Pete Rose documentary on HBO/Max 😬

[dbussell12]

Possibility for a much deeper conversation here far beyond Rose into what the hall of fame is and should be for. Something I have considered a fair bit. I personally enjoyed working at NMAH in the baseball archives far more than visiting the BBHOF in large part if not entirely due to how they treat baseball history -- more as American history; prioritizing the movements therein above baseball-tunnel vision into stats and individuals. Of course there are a great deal of exhibits that do this in the BBHOF at large, but this is generally not how the hall of fame considers and structures its arguments for players and candidates with rare exceptions like Effa Manley, et al

Personally consider that the HOF would do well accordingly to expand its vision and scope into how the sport intertwines with the larger social, political, and cultural movements that occur in, through, and with baseball itself. You'd have additional layers of evaluation and complexity beyond just simple stat modeling for candidacy. It would become a much richer and multidimensional undertaking; expand how people view the sport and the sport views itself -- more intertwined with the fabric of American history and its important economic and political movements therein; less navel gazing into its own performativity

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by dbussell12

Possibility for a much deeper conversation here far beyond Rose into what the hall of fame is and should be for. Something I have considered a fair bit. I personally enjoyed working at NMAH in the baseball archives far more than visiting the BBHOF in large part if not entirely due to how they treat baseball history -- more as American history; prioritizing the movements therein above baseball-tunnel vision into stats and individuals. Of course there are a great deal of exhibits that do this in the BBHOF at large, but this is generally not how the hall of fame considers and structures its arguments for players and candidates with rare exceptions like Effa Manley, et al

Personally consider that the HOF would do well accordingly to expand its vision and scope into how the sport intertwines with the larger social, political, and cultural movements that occur in, through, and with baseball itself. You'd have additional layers of evaluation and complexity beyond just simple stat modeling for candidacy. It would become a much richer and multidimensional undertaking; expand how people view the sport and the sport views itself -- more intertwined with the fabric of American history and its important economic and political movements therein; less navel gazing into its own performativity

Are you an AI? Sincere question.

[Kutcher55]

The All Star game used to mean a whole lot, certainly back in the 70s it did. Otherwise not really defending Rose.

[molenick]

I think David is a real person whose vocabulary, sentence structure, thought process, and topics raised are not what is usually encountered on Net54.

I don't think "nice guy in" "bad guy out" should be used as HOF guidance. Sure, statistics are not the only criteria, but at least that is something measurable. Not sure how we would measure "nice guy" and whether nice guy means nice to fans, the press, his teammates, etc.

R.A. Dickey was known for being a nice guy but he was not a HOF level player. Same for Adam Jones (yes, I asked AI to tell me who the nice guys in baseball were). It seems like Harold Baines being a nice guy helped him get in and most people think he was a bad choice. Frankie Frisch thought his teammates were nice guys and that lead to some questionable selections. What about people whose public image contrasted with their alleged private life (such as Kirby Puckett)?

It's already hard enough judging people on statistics, I don't want voters to start evaluating them as a person. And, sure, statistics are not perfect and are open to interpretation, but I think we know at this point that Home Run Baker's slash line of .307/.363/.442/.805 is more HOF-worthy than Freddie Lindstrom's similar .311/.351/.449/.800 because we take it in the context of the eras they played in.

My take on Pete Rose is not based on whether he was a nice guy, or even a moral guy. I don't think he should be in because he broke the most essential rule of baseball...not only betting on games, but betting on games where he was an active participant. Of course, statistically he should be in.

Also, I don't like the "fame" argument. Deion Sanders was famous, Bo Belinsky was famous (at least in his time), Mark Fidrych was famous, Mitch Williams was famous, etc. I think "Hall of Fame" was just a phrase that was used at the time to denote the "best of the best" and not something that meant you should get in based on how famous you are.

If we are going to be literal about it, then George Hall and Mel Hall should be in (those were the best players named Hall I could find).

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by molenick

I think David is a real person whose vocabulary, sentence structure, thought process, and topics raised are not what is usually encountered on Net54.

I don't think "nice guy in" "bad guy out" should be used as HOF guidance. Sure, statistics are not the only criteria, but at least that is something measurable. Not sure how we would measure "nice guy" and whether nice guy means nice to fans, the press, his teammates, etc.

R.A. Dickey was known for being a nice guy but he was not a HOF level player. Same for Adam Jones (yes, I asked AI to tell me who the nice guys in baseball were). It seems like Harold Baines being a nice guy helped him get in and most people think he was a bad choice. Frankie Frisch thought his teammates were nice guys and that lead to some questionable selections. What about people whose public image contrasted with their alleged private life (such as Kirby Puckett)?

