All of these endless debates will continue for the simple reason that most people always want to use their own definition of "best", and deny that there's any validity to any other definition. You've got peak value (Koufax) vs career value (Blyleven), one-dimensional dominance (Williams) vs all-around skills (Dimaggio), postseason emphasizing (Pettitte) vs ignoring the postseason altogether, and God knows how many more cases where people talk past each other and insist upon their own definition as the only acceptable one. It's often like listening to a Marxist and a libertarian debate the concept of "liberty", and it's just about as pointless, because there's no common ground in their premises.

I always thought Bill James had a reasonable explanation for his various weightings of career and peak value with Win Shares. It was essentially "5 year consecutive peak, 3 year non-consecutive peak...it's all arbitrary but I gotta pick somethin'!"

Anyone who tells you they have the definitive definition of "best" is lying to themselves.

EDIT: like any other self-respecting person here I have my spreadsheet ranking players. But I'll be the first to tell you that
A) it's not the most rigorous of formulas, just something fun I like to do to document all the players I've seen (1990-present day)
B) it's not definitive, just a way to place players in rough groups to start the conversation

postseason emphasizing (Pettitte) vs ignoring the postseason altogether

Really, Pettitte? How about Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax or Lou Brock or anyone who actually excelled in the postseason?

I like the idea of crediting players who were truly brilliant with the championship on the line. Players who were competent performers on clubs that played lots of postseason games don't interest me much.

Obviously this goes to Andy's general point that there's no one right way to mix these factors, but I'm saying that one can want to consider postseason performance without wanting to give Andy Pettitte peculiarly much credit. (Even if you credit him with a good, full season of pitching, he's still no kind of Hall of Famer.)

postseason emphasizing (Pettitte) vs ignoring the postseason altogether

Really, Pettitte? How about Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax or Lou Brock or anyone who actually excelled in the postseason?

Because I was using the example that's been cited most recently by many writers and fans in debating HoF prospects. The ones you've mentioned are already in the Hall.

I like the idea of crediting players who were truly brilliant with the championship on the line. Players who were competent performers on clubs that played lots of postseason games don't interest me much.

Which only re-emphasizes my point that without any agreement on definitions of value, it's impossible to talk coherently about who's "better" or Hallworthy, or whatever.

Obviously this goes to Andy's general point that there's no one right way to mix these factors, but I'm saying that one can want to consider postseason performance without wanting to give Andy Pettitte peculiarly much credit. (Even if you credit him with a good, full season of pitching, he's still no kind of Hall of Famer.)

Yeah, and I'm not arguing that he is, even without his PED problem----which is yet another factor that is dealt with in at least 3 or 4 different ways by different groups of people. That's why I've always made the distinction between the HoF and the HoM, even if most people here apparently think that they're the same institution.

That's why I've always made the distinction between the HoF and the HoM, even if most people here apparently think that they're the same institution.

No one thinks they're the same institution. People believe that the Hall of Fame should run along very similar lines to the Hall of Merit. That's a perfectly defensible position - the Hall of Fame is constantly in a process of re-defining itself, and fans reasonably have different beliefs about what it should be.

Notice, we’ve come full cycle: from hits, a total, to BA, OPS, OPS+ (all averages) to WAR, another total.

Sure, if you leave out about 25 other stats along the way, it's a circle. In reality, it's more of a sine wave.

That's why I've always made the distinction between the HoF and the HoM, even if most people here apparently think that they're the same institution.

No one thinks they're the same institution. People believe that the Hall of Fame should run along very similar lines to the Hall of Merit. That's a perfectly defensible position - the Hall of Fame is constantly in a process of re-defining itself, and fans reasonably have different beliefs about what it should be.

Matt, you know I've never had any argument with that POV. The problem here is that even in our Hall of Fame discussions, there's no acknowledgment on the part of many of our resident statheads that it's even legitimate to consider non-statistical criteria in evaluating a player, even though the history of the HoF suggests that such factors have always been a part of the voting process.

Which brings it back to my initial point that unless you can agree on your premises, most of these discussions usually wind up with people just talking past one another.

endless debates will continue for the simple reason that most people always want to use their own definition of "best"

There's a way around that impasse by holding discussions that limit the definition. Who would you want for any single season? Who would you have wanted for last season alone? Who for a five-year span at his best? Who for an entire career? Who to start a single Game Seven? There are lots of such discussions, and they're reasonably well-structured.

