eras committee candidates baseball HOF

[akleinb611]

Now would be a very good time to re-read (or in the case of a few of us, read) Bill James' brilliant book, "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame" (originally published as "The Politics of Glory", a title I very much prefer).

James goes through the history of the HOF and provides an exhaustive and very reasonable review of the ever-changing standards of election. I consider myself far more knowledgeable about baseball history than most, and I learned a great many things from that book. It can be picked up from most used book sources for just a few dollars, and is money well spent.

Alan

[John1941]

Originally Posted by akleinb611

Now would be a very good time to re-read (or in the case of a few of us, read) Bill James' brilliant book, "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame" (originally published as "The Politics of Glory", a title I very much prefer).

James goes through the history of the HOF and provides an exhaustive and very reasonable review of the ever-changing standards of election. I consider myself far more knowledgeable about baseball history than most, and I learned a great many things from that book. It can be picked up from most used book sources for just a few dollars, and is money well spent.

Alan

I totally agree about the book's value and the superiority of the title "The Politics of Glory." I've always wondered why they changed it.

[jingram058]

Honestly, not to be negative here, but I couldn't care any less about the HoF. It means nothing to me personally. Other than the few complete sets I have, I collect the cards of the players I like. If they are or are not in the HoF doesn't even enter the equation. I have my own HoF.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by akleinb611

Now would be a very good time to re-read (or in the case of a few of us, read) Bill James' brilliant book, "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame" (originally published as "The Politics of Glory", a title I very much prefer).

James goes through the history of the HOF and provides an exhaustive and very reasonable review of the ever-changing standards of election. I consider myself far more knowledgeable about baseball history than most, and I learned a great many things from that book. It can be picked up from most used book sources for just a few dollars, and is money well spent.

Alan

The most recent (2003) version of his Statistical Abstract is great reading as well. It's long but you can just read individual biographies/assessments at random. It's interesting from today's perspective because the really sophisticated metrics weren't in use yet, it's sort of a bridge between traditional counting stats and those metrics.

[Misunderestimated]

If I were voting I would select Donaldson based on the limited stats and remarkable legends. Apart from him i'm not so sure.
I'm old enough that I remember the careers of most of these players (not the Negro League legends or Ken Boyer)

A friend of mine once asked whether it was the "Hall of Fame" or the "Hall of Stats"... obviously these things overlap but just saying whomever (whoever?) has the highest WAR should get in seems wrong. WAR is a very impressive combination of stats but I don't feel it should be dispositive of a player's value for the HOF.
Among other things, WAR doesn't account for post-season performance at all. Even as a lifelong Cub fan I think that's really important, especially if we're thinking of fame and even greatness.

Specifics:
Bobby Grich is one of the strongest "WAR candidates" (he's not on the ballot) but I don't feel like he's a HOFer. On the other hand Tiant, Allen, Parker, and definitely Garvey (whom I loathe) did seem like HOF caliber players during some or all of their careers.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

Among other things, WAR doesn't account for post-season performance at all. Even as a lifelong Cub fan I think that's really important, especially if we're thinking of fame and even greatness.

I point to M.Rivera's 141 innings of post-season greatness any time anyone thinks that it's b/s that a reliever is the only unanimous vote HOF'r. Sure, it's not supposed to factor in a huge way, but you can't ignore 141 innings of 0.70 ERA and 0.76 WHIP vs the best of that season.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Before all this WAR got bandied about, who can honestly say they heard anybody mention Bobby Grich in any capacity for decades? Decades. Apart from infrequent paid autograph signings, his was a name that just never hit my radar, and I do this stuff full time. It's not exactly a benchmark of greatness when a guy is almost completely forgotten about when he played so recently. Then again, Harold Baines...same thing, minus the super high WAR. I can't wait for the next post-1980 ballot! Andy Van Slyke? Lloyd Moseby? George Bell? Nothing will elicit an element of surprise at this point.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Before all this WAR got bandied about, who can honestly say they heard anybody mention Bobby Grich in any capacity for decades?

Rick Reuschel strongly agrees.

[FrankWakefield]

I agree with Alan about reading The Politics of Glory. First edition, please. For me it was a troubling read because I'm a Cardinals fan...

I also recommend The Historical Baseball Abstract, by Bill James, First edition!!!

And, on the heels of those two reads, look at The Fix is In, by Daniel Ginsburg. Rule 21. That's the rule about gambling on baseball.

I've praised these books before, several places. Maybe more than once, here. As for The Politics of Glory changing it's title, my thinking is that the newer title is more warm and fuzzy, less accusatory than the original title. I thought they should not have changed it. too.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Before all this WAR got bandied about, who can honestly say they heard anybody mention Bobby Grich in any capacity for decades? Decades. Apart from infrequent paid autograph signings, his was a name that just never hit my radar, and I do this stuff full time. It's not exactly a benchmark of greatness when a guy is almost completely forgotten about when he played so recently. Then again, Harold Baines...same thing, minus the super high WAR. I can't wait for the next post-1980 ballot! Andy Van Slyke? Lloyd Moseby? George Bell? Nothing will elicit an element of surprise at this point.

Because we know how infallible crowds are at assessing the true value of things.

Also, WAR rates Baines as almost exactly average for his career - his WAR is not exactly "super high."

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by John1941

Also, WAR rates Baines as almost exactly average for his career - his WAR is not exactly "super high."

Yes. I was saying exactly that.