MLB HOF - Too Big or Too Small?

[sycks22]

The moment Baines / Raines got in it became a joke.

[Casey2296]

When I go to the Hall I get excited about the Ty Cobb, Cy Young, Walter Johnson, Willie Mays displays. Not so much with a poorly designed 1986 Harold Baines White Sox jersey...

[Peter_Spaeth]

I used to think much too big but I'm used to it now so I would say about right. Agree Baines was a really bad choice though.

[darwinbulldog]

I figure 1-2 players per year since the start of NL is the right size, so I guess that makes me a Big Hall guy. However, there are probably 20 guys in there that I never would have voted for, so I have more of an objection to which players are in than to how many there are.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by sycks22

The moment Baines / Raines got in it became a joke.

Actually, there have been many before that brought it to that: Lindstrom, Haines, Marquard, Ferrell, Mazeroski and Tinker to Evers to Chance just to name a few.


.

[sreader3]

Both overinclusive and underinclusive.

So I’ll take door number three.

[Mungo Hungo]

I would go with choice 3, Too Random.

Think about how different the HOF would be if we started over, and used actual reasoned analysis instead of politics and myth.

This is an institution that elected Tinker-Evers-Chance simultaneously because they were in a famous poem, Mazeroski based mainly on a single home run and Bruce Sutter despite a fWAR of 19.2.

Lou Whitaker has a higher fWAR than fellow Tigers Jack Morris and Alan Trammell, and more than double the fWAR than fellow 2B Mazeroski. Yet he's not in. I just don't see any rationality in Mazeroski being in and Whitaker out.

So I've given up. I just don't care, because it's simply too random to be valid, IMO.

[abothebear]

Suppose...

there was an algorithm that could measure the greatness of players, factoring in the longevity of their careers, the differences between the parks they played in, the competition they faced, and the influence their own teams and managers had upon them.

the governing bodies agree to use the algorithm and determined a threshold for hall entrance.

would people care about the Hall of Fame?

I don't think they would.

The point I am trying to make is that while the Hall of Fame has some egregious inclusions, the subjectivity and human element to the election process is why we tune in each time new votes come in. It is partly why players play out their careers the way they do. And it is largely why people talk about the hall of fame at all. If people couldn't debate who should be in or debate who belongs in what imagined tier of greatness, what talk of the Hall would there be?

I think it is neither too big nor too small. And yes, Lou Whitaker should definitely be in there. And Bruce Sutter is a head-scratcher.

[obcbobd]

About the right size. And yes, some aren't deserving and some that are deserving are left out.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by abothebear

Suppose...

there was an algorithm that could measure the greatness of players, factoring in the longevity of their careers, the differences between the parks they played in, the competition they faced, and the influence their own teams and managers had upon them.

the governing bodies agree to use the algorithm and determined a threshold for hall entrance.

would people care about the Hall of Fame?

I don't think they would.

The point I am trying to make is that while the Hall of Fame has some egregious inclusions, the subjectivity and human element to the election process is why we tune in each time new votes come in. It is partly why players play out their careers the way they do. And it is largely why people talk about the hall of fame at all. If people couldn't debate who should be in or debate who belongs in what imagined tier of greatness, what talk of the Hall would there be?

I think it is neither too big nor too small. And yes, Lou Whitaker should definitely be in there. And Bruce Sutter is a head-scratcher.

I don’t disagree - but I think people sometimes discount how close the “numbers geeks” and the “old school” are in alignment. Sure, there are cases that differ, but look at a voted list of the top 100 or 200 players in history against a list of the top 100 or 200 by WAR…and I bet it’s 80% to 90% the same.

[JollyElm]

When I was a kid, a Hall of Famer meant a 'perfect' player, basically someone who could do no wrong on the field. Granted, it's a naive way of thinking, but I still look at it along those same lines. The biggest WTF moments are when players whose entire careers I've witnessed are 'suddenly' HOF'ers. Most have already been mentioned in the thread, so I won't cast further aspersions, but it is a huge disappointment when players who were never for a moment considered HOF-worthy when they actually played are voted in!!!

Too big!!!!!!!

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I don’t disagree - but I think people sometimes discount how close the “numbers geeks” and the “old school” are in alignment. Sure, there are cases that differ, but look at a voted list of the top 100 or 200 players in history against a list of the top 100 or 200 by WAR…and I bet it’s 80% to 90% the same.

That in itself is a good empirical question. I just took the top 100 players as listed by popular fan vote over at ranker.com and compared them to my sabermetric rankings as a comparison of "old school" vs "numbers geek" rankings.

The lists begin the same (Ruth is #1) and disagree about everyone else from #2-#100. Their #2 (Gehrig) is my #15. Some other notable discrepancies:

Ernie Banks is their #18 and misses my top 100.
Yogi Berra is their #22 (#1 catcher) and misses my top 100 (#8 catcher [or #7 if you exclude Josh Gibson, but you shouldn't; anyway, Gibson did make both lists]).
Barry Bonds is my #4 and misses their top 100 (#105).
Roger Clemens is my #5 and misses their top 100 (#124).
Kid Nichols is my #10 and misses their entire published list (which goes through #150).
Eddie Collins is my #17 and their #74.
A-Rod is my #21 and misses their entire published list.
Mike Schmidt is my #24 and their #93.


