To make it in the Hall of Fame....

...what are your standards? People have queried mine. So I'll be happy to share. Feel free to share yours.

 

You're right about Bill James. If anyone has argued that he's the gatekeeper, I haven't heard it. It's just that a lot of people value his statistical analysis. And the BBWA and Vets Cmte have no standardized methodology for evaluating. There have been suggestions to codify such, but that would be the end of the empire as far as I'm concerned. There are unofficials (500 HR, 3,000 hits - even though 2763 gets you in - etc.) but nothing standardized. If it were, this would all be moot.

http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/rules.jsp

It seems you think the whole discussion of who should and should not be in the Hall is sophistry and meaningless. Am I off base here?

 

Andy T - professional bromide repeater and circular reasoning specialist :laugh:

 

Guys, I moved the posts regarding Big Mac and made it into its own thread. It will be easier to view that way.

 

Okay....my questions that I ask when evaluating a player's HOF worthiness:

1. Can you make a sound, reasonable argument, from statistics or from reputation, that the player is one of the very best in the game of all time, or at least during his era?
2. Can you make a sound, reasonable argument, from statistics and/or reputation, that the player is the best or one of the very best at his position among all-timers, or at very least the best during his era?
3. Can you make a sound, reasonable argument, using statistics and/or reputation, that the player is the best at his position for an extended period of time?
4. Are comparable players with similar statistics, reputation, and rank in era, already in the HOF? Are few (if any) players with similar statistics, reputation, and era rank not in the HOF?
5. Does the player meet HOF standards using HOF monitor numbers (not a clincher, but a factor).
6. Has the player made a significant contribution to the game in terms of athleticism, sportsmanship, or reputation? Has he altered the game in any meaningful way? (The Pioneer question).
7. Has the player made an impact in the postseason? (I have misgivings about this question, but October is for heroes, like it or not)
8. Are there contributions and/or factors that are meaningful that are not box-score quantifiable? (This has to be used very, very cautiously, but it is used whether we like it or not).

Most of these questions are Jamesian in nature or created by Olbermann. I give a lot of weight to what a player does in his era (that's all you can compare a player to), particularly if a player has had some injuries. Also, it's useful if a player is not necessarily the best player on his team (I think that question is weak, but some are in love with the notion - think of how many on the BRM for example, would not be in the HOF thanks to this one).

No one question is a clincher and no one is a disqualifier. But you do have to meet most of them in my mind, just to be considered. I generally won't consider a guy unless he meets 5 or 6 at least, with the first five carrying the most weight in my mind.

 

By the way, isn't it convenient that the HOF ceremonies will be coming up and that will give Selig an allibi for missing Bonds break the record?

 

Well, I cover that in #6, but I get your drift.