I'm not sure what the point of TFA is: it seems both allusive and elliptical. But the excerpted objection to career counting stats is not much to the point. Bob Feller beats Dizzy Dean to a pulp in terms of career, and not just by dull accumulation; if you wanted to build a ballclub longterm, you'd absolutely draft Feller. Whether you'd rather have the 1940 Bob Feller for a season than the 1934 Dizzy Dean is another genre of question – where's the problem with that?

endless debates will continue for the simple reason that most people always want to use their own definition of "best"

There's a way around that impasse by holding discussions that limit the definition. Who would you want for any single season? Who would you have wanted for last season alone? Who for a five-year span at his best? Who for an entire career? Who to start a single Game Seven? There are lots of such discussions, and they're reasonably well-structured.

In theory, anyway, but I've seldom seen them so neatly contained around here.

Which only re-emphasizes my point that without any agreement on definitions of value, it's impossible to talk coherently about who's "better" or Hallworthy, or whatever.

Impossible to talk coherently? A touch hyperbolic, yeah?

When did anyone ever use hit totals to judge batters?

Matt, you know I've never had any argument with that POV.

Right, you don't have an argument. You just constantly pretend like the position doesn't exist while mocking people who hold it, until someone is forced to mention it AGAIN and AGAIN. And then you pretend like it's not what you were doing. It's really tiresome, and beneath you.

YOU personally think there is a categorical difference between the HOM and HOF. Most people who are engaged in the HOM think of it as the better implementation of the HOF-model. I don't understand why you constantly must toss off insults that imply the majority of those people are idiots, when you are the one with the idiosyncratic view.

Especially since the broader point you're trying to make is perfectly reasonable. Just start there and knock off the faux-confusion.

When did anyone ever use hit totals to judge batters?

TFA has a couple reasonable quibbles with WAR, around which is built a very stupid and almost unreadably disjointed argument.

OK, that’s enough. You really smart guys need to educate the rest of us.

WTF?
Why is it on the "smart guys" to educate folks? Let them educate themselves. Ain't that the way it is in, oh, I don't know, pretty much everything damn else.

And frankly if someone writes about baseball, as a vocation or an avocation, they really have to learn these things,you know, to keep up with changing times and workplace trends, otherwise they would be like a group of physicists sitting around using abaci to run numbers.

At this point understanding at least the basics of the "new stats" is a necessary job skill for these folks. It blows me away that they have the gumption to fight it. It's kinda a position tantamount to an aircraft engineer refusing to do anything with jets and deciding that propellers are the best and only way to go.
It's a nice thing to try and a romantic ideal to cling to, but his competition is gonna stomp him into pieces over time.

And I don't think anyone is really using WAR to argue that Raffy was a better HR hitter than Mantle. He may have hit more due to a longer career and differing conditions, but if someone is silly enough to ignore the rate stats and run with a conclusion based solely on WAR, then they deserve to be treated like the fool they are.

Which only re-emphasizes my point that without any agreement on definitions of value, it's impossible to talk coherently about who's "better" or Hallworthy, or whatever.

Impossible to talk coherently? A touch hyperbolic, yeah?

Sure, it's perfectly possible to talk coherently when you're only addressing people who agree with your premise. It's when you deny that any other premises but your own are legitimate that the problem begins. To take but one example, how can you argue about the "best" team in history without defining what your criteria are: Regular season record only? Or a combination of regular season and postseason? And do you factor in the level of competition, the level of league strength, the depth of the talent pool, the teams' record in the surrounding years, etc., etc.? People who can't even agree on the starting points of the debate are going to wind up just talking past one another.

------------------------------------------------------------

Matt, you know I've never had any argument with that POV.

Right, you don't have an argument. You just constantly pretend like the position doesn't exist while mocking people who hold it, until someone is forced to mention it AGAIN and AGAIN. And then you pretend like it's not what you were doing. It's really tiresome, and beneath you.

YOU personally think there is a categorical difference between the HOM and HOF. Most people who are engaged in the HOM think of it as the better implementation of the HOF-model. I don't understand why you constantly must toss off insults that imply the majority of those people are idiots, when you are the one with the idiosyncratic view.

