Hof

[Chris-Counts]

As long as Bud Selig is in, and Minnie Minoso is out, it's hard for me to take the Hall of Fame seriously, although I'm generally happy when any player gets in. The roster of inductees is simply too flawed after too many years of monkey business, and it isn't an accurate measure of who the greatest players ever were. As far as I'm concerned, the hall of fame has a serious credibility issue. So many of the voters have little clue about the game's history or comparative statistical analysis, which are necessary to accurately evaluate players. The numbers don't lie, but they require a long, hard look. It boggles my mind that so many collectors base their opinions about players on whether or not they a have a plaque in Cooperstown.

[Leon]

+1 all the way arouind

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

As long as Bud Selig is in, and Minnie Minoso is out, it's hard for me to take the Hall of Fame seriously, although I'm generally happy when any player gets in. The roster of inductees is simply too flawed after too many years of monkey business, and it isn't an accurate measure of who the greatest players ever were. As far as I'm concerned, the hall of fame has a serious credibility issue. So many of the voters have little clue about the game's history or comparative statistical analysis, which are necessary to accurately evaluate players. The numbers don't lie, but they require a long, hard look. It boggles my mind that so many collectors base their opinions about players on whether or not they a have a plaque in Cooperstown.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

As long as Bud Selig is in, and Minnie Minoso is out, it's hard for me to take the Hall of Fame seriously, although I'm generally happy when any player gets in. The roster of inductees is simply too flawed after too many years of monkey business, and it isn't an accurate measure of who the greatest players ever were. As far as I'm concerned, the hall of fame has a serious credibility issue. So many of the voters have little clue about the game's history or comparative statistical analysis, which are necessary to accurately evaluate players. The numbers don't lie, but they require a long, hard look. It boggles my mind that so many collectors base their opinions about players on whether or not they a have a plaque in Cooperstown.

Hard to imagine we can’t come up with some sort of advanced algorithm where we set a minimum bar, plug all a player’s stats in, and out pops a yay or nay. At this point you’d have to make the bar equal to the worst player in, but that’s ok. Special consideration would be given to non-stat facts (PEDs, rings, etc).

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by conor912

Hard to imagine we can’t come up with some sort of advanced algorithm where we set a minimum bar, plug all a player’s stats in, and out pops a yay or nay. At this point you’d have to make the bar equal to the worst player in, but that’s ok. Special consideration would be given to non-stat facts (PEDs, rings, etc).

It's not the Hall of Stats. Jeter had so much Fame that he absolutely should be in the HOF. I'm not sure Walker was nearly as famous. Not saying he doesn't deserve it, just that his fame doesn't stack up to Jeter's at all.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

It's not the Hall of Stats. Jeter had so much Fame that he absolutely should be in the HOF. I'm not sure Walker was nearly as famous. Not saying he doesn't deserve it, just that his fame doesn't stack up to Jeter's at all.

Ok, if it's about fame then then go outside right now and ask 10 random people which name sounds more familiar, Jose Canseco or Harold Baines.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by conor912

Ok, if it's about fame then then go outside right now and ask 10 random people which name sounds more familiar, Jose Canseco or Harold Baines.

I never said they haven't made mistakes or that everyone that is in the Hall is more famous than anyone who isn't in, just that stats aren't all it's about. Ask 10 people if they've heard of Harold Baines or Mike Kelly.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

I never said they haven't made mistakes or that everyone that is in the Hall is more famous than anyone who isn't in, just that stats aren't all it's about. Ask 10 people if they've heard of Harold Baines or Mike Kelly.

I'm not saying fame wouldn't be a special consideration, but a standard statistical baseline as a starting point would at least weed out a bunch of borderline guys. It could instantly whittle the ballot from 30 to a half dozen and would allow all the time and energy go into the argument above and beyond the statistically deserving.....just seems like an easy fix, is all.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by conor912

I'm not saying fame wouldn't be a special consideration, but a standard statistical baseline as a starting point would at least weed out a bunch of borderline guys. It could instantly whittle the ballot from 30 to a half dozen and would allow all the time and energy go into the argument above and beyond the statistically deserving.....just seems like an easy fix, is all.

I hear ya Conor. It just sounded like you were saying all stats, then spit out a yay or nay for inclusion. And I think it's more about fame than stats. Or at least should be. IMO.