? It seems that is still kind of a gray area, depending on which baseball resource one is referencing. I seem to recall, that a MLB historical committee in 1968 decided NOT to include the NA as a major league. I wonder if that has changed?

I used to be one of those that thought too many people get in, but have lightened my stance in recent years. I for one, think it's a shame that a player who may have been the best fielder at his position, like a Keith Hernandez, isn't considered a Hall of Famer.

To me it just shows the emphasis put on hitting. For the record, I was never really a Keith Hernandez fan either. In fact I always pulled against the Cardinals and the Mets, but I think the guy is a HOF'er. I also think Ted Simmons is. Again, this is from a point of view of being less strict with the criteria for determining a HOFer.

I think Curt Flood deserves some major "pioneer" consideration..

Ken- As far as I know the NA is considered a Major league by the HOF.
David- Flood is not given enough attention.

I certainly prefer the Baseball Hall to some of the others like basketball (that one is a mish mosh of international players, pioneers, women, college and NBA players and executives which makes it much less interesting to collect).
My main problem with the Cooperstown standard is that it is too often a lifetime achievement award and rewards longevity more than dominance. So you get the Don Suttons and guys like Palmiero who would likely have gotten in but PEDs and ignore the Mattingly's who was considered one of the top players of the 80s (thankfully they made an exception for Koufax).
I am not sure I would put in the short lived greats like Murphy, Maris and Mattingly, but I don't like to see everyone who lasts long enough to amass high totals without really being a dominant player make it either.

All those players you mention got the award they deserve for being the best player for a short amount of time, the MVP award. Doc Gooden would be in the HOF if all it took was the potential for greatness.

Clydewally, you make an excellent point. The most elite HOFers had both dominance and longevity. Other HOFers were either dominant with shorter careers or simply played long enough to accumulate certain numbers. I'll take the dominant shorter career player over the career accumulator every time. Too much emphasis is placed on certain career milestones and not on domination while playing. The best measuring stick of a player's greatness is how he stacks up against his peers when he played. Rules change, bats change, ball change, etc. Numbers are deceiving.

I place more value on the players who were drug free over the roid-ragers.

Doc Gooden WAS great, not just potentially great. So was Mattingly. Unfortunately, their greatness came at the beginning of their careers. People have forgotten just how good they were because they weren't so great later on. Koufax, on the other hand, was great at the end of his career. Being great later is better. That's what people remember, and, insofar as Koufax (one of my favorite players btw) is concerned, that's what people voted on.

I love that executives can be inducted. Men (or women) who devote their life to the game and leave a lasting, positive impression deserve to be considered.

Lee Smith
 

Lee Smith needs to be in top 5 in saves c'mon, excersley and fingers have less and they are in

I do, too, but when the roid-rager posts numbers that completely blow away the drug-free guy, it's hard to say the drug-free guy is a HOFer (esp. when the roid-rager was probably not even top-10 of his era.)

If you take Maris' freak season away, he was, well, a very good player. That does not make for a HOFer (just as Don Newcombe.)

BUT, that's the fun of this debate. I would like to see some guys in who you would think crazy, too. (Buck O'Neil, Mickey Vernon, Minne Minoso, Cecil Travis at least deserve serious consideration, in my mind.)

Ken

Lee Smith is the poster child for the argument of longevity vs. dominance. (And I'm a fan of Smith's!)

To me, the biggest puzzle of how to reward longevity is Eddie Murray. Nobody ever said "Man, that Murray, what a freakin' stud!!" But year after year he was really good -- but never great. And 20 years later, he piled up numbers like almost nobody else. So does he compare to Gehrig or Foxx or even Sisler?

Ken

Ken In response to your question, I gave it some thought and here is my thoughts. I feel if a player is higher on a stat/career list, and higher over one or more already in hall of famers, he should be in cause its not fair to put players in over a player that for example as we were talking on the saves list Lee over Eckersley and Fingers, of course Lee was a good player and you can see cause of his saves, now Rivera and Hoffman are going to be hall of famers for sure but if you can put half of the 3,000 hit club, or 300 plus win pitchers in what's wrong with the 3rd best reliever in the history of baseball, so to me it seems un fair that most hall of famers get in by stats and not talent or by both. I feel in my opinion the current baseball hall of fame writers all should be fired and replaced, now I may get crtiscm on that but that's what I feel, and much was said about Hernandez and few other mentioned by members on here about players that should be in, and they are not.