Especially since the broader point you're trying to make is perfectly reasonable. Just start there and knock off the faux-confusion.

When people say that the character clause and intangible factors shouldn't enter into Hall of Fame debates, I don't have any argument. It's when they act as if that's the ONLY legitimate approach to the Hall of Fame that I start bringing up the distinction between the two Halls.

And BTW I hope when you say that my POV is "idiosyncratic", you're referring solely to BTF, since within the larger baseball world the HoM model is only the starting point in HoF discussions.

When did anyone ever use hit totals to judge batters?

Paging Roger L. Maynard to the thread, paging Roger L. Maynard to the thread . . .


just kidding, Tom.

YOU personally think there is a categorical difference between the HOM and HOF. Most people who are engaged in the HOM think of it as the better implementation of the HOF-model. I don't understand why you constantly must toss off insults that imply the majority of those people are idiots, when you are the one with the idiosyncratic view.

Pretty broad brush there, Baldrick old chum. I and others here agree with Andy that there are people who legitimately belong in the Hall of Fame, but who would not make the cut at the Hall of Merit.

most people here apparently think that they're the same institution.

1) The HoM is not an institution by any meaningful definition of the work "institution". The HoM is 30-50 guys having a fun debate on the internet while being ignored by 99.9% of the baseball world. You're the only person in the entire world who thinks the HoM is some sort of worthy consolation prize for guys who deserve to be in the HoF. You use it as a dodge from seriously debating the character clause and other issues. (no offense to those who participate in the HoM but, alas, it's the truth.)

2) The distinction you and others try to draw between the HoF and the HoM is specious. The HoF (plaque room) is not about recognizing "fame" but conferring it by induction. The existence of the VC plus the fact that about half of the HoF inductees have come through the VC or other special committee route should make that pretty clear. That the voters occasionally and the VC regularly did not take their responsibilities seriously is what leads to things like the HoM.

As to the article, most of the difficulty balancing between peak and career goes away if you use WAA instead of WAR. Dick Allen roughly 35 WAA, Eddie Murray roughly 28 -- see that wasn't so hard. :-)

I and others here agree with Andy that there are people who legitimately belong in the Hall of Fame, but who would not make the cut at the Hall of Merit.

And vice versa. Hall of Fame debates are naturally going to consist of many different ideas of what the admission standards should be. Maybe people could use a simple shorthand to identify their premises so that their arguments would immediately make sense. For instance....

Standard # 1 (for players): Purely statistical value, regular season stats only, no character or intangible considerations.
Standard # 1(A): Peak value voters
Standard # 1(B): Career value voters
Standard # 1(C): Mix of peak and career value voters

Standard # 2 (for players): Purely statistical value, postseason stats allowed, no character or intangible considerations
Standard # 2(A): No consideration for Pete Rose or the Black Sox 8, but no penalty for PEDs or other character factors
Standard # 2(B): Peak value voters
Standard # 2(C): Career value voters
Standard # 2(D): Mix of peak and career value voters

Standard # 3 (for players): Purely statistical value, but with a subjective "steroid discount" (or if you wish, "greenie discount") in applicable cases. "Slam dunk" cases would still get in, but otherwise marginal players might not
Standard # 3(A): Peak value voters
Standard # 3(B): Career value voters
Standard # 3(C): Mix of peak and career value voters

Standard # 4 (for players): Purely statistical value, but no steroids (or other PED, if you wish) users allowed, no matter how gaudy their stats
Standard # 4(A) (for players): Pete Rose and racists in, Chicago 8 and PED users out
Standard # 4(B): Peak value voters
Standard # 4(C): Career value voters
Standard # 4(D): Mix of peak and career value voters

Standard # 5 (for players): A mix of statistical and intangible factors allowed
Standard # 5(A): PEDs don't matter
Standard # 5(B): Steroids (or amps) discount the statistics
Standard # 5(C): Steroids (or amps) disqualify a player
Standard # 5(D): Only gambling disqualifies a player

Standard # 6 (for commissioners, owners and GM's): Bottom line only, no character considerations, either social (Yawkey's or Anson's racism) or other (Steinbrenner's acceptance of Giambi's contract; evidence of proactive collusion efforts, etc.)

