User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.3962 seconds
41 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Wednesday, January 30, 2002Outta here: One man’s Hall of Fame planThanks to Cris Enestvedt for passing this along. Talk about an exclusive Hall of Fame! I’ll bet the folks in Cooperstown would love having an induction every 3 or 4 years. I wonder if they’d be able to get whoever gets kicked out to show up for the ceremony . . . I realize this is just a fun article, but seriously, this guy is missing the whole point. It’s to honor several of the best players of each generation. To honor some players that weren’t appreciated for the stars they were when they were active. Not the 2 best from each decade and kick people out once someone better comes along. Not to mention that I have some issue with his choices for the top 25 anyway. Here’s the follow-up article for current players: Also, apologies for the lack of posting here so far. The support has been great, far exceeding our expectations. I have 81 people on the list for ballots so far. I’ve been really busy the last few weeks. More will follow soon. I think the early discussion has been very good, we’ll start bringing it together and focusing in soon. If you have any suggestions/questions that you would like addressed feel free to post them here. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head
Posted: January 30, 2002 at 02:23 AM | 22 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsMock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires
(21 - 9:12am, Dec 01) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Results (2 - 5:01pm, Nov 29) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Ballot (12 - 5:45pm, Nov 28) Last: kcgard2 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (169 - 1:15pm, Nov 26) Last: kcgard2 Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Discussion (14 - 5:22pm, Nov 16) Last: Bleed the Freak Reranking First Basemen: Results (55 - 11:31pm, Nov 07) Last: Chris Cobb Mock Hall of Fame Discussion Thread: Contemporary Baseball - Managers, Executives and Umpires 2023 (15 - 8:23pm, Oct 30) Last: Srul Itza Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Results (7 - 9:28am, Oct 17) Last: Chris Cobb Ranking the Hall of Merit Pitchers (1893-1923) - Discussion (68 - 1:25pm, Oct 14) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Ballot (13 - 2:22pm, Oct 12) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Discussion (39 - 10:42am, Oct 12) Last: Guapo Reranking Shortstops: Results (7 - 8:15am, Sep 30) Last: kcgard2 Reranking First Basemen: Ballot (18 - 10:13am, Sep 11) Last: DL from MN Reranking First Basemen: Discussion Thread (111 - 5:08pm, Sep 01) Last: Chris Cobb Hall of Merit Book Club (15 - 6:04pm, Aug 10) Last: progrockfan |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.3962 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Toby Posted: January 30, 2002 at 03:49 PM (#509622)I'd say maybe 42 is a good age to start considering players. Almost all players are retired by this age. As late as 1964 even (random year, first year of Niekro's career), the only players over 39 of any significance were Hoyt Wilhelm and Warren Spahn. Minnie Minoso and Art Fowler were bit players that year.
Having multiple 40+ players is a relatively new phenomenon. We could take the average retirement age of all current Hall of Famers and add 5 years to that for an objective number.
Whatever number we use, if a player like Niekro or Ricky isn't retired, he could be voted on for his accomplishments up to that point. Then in each future election what he does could be added to his evaluation. This would require discretion by voters, but I think we could handle that.
I would say that I like the idea of using age, but also like the 5 years after retired because it mirrors the Cooperstown version. That helps as far as interest in the ballot for non-statheads (they can see how we differ from the BBWAA). I could be swayed either way.
What do you guys think?
Certainly, eligibility based on age has a certain logic to it. But the problems are obvious. Some players will be eligible when they are still active, while others will be gone ten or 15 years and be largely forgotten.
I agree that it would be better for a player like Puckett to be considered along with his contemporaries. Establishing a minimum age for eligibility (42?) would solve that problem.
But for the HoM to do this would, I feel, be too large a departure from the old HoF rules.
As soon as we decide on a age 42 rule, some freakish marginal star will invent "the double secret reverse knuckleball" and go 30-3 at age 46.
Anyway, Puckett is never really going up against his contemporaries, he's going up against all of the best players who retired before him who are not yet inducted.
I think an age-based eligibility system would dramatically improve the process by ensuring that true peers are compared.
