Cooperstown needs to terminate relationship with the writers

[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 Aquarian Sports Cards

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???

I'm really interested to see if this is the vets vote where Whitaker gets on the ballot and gets in. This is going to be a really interesting vets vote...lots of way the nominating committee could go.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

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???

While I don’t support either of their candidacies, (both fine players for a long time but with little to no statistical highlights, a little above league average bats and excellent defense just isn’t quite enough I think), I have no idea why Trammell is in and Whitaker is not. They really seem like a package pair, and I’d bet Whitaker gets in eventually via the era committees. Whitaker had the slightly better bat compared to the league and Trammell gets the slight boost of being a SS as opposed to a 2B.

On a side note, I wonder if there has ever been a better team than those Tigers that did not have a hall worthy player. Morris and Trammel have made it but I don’t think either is a good selection. They put together an excellent team with a ton of excellent and many underrated players, but no real Hall talent or superstar.

The one on here I was hesitant to put is Lee Smith. He was not dominating and I do not think he is a hall worthy player, but he did hold a significant career record for a long time, and so I can see him being included by the ‘Lou Brock standard’.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by G1911

While I don’t support either of their candidacies, (both fine players for a long time but with little to no statistical highlights, a little above league average bats and excellent defense just isn’t quite enough I think), I have no idea why Trammell is in and Whitaker is not. They really seem like a package pair, and I’d bet Whitaker gets in eventually via the era committees. Whitaker had the slightly better bat compared to the league and Trammell gets the slight boost of being a SS as opposed to a 2B.

On a side note, I wonder if there has ever been a better team than those Tigers that did not have a hall worthy player. Morris and Trammel have made it but I don’t think either is a good selection. They put together an excellent team with a ton of excellent and many underrated players, but no real Hall talent or superstar.

The one on here I was hesitant to put is Lee Smith. He was not dominating and I do not think he is a hall worthy player, but he did hold a significant career record for a long time, and so I can see him being included by the ‘Lou Brock standard’.

I'd be fine with as a friend called him Lee "lets make it interesting" Smith not being in the hall. So many times he'd enter with a lead and make it a much closer game.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

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???

Trammell was voted in by one of the recent iterations of the Veterans Committee, specifically the Modern Baseball Era Committee, in 2018. The closest he got with the writers voting was 40.9% in 2016 which was his last year on the ballot.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Trammell was voted in by one of the recent iterations of the Veterans Committee, specifically the Modern Baseball Era Committee, in 2018. The closest he got with the writers voting was 40.9% in 2016 which was his last year on the ballot.

Sorry I thought he was elected his last year, but still how does he stay on the ballot for 15 years and Whitaker falls off in 2.

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

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.

And of those three, 2 of them are on the better end of the bad choice spectrum. Sutter I simply don’t understand how he got in at all.

The vets committee is responsible for most of the terrible choices and most of the corruption.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by G1911

And of those three, 2 of them are on the better end of the bad choice spectrum. Sutter I simply don’t understand how he got in at all.

The vets committee is responsible for most of the terrible choices and most of the corruption.

Agree on the veterans committee. I wish I could say "the old vets committee", but the whole Baines thing proves that it's still happening.

My take on Sutter is that he wasn't an awful pick when he was elected. He had 300 saves when not many did, led his league in saves a number of times, won a Cy Young, etc. Of course, now those 30th saves rank 30th all time, and we have better ways of measuring relief pitchers that make him look far more borderline. Sutter was kind of the "in between" era between the classic mutli-inning fireman and the "modern closer".

That being said, if Sutter was the worst player in the Hall of Fame, we'd be in a pretty good place. He's not the worst player in the Hall of Fame.

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

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.

I think we need a tighter definition for lowering the standard, otherwise it’s simply inevitable. After the first year, the standard will lower, as the Hall expands. I think the more reasonable thing is to have it expand to the best players not in, instead of what looks from afar like committees throwing darts randomly and looks up close like them electing their friends.

A player 5% below the median is a deserving hall of gamer and not a poor choice. It may lower the statistical median slightly, but it doesn’t lower the standard for election, as those players almost always make it and always have.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think we need a tighter definition for lowering the standard, otherwise it’s simply inevitable. After the first year, the standard will lower, as the Hall expands. I think the more reasonable thing is to have it expand to the best players not in, instead of what looks from afar like committees throwing darts randomly and looks up close like them electing their friends.

A player 5% below the median is a deserving hall of gamer and not a poor choice. It may lower the statistical median slightly, but it doesn’t lower the standard for election, as those players almost always make it and always have.

Of course, even saying "the HOF standard" assumes we can find an objective standard to all agree on, which feels like a fools errand.

But I don't disagree with any of this...being below the average or median isn't a disqualifier. I think of it more as if you're ABOVE the median or the average, there should be little argument for induction. That's not always the case.

What I don't like is the "if/then" argument. "If this guy, then why not that guy who's 5% worse?". I mean, if we did that with Baines, the Hall of Fame would need to about triple in size.