The Living Hall of Fame - Just Floating a Concept

[frankbmd]

What if induction into the Hall of Fame wasn’t a permanent honor?

What if there was only room on the wall for a certain number (100, 150, 200, ???) of plaques., the number being less than or equal to the current honorees.

Assume that the voting occurred annually as it does now, but .............
For each new member selected, one current member would have to be deselected or removed.

We tend to discuss constantly who should be in the Hall, as well as who shouldn’t be in the Hall, so why not have a system that addresses both issues.

So initial selection would represent a “temporary” induction if you will.

After a certain number of years a member could then qualify for “permanent” status if he is not deselected for say fifty years.

Once permanent they would be moved to a room of permanent enshrinement and a new space would be opened up on the wall for another temporary inductee.

Overall and with time the Hall of Fame would still grow, but after a generation or two players inducted who were marginal could be replaced before attaining permanent status.

How to start the new system presents some logistical problems, but they could solved. Perhaps a vote on current members with the bottom 100 vote getters being demoted to temporary status with the potential of being tempted by a new inductee, but also with the opportunity to advance to permanent status as well.

Nothing like this will ever happen. What do you think though? How would you change the Hall? Think outside the box. Should the worst player in the Hall be considered on the bubble, when a new stud comes along?

Have at it.

[Topnotchsy]

Interesting concept. I'm not one who has a problem with the size of the Hall, so for me I don't see the purpose.

A few thoughts:
- I think it would be pretty hurtful if a living player was deselected. I know the goal of the Hall is not to worry about people's feelings, but that seems pretty cool
- Removing people would reduce the meaning of being elected
- Any time people are deselected it basically removes the credibility of the electing body
- I feel like the benefits you are looking for could be done by creating an "inner-circle HOF". Using a similar mechanism it could be limited to 30 players (or whatever number). It would also give everyone a chance to reexamine the careers of the greatest players ever, and make for a lot of fun conversation.

I think I've talked myself into the inner circle idea.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

What if there was only room on the wall for a certain number (100, 150, 200, ???) plagues?

150, man that's a lot of Plagues. The Egyptians were only visited with, like, 7, right?

OK, now I'll actually read the post, just had to get that out of the way.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________

Interesting idea, but I think the idea of de-selecting makes the hall less of an honor which probably runs contrary to your goal.

My big hall idea has been posted here before, with all the debate about steroids and even the dumb debate about unanimous selections there a simple method which honors the current system while alleviating some of these issues. Every voter can score a candidate from 0 to 10. to be elected you have to receive 75% of the total points available. For instance if there are 200 voters you need 1500 points for enshrinement.

To me this is a great solution for the problems mentioned above.

Example 1: you are a voter who hates the steroid era, but really there's no denying that Bonds was a likely HOF'er before he ever touched the stuff, Give him 7 points. You're saying that you have reservations without torpedoing him completely and there will likely be enough 8's, 9's and 10's to get a deserving candidate over the hump.

Example 2: Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron weren't unanimous so by God nobody will be on your watch. Instead of being left in the indefensible position of leaving Greg Maddux off your ballot entirely (really?) maybe you say, "Hey he's an obvious HOF'er, and the greatest pitcher of his era, but he's no Cy Young or Walter Johnson." Score him a 9 and voila he's not a perfect score but you aren't left looking like a jackass for leaving him off your ballot merely to ensure he doesn't score a unanimous induction.

It adds a layer of bragging rights for high scores, but makes a perfect score practically impossible, and defensibly so, while still retaining the flavor of the 75% threshold. It also makes shifts in perception more logical and incremental than a binary Yes/No system. Never understand how a guy gradually gains votes for 15 (now 10) years. What did he have a good season? But with this scoring method, lets say you go back and revisit Bert Blyleven, and realize you didn't know how much better than the average schmoe he was until you started looking at the advanced stats. So you upgrade him from a 6 to a 7 or 8. even though that is in essence switching from a No, to a Maybe or a Yes, it's a smaller leap than just flipping the switch.

[KMayUSA6060]

You're either a Hall of Famer or you're not. Plain and simple. Once you're in, you're in for good. There's a reason why there are committees for different eras - the game has changed and evolved over the years. Walter Johnson only through about 80-90 mph, and would most likely get crushed in today's game.

[jason.1969]

This is the approach ESPN has taken. They have 100 slots and 25 honorable mentions. Pretty skewed toward juicers, but they really do update annually. Oh, and Campy's nowhere to be found!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

What if there was only room on the wall for a certain number (100, 150, 200, ???) plagues., the number being less than or equal to the current honorees.

