Cooperstown needs to terminate relationship with the writers

[commishbob]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Yawn, interesting as it’s mostly former baseball people that put the borderline guys in you seem to have a problem with.

I’m usually pretty suspicious of any “let’s kill the media” sentiments. It’s generally just an excuse to democratize idiocy, misinformation, conspiracy theory and intimidation.

Falls in line with us marginalizing experts who get things right 9 times out of 10, in favor of loudmouth pundits who guess right 1 out of 10, and are treated as prophets by some.

Agree 100% Harold Baines (I hate picking on him but he's usually the punching bag for small Hall advocates) was voted in by a group that had mostly ex-players and execs...

The 16-person Today's Game Committee consisted of Hall of Famers Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Pat Gillick, Tony La Russa, Greg Maddux, Joe Morgan, John Schuerholz, Ozzie Smith, and Joe Torre; major league executives Al Avila, Paul Beeston, Andy MacPhail, and Jerry Reinsdorf; and media members/baseball historians Steve Hirdt, Tim Kurkjian, and Claire Smith.

[G1911]

I agree that Ortiz being ignored and all the others punished is absurd, but I fail to see how Brett’s excessive pine tar in a series is even close to similar.

The general public is the stupidest group of people that exists. I can’t fathom how they would vote better. I can’t fathom why we would think they would hold fair standards and enforce them the same on everyone regardless of popularity and narrative.

Almost all of the mistakes are from the Vets committee.

[D. Bergin]

If the public got to vote, Kevin Costner would be in the baseball HOF within two years.

Tik Tok groups would band together to stuff the ballot boxes to elect Rusty Kuntz and Pete LaCock by the end of the decade.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

If the public got to vote, Kevin Costner would be in the baseball HOF within two years.

Tik Tok groups would band together to stuff the ballot boxes to elect Rusty Kuntz and Pete LaCock by the end of the decade.

4 Chan will get a humorously named player who never even existed elected on the next ballot

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by G1911

4 Chan will get a humorously named player who never even existed elected on the next ballot

Forgotten Federal League superstar Homerun Ballbraker

[D. Bergin]

I kid, but I'd actually be ok with Kevin Costner getting into the HOF, in a media/writer/observer type of wing.

Sylvester Stallone is in the Boxing HOF, and Costner is basically the baseball equivalent of him.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by commishbob

Agree 100% Harold Baines (I hate picking on him but he's usually the punching bag for small Hall advocates) was voted in by a group that had mostly ex-players and execs...

This here. The one person most responsible for electing Hall of Good players to the HOF was Frankie Frisch. The BBWAA is fine at doing their job. Except for 2001-07, the Veteran's Committees have been pretty bad.

[Mike D.]

The Hall of Fame standard, based on WAR (yeah, yeah, I know..."what is it good for") has actually going UP over time. The Hall of Fame did get watered down...almost immediately after opening. The last several decades have actually been pushing the standard up, not down.

Of course, a lot of the reason the standard got watered down was, as someone else, not the writers, but the various iterations of the vets committee.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

The Hall of Fame standard, based on WAR (yeah, yeah, I know..."what is it good for") has actually going UP over time. The Hall of Fame did get watered down...almost immediately after opening. The last several decades have actually been pushing the standard up, not down.

Of course, a lot of the reason the standard got watered down was, as someone else, not the writers, but the various iterations of the vets committee.

I keep hearing this "watered down" comment a lot in regard to the baseball HOF. Just to let everyone know though, since the beginning of major league baseball was first recognized back in the 1870's, through today, there have been a total of 22,534 players recognized as having played in the majors since 1876. Or 22,860 players if you choose to recognize the National Association that began play in 1871 as also being a major league. At least those are the numbers according to Baseball Reference, which I believe is a somewhat respected site for baseball info. Also, these totals apparently do include anyone that played just in the Negro Leagues now recognized as major leagues as well. And according to the Cooperstown Baseball HOF site, there are now a total of 340 electees to the HOF, of which only 268 were actually former major league players.

268/22,534 = 1.189314%

So roughly speaking, only a little over 1% of all the major league ball players of all time have made it into the HOF. If you wanted to keep that percentage to no more that 1.0% ever, that would mean cutting 42 current HOF electees from the list.

Or to look at it another way.

2022 - 1876 = 146 years

268 HOF players / 146 years = 1.8356 HOF players elected on average per year that MLB has existed since 1876.

If instead you felt there should be no more than say 1-1/2 HOF level players for each year we've had MLB in existence, that would mean there should only be 219 (146 X 1.5) current MLB players in the HOF, and we should be cutting 49 current HOF electees from the list.

So, for those who think/believe the HOF has been watered down, what percentage of MLB players overall, or number of MLB players per year, should be included in baseball's HOF so it isn't watered down? Just the top 1.0%, or maybe the top 0.5%? Or maybe the number of HOFers should be limited to no more than 1.5, or even just 1, per year that MLB has been around?

