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

[SteveMitchell]

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.

[quinnsryche]

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.

[HOF Yankees]

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.

[slidekellyslide]

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.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

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.

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.

[Fred]

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.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

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.

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

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

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.

He's one mvp short.


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

[GaryPassamonte]

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.

[triwak]

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.

[GaryPassamonte]

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.

[novakjr]

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..

[johnmh71]

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.

[GaryPassamonte]

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.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

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.

+1

[triwak]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

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.

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?

[vintagechris]

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.

[SteveMitchell]

+1

Originally Posted by triwak

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.

[bcbgcbrcb]

How about Jim Creighton?

[RedlegsFan]

I agree with bigyank

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2