Hall of fame voting

[MerrittsMustache]

There's the rub, though.  To some folks, Jack Morris is a "no-doubter," because he pitched an unbelievable WS Game 7 and had a cool mustache.  Others feel his career numbers mean he's not a "no-doubter."

Perfect example. Legit argument against him. Therefore, he's out.

And frankly I don't really understand your "no debate, no hall" stance.  I mean why does it have to be that exclusive?

Frankly, I don't understand why someone would not want a Hall of Fame to be as exclusive as possible.

[GGGG]

Frankly, I don't understand why someone would not want a Hall of Fame to be as exclusive as possible.

OK...let's just call it the Babe Ruth Museum then.

[MerrittsMustache]

OK...let's just call it the Babe Ruth Museum then.

Or have it your way and call it The Hall of Guys Who Made a Couple All-Star Games.

[GGGG]

Or have it your way and call it The Hall of Guys Who Made a Couple All-Star Games.

There at least is a lot more to see. 

[MerrittsMustache]

There at least is a lot more to see. 

I'll take quality over quantity. To each his own.

[Lennys Tap]

I'll take quality over quantity. To each his own.

But even under your scenario there will be a debate regarding the last few guys who get in versus the first few who don't.

[Spotcheck Billy]

OK...let's just call it the Babe Ruth Museum then.

Or have it your way and call it The Hall of Guys Who Made a Couple All-Star Games.

get a room already

[keefe]

Not exactly:

http://rockhall.com/exhibits/one-hit-wonders-songs-that-shaped-rock-and-roll/

Eight Six Seven Five Three Oh Nine

[keefe]

When a player retires, he's either a HOFer or he's not.

And in a perfect world we wouldn't need a Marine Corps.

Think of it this way: the annual HoF vote triggers some exciting discussions in bars, dinner tables, break rooms, and basketball chat boards. Fact is, there is no objective standard. Blondes, Brunettes, or Red Heads? Tits or A$$? Free Will or Determinism? Red or Blue?

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Eight Six Seven Five Three Oh Nine

Now I have that damn song stuck in my head.

[MU82]

That's the thing. There shouldn't be arguments or a vote or debate or any of that. When a player retires, he's either a HOFer or he's not. Maddux, Glavine, Thomas? No doubt. Biggio, Morris, Bagwell? Maybe...which means they're all no's.

The current process is too complicated.

1. Debates are fun. A big part of what makes sports great for fans.

2. Until every man, woman and child is infused with the same opinion on every subject, there's no such thing as "there should be no debate." We humans love to debate everything! To deny that is totally unrealistic.

[keefe]

We humans love to debate everything!

What in bloody hell do you mean by that?? Explain yourself!

[🏀]

I agree, if you need to an argument to get in, you don't belong.

[MU82]

I agree, if you need to an argument to get in, you don't belong.

Should notorious racist Ty Cobb be in?

I think it's a legitimate question, therefore the answer is no.

[Lennys Tap]

I agree, if you need to an argument to get in, you don't belong.

Nobody has ever received 100% of the vote on the first ballot. Shut Cooperstown down.

[🏀]

Should notorious racist Ty Cobb be in?

I think it's a legitimate question, therefore the answer is no.

Yeah, he deserves it. A guy from the deep south was racist at the turn of the century? Shocking. Half of America was also racist, it's a product of the culture, that doesn't dictate his baseball prowess.

[🏀]

Nobody has ever received 100% of the vote on the first ballot. Shut Cooperstown down.

And nobody ever will because of old baseball writers.

If you're not first ballot, GTFO. They should remove all veterans and old timers selections as well.

[keefe]

OK...let's just call it the Babe Ruth Museum then.

Does Babe Ruth belong? The man was a womanizer. And a drunkard. And a trencherman. Good Lord but what about standards?

[CTWarrior]

The Hall of Fame was never meant to be only for the Babe Ruths and Hank Aarons.  It is a museum, a tourist attraction.  If people don't get inducted, people aren't going to visit it.  Right now they enshrine something like 1.25% of players, which is reasonable.  I'm sure basketball inducts a higher percentage and football inducts more guys year to year, but since their rosters are larger I'm not sure of the percentages. 

The way I look at it is that if a guy is as good as the average guy at his position that is already in the HOF, then it is a no-brainer and he should go in.  Below that, and it is a discussion.

Discussion is important.  When Nolan Ryan went in, he got the second highest percentage of votes ever, and people complained about who are the knuckleheads that didn't vote for him.  The same people complained when Phil Niekro got in because he was just a compiler.  But look at their careers.  Ryan had 6 more wins, while Niekro pitched more innings, had a better winning percentage despite similar quality teams pitched for and a better career ERA adjusted for era/ball park.  It is not a no-brainer that Ryan was better than Niekro.  In fact it is very debatable.

[Lennys Tap]

The Hall of Fame was never meant to be only for the Babe Ruths and Hank Aarons.  It is a museum, a tourist attraction.  If people don't get inducted, people aren't going to visit it.  Right now they enshrine something like 1.25% of players, which is reasonable.  I'm sure basketball inducts a higher percentage and football inducts more guys year to year, but since their rosters are larger I'm not sure of the percentages. 

The way I look at it is that if a guy is as good as the average guy at his position that is already in the HOF, then it is a no-brainer and he should go in.  Below that, and it is a discussion.