Standard # 7 (for commissioners, owners and GM's): No character considerations

Standard # 8 (for commissioners, owners and GM's): Selective character considerations, or considerations of degree

Standard # 9 (for managers): I think everyone here agrees that it's a consideration of too many factors to list, but it's seldom if ever I've seen questions of character raised about managers, at least on the level that they'd be considered disqualified.

That's probably way too detailed a list, but I've seen every one of those sections and subsections (and unstated sub-sub-sections) argued as if they were the only way to go. The merit of the HoM (for players, anyway) is that we're all on the same Standard # 1. The problem with the HoF is that we're all over the place with our standards. Not that there's anything wrong with all those different premises, but if they're not spelled out in advance, we often just wind up talking past one another, instead of just agreeing to disagree and admitting that our particular premise is only one of many.

And I don't think anyone is really using WAR to argue that Raffy was a better HR hitter than Mantle.

I don't know how you would use WAR to do that anyway... Mantle has about twice as much oWAR as Raffy. Is there an HRWAR component I am not aware of?

Is there an HRWAR component I am not aware of?

No, but if someone were to invent one you'd credit players with how many homers they hit each year above what a weakling #8 hitting shortstop would hit, or something like that. The result of this would presumably show someone like Tony Conigliaro (166 career homers) ahead of a guy who played a lot longer, didn't have as much power, but hit more homers than that like Tim Raines (170 homers).

When people say that the character clause and intangible factors shouldn't enter into Hall of Fame debates, I don't have any argument. It's when they act as if that's the ONLY legitimate approach to the Hall of Fame that I start bringing up the distinction between the two Halls.

The only problem I have with your approach is you sometimes act like the hof hasn't made any mistakes. And I'm sorry, but there is no justifiable reason for Jim Rice to be in the hof. He doesn't bring any more intangibles to the table than his contemporary, Dave Parker.

And when the Hall inevitably put Jack Morris in, it's also a mistake. Those are mistakes by backwards looking narrative. I agree that the hof/hom probably got Lou Brock right, I understand Sutter or Fingers being in, even if they are somewhat ridiculous inclusions. But the hof is not right all the time, and it would be helped with a more strident selection criteria.

#19 - I agree that there's many ways for people to define who does or doesn't belong in the HoF that are just as valid as any other. The only POV I have a hard time accepting is when people ignore real numbers in favor of ones they just made up (steroid discounters who try to guess what the player would've hit without the juice and act like the numbers they just pulled out of their a$$ are more valid than the actual ones). IMO, projections should only be used when we have incomplete (negro league) or non-existent (war service) stats; not when we just don't like the real ones. Doing that is no different than pretending Willie Mays got polio or something early in his career and adjusting his numbers based on that hypothetical.

When people say that the character clause and intangible factors shouldn't enter into Hall of Fame debates, I don't have any argument. It's when they act as if that's the ONLY legitimate approach to the Hall of Fame that I start bringing up the distinction between the two Halls.

The only problem I have with your approach is you sometimes act like the hof hasn't made any mistakes.

I guess I should now follow my own suggestion and state my premises. I use a mix of statistics and intangibles, with both postseason performance and intangibles a factor in the case of borderline candidates, and with both steroids and gambling as automatic disqualifiers. At this point, I'm not particularly interested in discussing the validity of my premises, since I've done so many times in the past. If you have different standards, that's fine, as long as you state them so I know where you're coming from. Otherwise we're just acting like two blind prizefighters stabbing at each other in the dark.

Using those standards, just off the top of my head I'd consider both Rice and Morris to be definite mistakes. Beyond them, I'd also consider Sutter a dubious choice, though I'd have voted for Fingers. I also would put in Raines, Trammell, Whitaker, and several other candidates who've been bypassed by the BWAAA. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think that the BBWAA is infallible, but what I do think is that that in the case of candidates who range from (say) 40% qualified to 60% qualified**, I don't think that any of us have a monopoly on truth. As a general rule, I'd trust Bill James's opinion over Mike Lupica's, but not always.