[BobC]

There are likely to be a lot of people that would argue that based on those above numbers/percentages, the HOF isn't watered down at all.

[Mike D.]

I was just looking at a list of players elected to the HOF since 2000, and I'm wondering which of them people think lower the Hall of Fame standard. I see a handful one could probably argue lower the standard, or are at least below-average Hall of Famers for their position, but it's a pretty short list.

[Steve D]

To me, one of the biggest problems with the voting process, is that people like Pedro Gomez get to vote, and Vin Scully, Jack Buck and Ernie Harwell didn't!

Steve

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I was just looking at a list of players elected to the HOF since 2000, and I'm wondering which of them people think lower the Hall of Fame standard. I see a handful one could probably argue lower the standard, or are at least below-average Hall of Famers for their position, but it's a pretty short list.

It really varies by what we mean precisely with imprecise words. I would consider "lowering the standard" to be guys who are near the bottom of their positions AND shouldn't be in, not necessarily the absolute worst at their position. A player who is below the average is not a bad selection; half the hall will be below average. I think the key is one of the worst at their position in and does not pass a deeper test is a good general standard. There are more I would not have voted for, but I don't see as being poor choices, just difference preferences others have to weigh certain things more than I weigh them. A 20 second glance at each year gave me this list:

Jack Morris
Harold Baines
Bill Mazeroski
Dennis Eckersley
Bruce Sutter
Effa Manley
Alex Pompez
Dick Williams
Billy Southworth
Joe Gordon
Jim Rice
Whitey Herzog
Bud Selig
Alan Trammell
Lee Smith
Buck O'Neil (Yes I like him too, before someone flips out. Being likable and telling good stories is not a qualification).

David Ortiz is a separate category, my objection is to the utter and absolute hypocrisy.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

It really varies by what we mean precisely with imprecise words. I would consider "lowering the standard" to be guys who are near the bottom of their positions AND shouldn't be in, not necessarily the absolute worst at their position. A player who is below the average is not a bad selection; half the hall will be below average. I think the key is one of the worst at their position in and does not pass a deeper test is a good general standard. There are more I would not have voted for, but I don't see as being poor choices, just difference preferences others have to weigh certain things more than I weigh them. A 20 second glance at each year gave me this list:

Jack Morris
Harold Baines
Bill Mazeroski
Dennis Eckersley
Bruce Sutter
Effa Manley
Alex Pompez
Dick Williams
Billy Southworth
Joe Gordon
Jim Rice
Whitey Herzog
Bud Selig
Alan Trammell
Lee Smith
Buck O'Neil (Yes I like him too, before someone flips out. Being likable and telling good stories is not a qualification).

David Ortiz is a separate category, my objection is to the utter and absolute hypocrisy.

I generally like your list though I'm a little more accepting of Trammell and Eck and MAYBE Smith. They're borderline, but to me possibly on the right side of the border. Of course that brings me to my eternal argument, if Alan Trammell is voted in by the writers how the hell does Lou Whitaker fall off the ballot in his second year of eligibility???

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by G1911

Jack Morris
Harold Baines
Bill Mazeroski
Dennis Eckersley
Bruce Sutter
Effa Manley
Alex Pompez
Dick Williams
Billy Southworth
Joe Gordon
Jim Rice
Whitey Herzog
Bud Selig
Alan Trammell
Lee Smith
Buck O'Neil (Yes I like him too, before someone flips out. Being likable and telling good stories is not a qualification).

Off the top of my head, three of these guys (Eck, Sutter and Rice) were elected by the writers.

So, if the HOF standard is being lowered, it's not the writers who are doing it.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by G1911

It really varies by what we mean precisely with imprecise words. I would consider "lowering the standard" to be guys who are near the bottom of their positions AND shouldn't be in, not necessarily the absolute worst at their position. A player who is below the average is not a bad selection; half the hall will be below average. I think the key is one of the worst at their position in and does not pass a deeper test is a good general standard. There are more I would not have voted for, but I don't see as being poor choices, just difference preferences others have to weigh certain things more than I weigh them.

I would think that by definition, anything that "lowers the standard" is below the average. That being said, I agree with you that doesn't mean that a player below the average shouldn't get elected, just that their election would technically "lower the standard".

Of course, I'm a big advocate for looking at median, not average, when looking at HOF rankings, especially by WAR. Look at WAR by CFers...the "average WAR" of the 19 Hall of Fame CF is 71.6. BUT, there are only seven CF above that, 6 of who are in the HOF (Trout is the other). The median is probably closer to 60, so players above that would be those we should at least consider. There are 16 CF with over 60 WAR, 10 of who are in the HOF.

The average is high because of crazy scores for Mays, Cobb, Speaker and Mantle. Also, I use BBR WAR. If you prefer Fangraphs, more power to you.