It only took 10 to free the Hebrew slaves. Do we really need that many?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It only took 10 to free the Hebrew slaves. Do we really need that many?

I beat you to that joke

[frankbmd]

Whether due to spellcheck or merely a typo, I understand the difference between a plague and a plaque and have corrected the original post.

That post is by no means a formal proposal and can be easily critiqued and should be, but that is not the only intent of floating my concept.

My hope is that you present different ideas or concepts as well about how the Hall of Fame could be changed for the better. To that end I would invite you to “Float Your Own Concept” as I have done.

Our discussions about the Hall and who should be there and who shouldn’t are rightly made in the construct and framework of the Hall as it exists.

This thread is merely a fantasy about how that framework could possibly be changed and what the ramifications of that change would be.

[jason.1969]

If I were rebuilding from scratch, I would organize the plaques by era and have two levels of enshrinement.

Example: For dead ball era, the Immortals would include Cobb, Wagner, Mathewson, etc. Then the Stars of the Era would include Baker, Tinker, etc.

This would create a place for the Cooperstown fence-sitters (Garvey, Whitaker, Murphy as Stars of the 70s and 80s), a way to demote some bad HOF selections (Slaughter, Grimes, Selig) without throwing away the plaque, and I suppose even create a path for Rose, Clemens, Shoeless Joe, and other scandal-tainted players.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[buymycards]

So, why do we have a Hall Of Fame? The players are paid well, they are famous, and they are able to have a job that most of us can only dream about. Why do we need a HOF? What is the purpose of a HOF? I read the posts about who "deserves" to be in and about the players who are in that shouldn't be in, but I don't really care.

If the HOF suddenly went out of business, would 1% of Americans care?

Rick

[MVSNYC]

Interesting concept, but in the end, not a great idea.

Imagine you are the family of Pee Wee Reese, and you get the call (or email) that he's now OUT of the HOF. Pretty upsetting, deflating, and jarring.

I am all for a (very) tight door for HOF entry, should be the best of the best...but you cannot take out people that are already inducted.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

What if there was only room on the wall for a certain number (100, 150, 200, ???) plagues?

150, man that's a lot of Plagues. The Egyptians were only visited with, like, 7, right?

OK, now I'll actually read the post, just had to get that out of the way.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________

Interesting idea, but I think the idea of de-selecting makes the hall less of an honor which probably runs contrary to your goal.

My big hall idea has been posted here before, with all the debate about steroids and even the dumb debate about unanimous selections there a simple method which honors the current system while alleviating some of these issues. Every voter can score a candidate from 0 to 10. to be elected you have to receive 75% of the total points available. For instance if there are 200 voters you need 1500 points for enshrinement.

To me this is a great solution for the problems mentioned above.

Example 1: you are a voter who hates the steroid era, but really there's no denying that Bonds was a likely HOF'er before he ever touched the stuff, Give him 7 points. You're saying that you have reservations without torpedoing him completely and there will likely be enough 8's, 9's and 10's to get a deserving candidate over the hump.

Example 2: Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron weren't unanimous so by God nobody will be on your watch. Instead of being left in the indefensible position of leaving Greg Maddux off your ballot entirely (really?) maybe you say, "Hey he's an obvious HOF'er, and the greatest pitcher of his era, but he's no Cy Young or Walter Johnson." Score him a 9 and voila he's not a perfect score but you aren't left looking like a jackass for leaving him off your ballot merely to ensure he doesn't score a unanimous induction.

It adds a layer of bragging rights for high scores, but makes a perfect score practically impossible, and defensibly so, while still retaining the flavor of the 75% threshold. It also makes shifts in perception more logical and incremental than a binary Yes/No system. Never understand how a guy gradually gains votes for 15 (now 10) years. What did he have a good season? But with this scoring method, lets say you go back and revisit Bert Blyleven, and realize you didn't know how much better than the average schmoe he was until you started looking at the advanced stats. So you upgrade him from a 6 to a 7 or 8. even though that is in essence switching from a No, to a Maybe or a Yes, it's a smaller leap than just flipping the switch.

That leaves the decision power primarily in the hands of those who choose to cast 0s and 10s, and it wouldn't take long for the voters to realize that and for the yes/no system to be replaced, de facto, by a 0 and 10 (not 0 to 10) system.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Interesting concept, but in the end, not a great idea.

Imagine you are the family of Pee Wee Reese, and you get the call (or email) that he's now OUT of the HOF. Pretty upsetting, deflating, and jarring.