Discussion is important.  When Nolan Ryan went in, he got the second highest percentage of votes ever, and people complained about who are the knuckleheads that didn't vote for him.  The same people complained when Phil Niekro got in because he was just a compiler.  But look at their careers.  Ryan had 6 more wins, while Niekro pitched more innings, had a better winning percentage despite similar quality teams pitched for and a better career ERA adjusted for era/ball park.  It is not a no-brainer that Ryan was better than Niekro.  In fact it is very debatable.

Excellent post.

[MerrittsMustache]

The Hall of Fame was never meant to be only for the Babe Ruths and Hank Aarons.  It is a museum, a tourist attraction.  If people don't get inducted, people aren't going to visit it.  Right now they enshrine something like 1.25% of players, which is reasonable.  I'm sure basketball inducts a higher percentage and football inducts more guys year to year, but since their rosters are larger I'm not sure of the percentages. 

The way I look at it is that if a guy is as good as the average guy at his position that is already in the HOF, then it is a no-brainer and he should go in.  Below that, and it is a discussion.

Discussion is important.  When Nolan Ryan went in, he got the second highest percentage of votes ever, and people complained about who are the knuckleheads that didn't vote for him.  The same people complained when Phil Niekro got in because he was just a compiler.  But look at their careers.  Ryan had 6 more wins, while Niekro pitched more innings, had a better winning percentage despite similar quality teams pitched for and a better career ERA adjusted for era/ball park.  It is not a no-brainer that Ryan was better than Niekro.  In fact it is very debatable.

Baseball Hall of Fame attendance has been in decline for a few years. It can still be a baseball museum without the likes of Jim Rice, Gaylord Perry and Bill Mazeroski being enshrined.

[MU82]

Baseball Hall of Fame attendance has been in decline for a few years. It can still be a baseball museum without the likes of Jim Rice, Gaylord Perry and Bill Mazeroski being enshrined.

Rice was one of baseball's consistently dominant players for 12 years solid, during which he finished in the top-5 in MVP voting an amazing six times and had eight 100-plus-RBI seasons. His career totals aren't as gaudy as some because he didn't hang around for a bunch of extra seasons and because, during his pre-steroids, post-live-ball era, 30 HR and 100 RBI were a lot to hit in a season.

I happen to think he belongs in the Hall -- and so did hundreds of voters from all over the country -- but at the very least he shouldn't casually be dismissed as not deserving.

He is a perfect example of why a debate is better than a bunch of internet dorks like us arbitrarily deeming Player A worthy and Player B unworthy.

(BTW, I'm not a Boston fan. In fact, I was a Yankee fan who hated the Red Sox back when Rice was playing for them.)

Perry is more of a borderline case -- a stat-compiler and an admitted cheat. Maz shouldn't be in the Hall, as is the case with many (maybe even most) veteran's committee choices.

[CTWarrior]

Baseball Hall of Fame attendance has been in decline for a few years. It can still be a baseball museum without the likes of Jim Rice, Gaylord Perry and Bill Mazeroski being enshrined.

That's just it!  Less and less guys of recent vintage are getting into the HOF, so you gotta be old now or dead to remember most of the guys in there.  I guarantee a lot more visitors are getting their picture taken with the Jim Rice plaque than are getting their picture taken with the Old Hoss Radbourne plaque.  Less recent inductees translates to less visitors.  Last year they inducted some ancient owner and an umpire or something.  I'll bet they drew great crowds for that.  A much higher percentage of guys from the 1800s are in the Hall of Fame than guys from the 1970s.  The HOF is way more selective now than it has ever been.

And Gaylord Perry is an odd choice to demonstrate an unworthy Hall of Famer.  314 wins and 2 Cy Youngs is a pretty good case for a Hall of Famer.  Rice isn't the greatest choice ever, but he is a deserving guy who I wouldn't have argued much one way or the other.  Mazeroski was a pretty rough choice.

[tower912]

Among active players, who should get in?   Pujols?  (Steroids?)   Miguel Cabrera?  (Trout is better )  Jeter?  (Longevity made his numbers great)  Ortiz?  (A DH?   the horror)   Clearly, Rivera should, but he is retired and someone will make the argument that he was a 1-inning pitcher who didn't usually come in in pressure situations.     Among current starting pitchers?    King Felix (numbers aren't that great)   Verlander?   (down year last year, injured now, who knows how it turns out)  Lee?  Halladay?   Will 200 career wins become the new 300 career wins, since starters don't start as many games, go as many innings, or last as long?

My point is that an excuse can always be found for exclusion.   It's silly.   It isn't some contest.   It is a shrine to celebrate the best the game has to offer, those who have made an impact.    The more, the merrier. 

[CTWarrior]

Clearly, Rivera should, but he is retired and someone will make the argument that he was a 1-inning pitcher who didn't usually come in in pressure situations. 

There's actually a good argument to be made against Rivera (and all closers).  First off, the only reason Rivera is a closer is because he was sent to the bullpen after being a failed starter.  I'll bet there are actually a lot of middle of the pack starters who would be tremendous closers.  A 200 inning, 5% better than league average starter is a more valuable commodity and harder to find than an elite closer.  I can't find the actual numbers but I remember reading somewhere that the Yankees won less than 1% more often in the 18 years of Rivera as closer with a lead in the 9th inning than they did in the 18 preceding years  (like 93% vs 92.5% or something).  Because basically, saving your best pitcher to just pitch one inning in games you're going to win more than 90% of the time anyway is a pretty stupid allocation of resources.

If you're not going to vote for Edgar Martinez because he's a DH I don't see how you could vote for any closer.

All that said, I would vote for Rivera every time and I'm a Red Sox fan.