Look, we all have our own standards. I like using the HoM standard as a corrective exercise to some of the flabbier choices of the BBWAA, but it's not the final word, and there are candidates I'd put in the HoF but not the HoM (Hunter, Fingers and Dean being three examples) without losing any sleep over it. The HoM standards bring me about 80% of the way towards my final choices, but they don't always take me over the finish line in the cases of some candidates, and in the case of known juicers the HoM standard doesn't even enter the picture.

**With over 60% qualified as being clear choices, under 40% as clear rejections, and everything in the middle as being a matter of differing premises and interpretations, some better than others but all part of a legitimate discussion. Just because Rice or Morris fall below my own dividing line doesn't mean that I can't see a reasonable case being made for them, and the same goes in reverse for players like Trammell or Whitaker, both of whom I support.

-----------------------------------------------------------

#19 - I agree that there's many ways for people to define who does or doesn't belong in the HoF that are just as valid as any other. The only POV I have a hard time accepting is when people ignore real numbers in favor of ones they just made up (steroid discounters who try to guess what the player would've hit without the juice and act like the numbers they just pulled out of their a$$ are more valid than the actual ones). IMO, projections should only be used when we have incomplete (negro league) or non-existent (war service) stats; not when we just don't like the real ones. Doing that is no different than pretending Willie Mays got polio or something early in his career and adjusting his numbers based on that hypothetical.

I'm not a fan of steroid discounting, either, because like you, I think it's an impossible task, but it does give some voters a theoretical way of differentiating between a Bonds and a Palmeiro. I understand their dilemma even if I don't see any way to formulate such a discount with anything more than the crudest sort of guesstimate.

Look, we all have our own standards. I like using the HoM standard as a corrective exercise to some of the flabbier choices of the BBWAA, but it's not the final word, and there are candidates I'd put in the HoF but not the HoM (Hunter, Fingers and Dean being three examples) without losing any sleep over it. The HoM standards bring me about 80% of the way towards my final choices, but they don't always take me over the finish line in the cases of some candidates, and in the case of known juicers the HoM standard doesn't even enter the picture.

Are there any players you would put in the HOM(non-juicer division), but not the HOF? About the only candidate for me is Dick Allen.

Are there any players you would put in the HOM(non-juicer division), but not the HOF? About the only candidate for me is Dick Allen.

Not really, since other than the juicers, the only HoM players I'd leave off my HoF ballots are ones I don't think belong in the HoM either. Beyond the character clause, I usually consider intangibles only to boost a player's candidacy, not to detract from it.

It's amusing watching Andy again pretend that the Hall of Merit is a viable alternative to the Hall of Fame, or is significant -- or even known -- to anyone in the world outside of a few geeks on a baseball website.

The only problem I have with your approach is you sometimes act like the hof hasn't made any mistakes. And I'm sorry, but there is no justifiable reason for Jim Rice to be in the hof. He doesn't bring any more intangibles to the table than his contemporary, Dave Parker.

Andy has to act that way, because once you take the position that intangibles and the character clause has been a significant factor in the voting of the BBWAA, you basically have to argue that everyone who has been elected deserves to be there. Oh, he'll pay lip service to a "mistake" here or there, but, as you say, "he sometimes acts like the HOF hasn't made any mistakes."

I understand Sutter or Fingers being in, even if they are somewhat ridiculous inclusions.

Amusingly enough, Fingers is in the HoM also.

Andy has to act that way, because once you take the position that intangibles and the character clause has been a significant factor in the voting of the BBWAA, you basically have to argue that everyone who has been elected deserves to be there. Oh, he'll pay lip service to a "mistake" here or there, but, as you say, "he sometimes acts like the HOF hasn't made any mistakes."

I don't think intangibles and character clause is significant, but it does have merit. The silly notion that nobody has benefited or been hurt by the intangibles or character clause in the hof is preposterous. Again Dizzy Dean is clearly helped by the intangibles, Dick Allen is clearly hurt by the intangibles, and the roiders are all being hurt by the character clause. To pretend it doesn't have some impact is just silly.

Now is there anyone clearly in strictly because of character or intangibles? Probably not, but it does help. Sutter is in for popularizing the splitter.

Now is there anyone clearly in strictly because of character or intangibles? Probably not, but it does help. Sutter is in for popularizing the splitter.

Candy Cummings is in exclusively for having allegedly invented the curveball (dubious).