Only 55 players made both lists. One could calculate a Spearman rank order correlation if so inclined, but it's clearly not going to be nearly as high as I would have expected. I assumed the Yankees would be systematically overrated by the voting, and that is correct, but since I figured only baseball fans would bother voting on the rankings I wasn't prepared to see Barry Bonds at #105 (right between John Smoltz and Robin Yount) or Kid Nichols outside of the top 150.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Mungo Hungo

I would go with choice 3, Too Random.

Think about how different the HOF would be if we started over, and used actual reasoned analysis instead of politics and myth.

This is an institution that elected Tinker-Evers-Chance simultaneously because they were in a famous poem, Mazeroski based mainly on a single home run and Bruce Sutter despite a fWAR of 19.2.

Lou Whitaker has a higher fWAR than fellow Tigers Jack Morris and Alan Trammell, and more than double the fWAR than fellow 2B Mazeroski. Yet he's not in. I just don't see any rationality in Mazeroski being in and Whitaker out.

So I've given up. I just don't care, because it's simply too random to be valid, IMO.

Mazeroski is the greatest defensive 2nd baseman of all time. In my opinion, he is far more deserving than Lou Whitaker. I would take a guy who is the best in one area over a guy who is above average in all areas. It wouldn't be a Hall of Fame without Brooks Robinson, Ozzie Smith and Bill Mazeroski.

Fangraphs is a joke. They still think pitchers have no control over balls hit in play despite all of the evidence that disproves their hypothesis. That is probably why they don't value defense.

And I voted too big. There are too many above average players while some deserving players are on the outside looking in.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by sycks22

The moment Baines / Raines got in it became a joke.

I'm with you on Baines, but Raines was criminally underrated due to the misfortune of laying at the same time as Rickey Henderson. Raines belongs.

[timn1]

Raines is a no-brainer, man!

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I'm with you on Baines, but Raines was criminally underrated due to the misfortune of laying at the same time as Rickey Henderson. Raines belongs.

[glchen]

I voted too big. However, saying that, I think the MLB HOF is much, much better than the NBA or NFL Hall of Fames. The main problems that I have with the MLB HOF are that it tends to value longevity too much, and is also sometimes too dependent on the player position. For example, if a player just plugs away, plugs away, and somehow manages to get to 3000 hits, that's an automatic ticket to the HOF even if he were never really great or just great for 1-2 seasons. For the position player argument, I see justifications that this player deserves to be in the HOF because he's was the 8th best 2nd baseman or 9th best hitting catcher. I think it's well known that the toughest fielding position is SS (or maybe 3rd base), and if you're not quite as good, then you get moved to 2nd base. If you really can't field very well, you get moved to 1st base or LF. Some players try to be catchers if they have a hard time making it at other positions. Therefore, I don't think it's right that if you're the 8th best 2nd baseman, you can make it to the HOF, where say the 20th best SS can't make it, but if that SS had moved to 2nd base, then he would be much more likely to be in the HOF. The example I'll use here is Mike Piazza. He was never that great of a fielding/throwing catcher, but his batting stats as a catcher put him in the HOF. However, if he were exclusively a 1st baseman, I doubt that he'd make it.

[perezfan]

I voted “a little too big”. I would’ve said “just right” 6-7 years ago, but feel the last few years have been way too lenient. I always thought of Rice, Dawson, Hoffman, Baines, Blyleven, Morris, Sutter and Lee Smith as very good players. Never watched any of them (during their playing days) thinking they were surefire HOFers.

I really wish there were fewer “Closers”. I wonder if the day will come that top-tier pinch hitters, pinch runners and other single-inning players will get in.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by glchen

I voted too big. However, saying that, I think the MLB HOF is much, much better than the NBA or NFL Hall of Fames.

The NBA doesn't have a Hall of Fame. The recognized Naismith HOF covers more than just the NBA.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by glchen

I The example I'll use here is Mike Piazza. He was never that great of a fielding/throwing catcher, but his batting stats as a catcher put him in the HOF. However, if he were exclusively a 1st baseman, I doubt that he'd make it.

If he was exclusively a 1B, his already great numbers (400 homers, 143 OPS+) almost certainly would have been even better without all that wear & tear. Even without that, he'd be an obvious HOFer.

[egri]

I think the HOF is the right size. There are a plenty of marginal players, some in some out, who can be argued convincingly either way, and a few real head-scratchers who can’t be removed, so discussions about their Hallworthyness are academic.

[Mike D.]

I think the hall of fame is too big. Last time I was there my feet hurt after walking around the entire place.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by sycks22

The moment Baines / Raines got in it became a joke.

Baines was a complete joke, I agree.

[Hankphenom]

It would seem there are a bunch of New York players who got in due to the sheer number of Big Apple newspapers back in the day, with their baseball writers having votes on the HOF.