I am all for a (very) tight door for HOF entry, should be the best of the best...but you cannot take out people that are already inducted.

I fully understand that the concept of deselection is not popular, but........

if that possibility was understood before any voting took place, it could be presented in a palatable manner.

Being in the lower hall (outer circle) would still be an honor, but passing through to the hall of immortality (inner circle) would be yet a greater honor.

This is all fantasy and applying anything said here to current members of the hall and their families is a little off base, so to speak. I have nothing against Pee Wee and all his little Pee Wees.

However if Derek Jeter and his family knew before the vote for his induction to the hall, what the new rules were and that either deselection or immortality could be a consequence of his induction, I think it could fly.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

That leaves the decision power primarily in the hands of those who choose to cast 0s and 10s, and it wouldn't take long for the voters to realize that and for the yes/no system to be replaced, de facto, by a 0 and 10 (not 0 to 10) system.

Also why results should be public, so there's some accountability for stupid votes. Obviously it's easier to defend a binary vote "no" than it is scoring a borderline player a "1"

[rats60]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

You're either a Hall of Famer or you're not. Plain and simple. Once you're in, you're in for good. There's a reason why there are committees for different eras - the game has changed and evolved over the years. Walter Johnson only through about 80-90 mph, and would most likely get crushed in today's game.

Walter Johnson threw a lot harder than 90 mph. His fastball was clocked at 97 mph. The game has changed, but players really haven't evolved, training and equipment have evolved.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Also why results should be public, so there's some accountability for stupid votes. Obviously it's easier to defend a binary vote "no" than it is scoring a borderline player a "1"

I can't help but hold the conflicting views that the Hall is too bloated but I want Garvey and J.R. Richard in.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[MVSNYC]

Frank, not feelin' it. Sorry.

If someone is taken out, or deselected, as you say, it will ruin the idea of legacy and immortality. If a player is deselected, future generations will not know about them, thus the history and romance of the game will be lost.

[greco827]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

If I were rebuilding from scratch, I would organize the plaques by era and have two levels of enshrinement.

Example: For dead ball era, the Immortals would include Cobb, Wagner, Mathewson, etc. Then the Stars of the Era would include Baker, Tinker, etc.

This would create a place for the Cooperstown fence-sitters (Garvey, Whitaker, Murphy as Stars of the 70s and 80s), a way to demote some bad HOF selections (Slaughter, Grimes, Selig) without throwing away the plaque, and I suppose even create a path for Rose, Clemens, Shoeless Joe, and other scandal-tainted players.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I definitely think there should be tiers of enshrinement in the HOF. Tier 1 would be your legends or immortals as you put it, Tier 2 would be all other players, and Tier 3 would be contributors .... managers, front office, etc.

Ty Cobb and Ozzie Smith being equals is a joke. Writers should vote on enshrinement, and if inducted, a separate vote cast for tier (where applicable), which some set in stone criteria that would be required for eligibility to Tier 1. WAR, black ink, awards, etc.

As far as Pete Rose goes, the HOF has no obligation not to put him on a ballot. They choose not to. The HOF is not under the control of MLB. His ban from baseball actually has no direct implication on his HOF enshrinement.

[Mark70Z]

My idea would be that I, and I alone, would decide who should be and will be enshrined in the Hall. You guys can have it from there once I’m outa here (Disguarded my body if you’re a Sientologist). There would be a few less in the Hall right now if I did the pickin’ (not that they weren’t “very good”).

I’m not crazy about the first idea from the OP. As many have commented it wouldn’t be good to be booted once in (unless I was doing the reduction). I wouldn’t be altogether opposed to the Tier concept though. My problem is that we now have these advanced metrics that now tell us how good, or important, a player used to be. Like a human can’t tell who was a more valuable player on a specific team. Not that stats aren’t important, but they are not the be all end all when it comes to players. Love how some players keep getting better, or some worse, over the years. I even learned, from this very thread, that Walter Johnson “would most likely get crushed in today’s game”. Learn new stuff all the time...

[clydepepper]

Let's take it easy on Walter. After all, he just turned 130 this month.

[MVSNYC]

Jason, Re: Rose, you’re actually not correct.

One of the rules for election consideration on the Hall of Fame’s website is this:

“Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.”

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

You're either a Hall of Famer or you're not. Plain and simple. Once you're in, you're in for good. There's a reason why there are committees for different eras - the game has changed and evolved over the years. Walter Johnson only through about 80-90 mph, and would most likely get crushed in today's game.

