MLB HOF - Too Big or Too Small?

[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!!!!!!!

[Klrdds]

Originally Posted by 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!!!!!!!

I agree totally it is too big and it may get bigger over the next few years and become more of the Hall of the Very Good when you look at the eligible players over the next few on the BBWAA ballot , as well as those who the Veterans Committee may vote in . Remember the Veterans Committee has given the Hall most of these “debatable “ inductees .

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

When I was a kid, a Hall of Famer meant a 'perfect' player, basically someone who could do no wrong on the field.

When was this? Seem like the HOF has been watered down for a long time.

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

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.

What is your sabrmetric ranking?

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

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.

Not sure what your sabermetric ranking looks like, but my first take is that that ranker list may be...not very good. Bonds at 105? Clemens 124?

I mean, if you look at the top 100 players all time by WAR (I used BBR variety), I count 16 who aren't in the hall of fame.

That list includes:

- Five active "likely inductees" (Pujols, Trout, Kershaw, Verlander, Grienke)
- Four steroid guys (Bonds, Clemens, Arod, Palmeiro)
- Two Players on the ballot currently or soon with a good shot at induction (Schilling & Beltre)
- Four players often cited as deserving (Grich, Whitaker, Dahlen, McCormick)
- Pete Rose (I *bet* you know why he's not in)

Of the 16, time should see 7-10 of them should get in, maybe more if the thinking changes on the steroid crew.

Of course, the HOF has something like 235 players, not 100, so you'd get a bigger gap as the list grows.

[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.