He doesn't even meet the PT threshold (6 year career).

pre-1900 guys I give a pass on, there is too many folklore and stories and lack of evidence at the time they were being put in to really judge them by anything other than the mythology.

Andy has to act that way, because once you take the position that intangibles and the character clause has been a significant factor in the voting of the BBWAA, you basically have to argue that everyone who has been elected deserves to be there.

Are you using "elected" to mean "elected by the BBWAA"? Because it's terrifically easy to dump out a bunch of Vets committee mistakes without batting an eye. I'm sure Andy carries no water for friends of Frisch like Chick Hafey, Jim Bottomley, or Highpockets Kelly, and I doubt he cares about the "we didn't have any data" early ball mistakes like Cummings and Marquard.

The large majority of Hall of Fame mistakes were Vet committee mistakes, and the Vets committee didn't screw up because of a misplaced belief in intangibles or character winning games - they screwed up mostly because they were an old-boys network intent of using the Hall to win glory for their friends.

Andy defends some of the BBWAA mistakes - Hunter, Brock, Puckett, iirc - based on better and worse reasons. (At least Brock and Puckett have some crazy postseason numbers and narratives of some sort. Hunter I don't get at all.) But he's not stuck defending anything close to the majority of Hall of Fame mistakes. My guess is he defends maybe 20% of the guys you'd consider mistakes.

It's amusing watching Andy again pretend that the Hall of Merit is a viable alternative to the Hall of Fame, or is significant -- or even known -- to anyone in the world outside of a few geeks on a baseball website.

Except that on BTF the Hall of Merit guidelines are not only a viable alternative, they seem to be the ruling model for the majority of participants in virtually all of our non-juicer Hall of Fame discussions. And with many Primates like yourself, even to suggest the slightest deviation from the statistics uber alles approach to a player's candidacy is to bring the decaying spreadsheets of a thousand mother's basements down upon the head of the offending party.

As to the outside world, it's not that the Hall of Merit as an institution has any particular cachet, but its principle of trying to go beyond the traditional stats model is gaining slow but steady influence among HoF voters, as seen by the final approval of Blyleven. And perhaps if statheads like yourself were more inclined towards persuasion and less towards the FJM snarkotopian model, they might find more outsiders willing to listen.

------------------------------------------------

I don't think intangibles and character clause is significant, but it does have merit. The silly notion that nobody has benefited or been hurt by the intangibles or character clause in the hof is preposterous. Again Dizzy Dean is clearly helped by the intangibles, Dick Allen is clearly hurt by the intangibles, and the roiders are all being hurt by the character clause. To pretend it doesn't have some impact is just silly.

Of course it is, but that won't stop some people from reducing every BBWAA mistake to writers' "stupidity" or "misunderstanding of their own guidelines". It's the one-size-fits-all explanation for any choice that they don't agree with.

The most striking recent BBWAA mistakes have been Sutter, Perez, Cepeda, Puckett, and Rice. The best case among those is probably Puckett's, and they're all pretty bad. I'd kick 'em all out. Andy, how many would you drop?

The most striking recent BBWAA mistakes have been Sutter, Perez, Cepeda, Puckett, and Rice. The best case among those is probably Puckett's, and they're all pretty bad. I'd kick 'em all out. Andy, how many would you drop?

He would drop zero. And he'll be happy to tell you so. Oh, he'll have some justification. And he'll admit that maybe some of them are "mistakes." But if he were King For A Day, he would remove none of them from the Hall.

Andy defends some of the BBWAA mistakes - Hunter, Brock, Puckett, iirc - based on better and worse reasons. (At least Brock and Puckett have some crazy postseason numbers and narratives of some sort. Hunter I don't get at all.) But he's not stuck defending anything close to the majority of Hall of Fame mistakes. My guess is he defends maybe 20% of the guys you'd consider mistakes.

I haven't really counted them up, but I'm pretty sure I'd only defend half of them at the very outside, and probably fewer than that. I've become somewhat more of a Big Hall guy, so that may move it up a notch, but Ray's silly idea that I "have to" defend every BBWAA choice is just that---silly. Ray seems to think that he can seance with the participants in every past HoF election and tell us exactly why they voted or didn't vote for every candidate, but me, I'd like to see the transcripts of some of those Valhalla Rest Home interviews.