He's one mvp short.


Gale Sayers played in only 68 football games, brett favre over 300, both in football HOF

I personally know Lee Smith, and he is a true Hall of Famer. The job the current baseball writers are doing is a joke. Talk about politics.

I don't think any one of those guys you list is crazy...like I said I think more guys should be in. How about Lefty O'Doul??? That guy gave his whole life to baseball and he's not in...he even hit .349 over 11 seasons in the majors and he's not in. Consider too that he played most of his career in the PCL which at the time was probably just as good as the major leagues. Dale Murphy should go in, he was certainly one of the best players of his era. Jack Morris should go in, certainly among the top pitchers of his era.

So nobody from the 70-s-80's - Coke
Nobody from the 60's maybe later 50's -Amphetamines

Not too sure what was popular and effective before then, but it's always something.

Steve B

I've heard that before, and I'd like to see him in as well. He had a lot of saves just before the era when the closers were used nearly every game and saves became very common. Along with a couple other guys he probably formed the profile for the modern closer.

I think the difference between him and Eckersley and Fingers (And Gossage and Rivera) Is they were nearly automatic an occasional bad outing, but usually no problems at all. Smith, at least while with the Red Sox was an adventure more often than not. Still got the job done, but it always made you nervous watching.

Steve B

I'm right there with you on Morris!! All the guy did was win. So what if he cruised with a big lead? If I had a big game to win in the 80's, I'm putting the ball in his hands.

(NOTE: I am not trying to argue here, just debating a little. I'd love to see Smith get in, but that's because my Smith items will be worth more.)
There are 2 common rebuttals to your post.
1) The slippery slope. Saying player A was better than player B, and player B is in the HOF, so player A needs to be in is going to water down the Hall really quick. Here are 2 reasons why: First off, there are some terrible mistakes already in the Hall, so matching George Kelly or Rick Ferrell will take years and they'll have to build another wing. Second: There are too many BB stats, and with so many players, you can play the comparison game forever. Catfish is in, and he's no different than Tiant, then Kaat, then John, then Pettite, then before you know it you're at Tim Hudson (don't laugh, he's won 100 more games than he's lost!) And that's just building off Catfish, not Marquard. Where does it end?

2) Your use of "3rd best reliever." What makes him 3rd best? Best is a very subjective term, and calling him "best" because he's 3rd on the list of saves is a fallacy. I'm sure most would agree that they'd rather have Eck or Rollie on the mound than Smith if it's game 7 of the WS. Ask yourself this: Is Pete Rose the best hitter of all time?? Most prolific, absolutely, but not even a marginal fan is going to say he's best.

Regards,
Ken, who's wondering why nobody even talks about Alan Trammell!?!

I would like to see the HOF set up like Olympic medals. Have a Gold wing, a Silver wing, and a Bronze wing. All HOF'ers are not equal!!!

A guy like Ruth or Cobb would be in the Gold wing. You want to put Sutton in, put him in the Bronze wing, and so on.

This would reward the super-greats who transcend even the average HOF'er, and would create great controversy, publicity, and talk about baseball as people would always be disagreeing on which wing certain players should be in.

I agree with bigyank

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2

Ah. Lefty O'doul. He's another that I think is being judged solely on his career. Based on length, I think that's why he's been passed-over. HOWEVER. He's another that I feel will eventually get some "pioneer" consideration. Due to his influence in the establishment of professional baseball in Japan. Especially with the number of Japanese players that have been coming over lately. Without O'doul, do we ever see Ichiro, Kuroda, Matsui, Darvish, Aoki, Dice-K, Nomo, Iwakuma or Tazawa? Quite possibly not.. Hell, he's even in the Japanese Hall of Fame..

The problem with the HOF induction rules are that candidates are not allowed to be considered based on their body of work. They are considered as either a player, manager, executive, or umpire.