It's already hard enough judging people on statistics, I don't want voters to start evaluating them as a person. And, sure, statistics are not perfect and are open to interpretation, but I think we know at this point that Home Run Baker's slash line of .307/.363/.442/.805 is more HOF-worthy than Freddie Lindstrom's similar .311/.351/.449/.800 because we take it in the context of the eras they played in.

My take on Pete Rose is not based on whether he was a nice guy, or even a moral guy. I don't think he should be in because he broke the most essential rule of baseball...not only betting on games, but betting on games where he was an active participant. Of course, statistically he should be in.

Also, I don't like the "fame" argument. Deion Sanders was famous, Bo Belinsky was famous (at least in his time), Mark Fidrych was famous, Mitch Williams was famous, etc. I think "Hall of Fame" was just a phrase that was used at the time to denote the "best of the best" and not something that meant you should get in based on how famous you are.

If we are going to be literal about it, then George Hall and Mel Hall should be in (those were the best players named Hall I could find).

Its a great topic Michael -- I think Effa Manley is a great example of how complex this gets/can get; I wish Rube Foster was a better one but he was just flat out dominant as a pitcher. Imagine being the guy who (if history is to tell it) taught Christy Mathewson his best pitch, being compared to Cy Young; on top of it all, founds perhaps the most important league in baseball history?

The question of who gets in the hall and why has been significantly opened up for debate since the 80s-90s and only continues to get more complex. From Frisch's candidates to the recent releasing of Rose/Jackson; others to be elected.

Its not as simple as good or bad, nor are statistics the boon we wish them to be particularly when evaluating eras where -- for position players at least -- the normal modern counting stats were less important. Many of the players figures like Honus Wagner and Cy Young considered absolutely indispensable to a critical evaluation of the best of the game are often not mentioned or entirely forgotten today precisely due to the importance of modern counting stats. They considered defense, presence on the field; pure grit and clutch play to be prime indicators of someone worthy of consideration or selection as being the best in the game at any given position. You certainly cannot deny the statistical dominance of someone like Cobb, but if you read back about what the greats of the game had to say about the best among them, you might be surprised at the names that come up. They don't look 'on paper' the way that history remembers them. So we're in a tough spot. We either say the eyes of the players who sculpted the game were wrong, or we say that our modern counting stats can't account for a paradigm of play that is radically different in its norms, values, and components.

The question of impact on the game, however, I think is a pretty powerful and profound sweet spot. That's why I'd call someone like George Stovall to count immediately. Of course he would never get elected by today's standards, but his leadership exhibited in the Joss case, combined with being the great ringleader among players in the last real monopoly battle of the Fed League bears essential consideration in my opinion.

Impact on the game can't be measured purely by on the field stats, but rather, in paradigm shifting importance. It's almost like applying a seismic register to the shifts in the game. Without Stovall's rebellious leadership in the Fed League turn, you have no Anti-Trust Suit of the 20s. And nothing even remotely resembling the free agent and player rights landscape of today. Walter Johnson signed with the Fed; who is to say what would have happened if he stepped away and actually put on that jersey instead of signing back with the MLB counter offer.

Things like this I think deserve great consideration, but in the modern climate we live in stats become a one dimensional way of measuring player impact. The game itself is an ecosystem; Stovall is a great example of someone who changed the game forever --- but who, on the field, was just a solid, very good player.

In terms of Deadball + the undercurrents like 19th century Cuban baseball and movements like Stovall's with the Fed League -- we would have to start thinking differently and in a different register to capture the nuances of the game's history and its development. Without teams like Habana in Cuba at the turn of the 20th century, we may never see Rube Foster's NL. Home Run Johnson, Pete Hill, and Rube Foster all on the same team over a decade before the YMCA meeting which starts the first official NL. There are many figures who at a subterranean level changed the fabric of the sport forever who are still yet to get their due. Hopefully that changes soon as we all learn more about the origins of the sport and its truly global development and the figures and players who made it possible. It's easy to think of the current landscape as linear in terms of how baseball started and grew, as well as the importance of stats being the sole arbiter of the greats of the game. But I am convinced there is much more to the tale!

[molenick]

I take it back....only AI could have responded so quickly and with complete sentences

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by molenick

I take it back....only AI could have responded so quickly and with complete sentences