The most striking recent BBWAA mistakes have been Sutter, Perez, Cepeda, Puckett, and Rice. The best case among those is probably Puckett's, and they're all pretty bad. I'd kick 'em all out. Andy, how many would you drop?

I'd keep in Puckett, definitely remove Sutter and Rice, and have to look up Perez and Cepeda before saying for sure one way or the other. And of course I'd also add Raines, Trammell, Whitaker and at least a few more others. (EDIT: Plus Bagwell and Edgar for sure, probably Walker, and maybe McGriff. No Morris or Lee Smith, though.)

-----------------------------------------------

He would drop zero. And he'll be happy to tell you so. Oh, he'll have some justification. And he'll admit that maybe some of them are "mistakes." But if he were King For A Day, he would remove none of them from the Hall.

Ray, if I were King For A Day, I'd be more likely to start out by giving you an electric shock treatment every time you take it upon yourself to put words in someone else's mouth.

Except that on BTF the Hall of Merit guidelines are not only a viable alternative, they seem to be the ruling model for the majority of participants in virtually all of our non-juicer Hall of Fame discussions.

That is not so. What typically happens is that people start having a Hall of Fame discussion, and then a select few people from the Hall of Merit portion of the site jump in to explain what the Hall of Merit has done. Separately, you often chime in to distract the conversation to the Hall of Merit.

98% of people are discussing the Hall of Fame, and 2% the Hall of Merit.

As to the outside world, it's not that the Hall of Merit as an institution has any particular cachet, but its principle of trying to go beyond the traditional stats model is gaining slow but steady influence among HoF voters, as seen by the final approval of Blyleven. And perhaps if statheads like yourself were more inclined towards persuasion and less towards the FJM snarkotopian model, they might find more outsiders willing to listen.

I follow baseball fairly closely, and can't recall ever seeing mention of the Hall of Merit outside of this site. If it weren't for this site, I'd have no idea it exists.

The most striking recent BBWAA mistakes have been Sutter, Perez, Cepeda, Puckett, and Rice.

Wasn't Cepeda a VC selection anyway? Dawson could possibly fit into this group as well, though I'd personally consider him to be a borderline rather than flat out bad pick.

Dawson could possibly fit into this group as well, though I'd personally consider him to be a borderline rather than flat out bad pick.

I agree that Andre Dawson works pretty well as an in/out line for the Hall of Fame. Interestingly, Dawson was actually elected to the Hall of Merit before he was elected to the Hall of Fame.

Puckett doesn't bother me too much because he's pretty unique. It's not like their are a bunch of equals who were passed over. Rice is egregious as he has nothing on Dave Parker and George Foster. They were similar types of players, all had peaks including MVP seasons in the late 70's. Not only is Rice unworthy of surpassing them, he should be clearly behind them as they have superior postseasons. They won WS rings, Rice did not.

Just for me, I like having "pioneers" be voted in to the HOF. I would vote for guys like Cummings, Sutter, or even Tommy John because they are as critical to the development of the game as the stars.

I realize this is not the majority view.

#43 Pioneers make a world of sense to me. Provided they're recognized as pioneers. If Tommy McCarthy is indeed in for inventing the hit and run (as Bill James claims) I can live with that provided he's tagged correctly (as Candy Cummings is -- and yes, I'm aware that he might not have actually invented the curve). Right now though he doesn't have the Pioneer tag and I classify him as a flat out mistake.

I'm not in favor of Tommy John though. He wasn't the first to have that type of surgery, just the first where they got it right. I'm about 85% confident that Steve Hargan had the same surgery before John. Or at any rate, the intent was the same and that the details learned from the failure of Hargan's surgery were critical to things working for John. And if I'm wrong specifically about Hargan, I know there were others.

I follow baseball fairly closely, and can't recall ever seeing mention of the Hall of Merit outside of this site. If it weren't for this site, I'd have no idea it exists.

Posnanski has pushed it several times (picked that link since it's SI).

Yes, but "Steve Hargan surgery" doesn't sound as cool.

#45, thanks. SI certainly does qualify as a mainstream publication that the HOM has been discussed in.

Do you think, however, that even 1% of fans or writers who follow baseball somewhat closely have ever heard of the HOM? I'd be shocked if it's close to even that high.