MLB HOF - Too Big or Too Small?

[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 .

[Mountaineer1999]

Not sure how less than 1.5% of all players is too big. Also, everyone upset with Baines but there are so many others that could be swapped out instead.

HOF watered down to many same as my post in a different thread

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer1999

Not sure how less than 1.5% of all players is too big. Also, everyone upset with Baines but there are so many others that could be swapped out instead.

I think the fact that everyone names the same few players as "don't belong" is a sign that the vast majority of those in DO belong.

And the HOF standard is actually going UP...before Baines, when was the last "bad" selection? And when was the last bad selection from the writers?

People who think the hall "used to stand for greatness" weren't paying attention, the watering down didn't start when you were an adult, it didn't start when you were 8-12 years, old...it started in the late 30's and 40's (apologies to anyone over 83 reading this).

[bobbvc]

One a 40 man roster of HOFer's, and another of secondary Hofer's. To get in the 40 man, someone must be moved to the lower tier.

[drcy]

It's not an either/or. It's too big and there are few players who deserve to be in.

[Fred]

You know that concept of "every kid gets a trophy"? Maybe that all started with the BB HOF veteran's committee many years ago...

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

And the HOF standard is actually going UP...before Baines, when was the last "bad" selection?

The year before - Jack Morris. And Lee Smith went in the same year as Baines - another terrible selection.

Originally Posted by Mike D.

And when was the last bad selection from the writers?

The year before Baines - Trevor Hoffman.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Tabe

The year before - Jack Morris. And Lee Smith went in the same year as Baines - another terrible selection.


The year before Baines - Trevor Hoffman.

On Hoffman…if you’re going to put closers in the hall of fame, and like the DH, they’ve been a thing for almost 50 years, so they probably should…I wouldn’t say one of the two closers with 600 saves is a terrible choice. Are there a few others I’d put in, sure (Wagner has a good shot this year).

Hoffman suffers similar fate to Raines…if not for playing at the same time as Rivera and Henderson, respectfully, they’d be viewed quite differently.

I wasn’t a big fan of either the Morris or Smith choices - if you’re going to put in a 70’s-80’s Tiger, Whitaker is a better choice. That being said…these picks are “metrics darling” picks…actually quite the opposite. These selections are old school “thumbing the nose” at advanced statistics in favor of “once had the most saves” and “most wins of the 80’s, great game in the WS”.

[bbcard1]

I don't mind the size, I kind of wish there were a criteria. I think Japan's HOF has specific statistical threshold that if you reach, you're in. But that involves a lot of debate. One moderately bad selectin that never gets pointed out is Jim Rice. He was the least deserving of the great Boston OF of Rice, Dewey and Lynn.

[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.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

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

I was speaking more metaphorically. When reading very old books about the great players from earlier in the century - Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, etc. - I simply thought of them as baseball gods who did everything perfectly, the paragons of the game. Of course, when my dad told me not only did The Babe hit more homers than anyone else, but he also struck out the most times in history, it was a bit of an awakening. But those were old black and white photos in books, and I had no attachment to the players. As I grew up, that all changed as I actually saw/experienced the entire careers of players. When you're talking Tom Seaver, Reggie Jackson, Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench, Rickey Henderson, Nolan Ryan and Bob Gibson, for instance, they were always surefire Hall of Famers while they were still playing the game. Announcers would say "future Hall of Famer (enter player name here). Everyone (contrarians aside) knew it. No debate necessary. But Baines, Sutton, Blyleven, Raines, etc.? We all experienced a huge portion (or all) of their careers, and who among us ever thought of them as HOF'ers?? Decent players, stars, sure, but Hall of Famers?? No way.