WJ threw faster than that (though maybe not by much). But why would it mean he'd get crushed if your range is right? Greg Maddux didn't get crushed. Neither would "get crushed" in today's game. You make two unsubstantiated assumptions and they are both wrong.

[insidethewrapper]

Walter was timed at 122 feet/ second or 83mph on his fastest pitch according to one source. Another source sites his fastest at 134 feet /sec or 91 mph.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Jason, Re: Rose, you’re actually not correct.

One of the rules for election consideration on the Hall of Fame’s website is this:

“Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.”

Those two things are only tied together because of a rule set by the BBHOF. If they wanted, they could eliminate that rule and put Pete on the ballot. So the BBHOF is in control.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Walter was timed at 122 feet/ second or 83mph on his fastest pitch according to one source. Another source sites his fastest at 134 feet /sec or 91 mph.

I believe that the 91 was calculated at the point where the ball crossed the plate. Which is after they had already lost speed. And I doubt the accuracy of the 83. The 91 at end distance is tantamount to about 96 the way it is measured today.

Tom C

[greco827]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Jason, Re: Rose, you’re actually not correct.

One of the rules for election consideration on the Hall of Fame’s website is this:

“Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.”

This doesn't change the fact that the HOF makes their own rules. They are not controlled by MLB. Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe, etc., could all be made eligible by the Hall by removing this statute, regardless of whether or nt their ban from baseball is upheld. Conversely, MLB could reinstate Rose, and the Hall still decide not to put him on the ballot. They are a totally separate entity.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Dewey

WJ threw faster than that (though maybe not by much). But why would it mean he'd get crushed if your range is right? Greg Maddux didn't get crushed. Neither would "get crushed" in today's game. You make two unsubstantiated assumptions and they are both wrong.

It's debatable if he threw faster.

I said he'd probably get crushed, but that's not 100% definitive. I'm just assuming, in the early days of baseball, that the overall skill and technical ability of each individual player wasn't as good as today's players. Maddux probably had much better stuff than Johnson; Johnson was great for his era because the hitters probably weren't as good. Who knows.

Nobody can be wrong without definitive proof that they are.

[frankbmd]

Arguments like the speed and effectiveness of Johnson’s fast ball in the modern era are futile. Would the dead ball era have been so dead if Kingman, Deer, Dunn & Judge (trying to avoid the PED crew and that discussion) had been playing then? It’s all speculation.

Dunn, or any of them, might have changed the hitting game before Ruth did and put up big power numbers with far fewer strikeouts, and their T206 cards would be just as valuable as the Cobbs.

If all the current major leaguers had played 111 years earlier, the Hall of Fame we see today would be entirely different. Who knows what names would be on the plaques? Most assuredly any Net54 board member would not know.

My original concept included an inner circle of immortality for this reason, but also required an interval of time to pass before achieving the most elite status.

All of the dead ball superstars would be included in the inner circle. A few of those closer to the “cut” line might drop off the board due to the unpopular concept of deselection.

WaJo was clearly one of the elite pitchers of his era and I would leave it at that, regardless of the speed of his fastball. Period.

By the way, did Babe Ruth have the optimal launch angle?

[JasonD08]

Bad idea.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Arguments like the speed and effectiveness of Johnson’s fast ball in the modern era are futile. Would the dead ball era have been so dead if Kingman, Deer, Dunn & Judge (trying to avoid the PED crew and that discussion) had been playing then? It’s all speculation.

Dunn, or any of them, might have changed the hitting game before Ruth did and put up big power numbers with far fewer strikeouts, and their T206 cards would be just as valuable as the Cobbs.

If all the current major leaguers had played 111 years earlier, the Hall of Fame we see today would be entirely different. Who knows what names would be on the plaques? Most assuredly any Net54 board member would not know.

My original concept included an inner circle of immortality for this reason, but also required an interval of time to pass before achieving the most elite status.

All of the dead ball superstars would be included in the inner circle. A few of those closer to the “cut” line might drop off the board due to the unpopular concept of deselection.

WaJo was clearly one of the elite pitchers of his era and I would leave it at that, regardless of the speed of his fastball. Period.

By the way, did Babe Ruth have the optimal launch angle?

I think you just answered your own question, though. With the argument being futile, then it's impossible to remove players of different eras from the Hall of Fame based on modern day player performance.

[edjs]

Man, putting together a HOF RC set would be nuts, every year or so losing a guy that is already in your collection.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by edjs

Man, putting together a HOF RC set would be nuts, every year or so losing a guy that is already in your collection.

.... , but the immortal HOF RC collection would be a lot easier.