Nothing against Kirby, but part of the explanation for him getting into the Hall is because he was essentially at his peak when he stopped playing. When he came eligible, his peak years were only five years before. Guys like Gary Carter, Ozzie Smith, and Jim Rice were all born in 1953-54 and peaked in the early '80s but didn't come on the ballot till 15 years later. Kirby is seven or eight years younger than those guys, born in 1961, peaked in the early '90s, and came on the ballot basically 6-7 years after his peak. He benefitted the sympathy factor, yes, but he also benefitted from the fact that his peak was much fresher in the voters' minds. (No, I have no statistical analysis to back that up, but it seems reasonable.)
Certainly, eligibility based on age has a certain logic to it. But the problems are obvious. Some players will be eligible when they are still active, while others will be gone ten or 15 years and be largely forgotten.
I agree that it would be better for a player like Puckett to be considered along with his contemporaries. Establishing a minimum age for eligibility (42?) would solve that problem.
But for the HoM to do this would, I feel, be too large a departure from the old HoF rules.
This would only be true if everyone peaked at the same time, which we know they don't. Denny McLain and Steve Carlton were born the same year, but it makes little sense to start their eligibility at the same time.
He does make a valid point about Puckett: "He benefitted the sympathy factor, yes, but he also benefitted from the fact that his peak was much fresher in the voters' minds." As I noted last time, this could be solved by establishing a minimum age for eligibility.
One of the things I think we want is to be able to compare our vote with the HoF voting, to some degree. For example, we want Brett, Yount and Fisk to begin on the HoM ballot at the same time. If you use age-based eligibility, they all start in different years.
Dan
The point at which a player peaks has nothing to do with it. If McLain and Carlton were born in the same year, they should be compared together, it seems to me.
I see the point that there is some comparative value to having players become eligible for HOM at the same time as they become eligible for HOF. But the same value attaches to all the other HOF procedures that are being jettisoned. Isn't the goal to select the most meritorious players? How does tracking the HOF procedure further that goal, once you concede that the HOF procedure does in fact unduly benefit a Kirby Puckett?
The difference isn't quite so drastic. This is like saying Kirby had another 8 to 10 years left to play. Really, it was more like 5 or 6.
Among the contemporaries you mention, Carter retired three years later, Davis retired four years later. Raines is active.
Among others who debuted the same year on the HoF ballot, Winfield is nearly ten years older, but he played forever. Mattingly is a month younger than Kirby; Stewart, Whitaker and Gibson are all four years older. So to say that Puckett is not being compared to his contemporaries is an overstatement. Four years just doesn't have much effect.
He also wrote: "The point at which a player peaks has nothing to do with it. " I disagree. Your contemporaries in baseball are the guys who played at the same time as you did. How you rank among your direct peers has a lot to do with determining your peak value. McLain should be compared to the greats of the late sixties, 64-71. Carlton's comps are the stars of 72-82, when McLain was finished.
Dan
Toby -- I think it's a good idea, all things considered, but in the end, it really doesn't add much. Players don't drop off our ballot, so you won't necessarily be compared to your "peers" anyway. I'd probably vote no now as well after reading everything. It seems like that is the consensus at this point, if we're missing something and you want to make a final pitch, I'm all ears.
These outside the box ideas are very good to discuss though. Even if only a few end up being implemented, if we throw enough s*** at the wall, something is going to stick. Keep the suggestions coming.
My question is: Where is the list for ballots? I'm ready to sign up now!
As I understand it, all you have to do is express an interest... send an e-mail to JoeDimino or Rob Dudek.
In regards to a comment on another thread, I'll repost here:
Again, sorry for the delays, we're getting there. 30 hour days would help. We should be ready for the first straw poll in the next few weeks.
If anyone has a comment/suggestion, etc. feel free to tack it on to one of the existing threads, or send Robert or myself an email and we'll start another thread. If we have a lull/time crunch/etc. you guys can feel free to throw a log on the fire.
Thank you.
Dealing strictly with the 25-man list, the biggest oversight is Eddie Collins, who wasn't even a "Close Call". Generally, Collins would rank around #21 if you're including Negro League players in the rankings. The SABR century survey of its members also dissed Eddie big-time, ranking him #49.
The next biggest oversight is Frank Robinson, typically ranked about #24. Frank is relegated to the Close Calls because of the highly dubious inclusion of Jackie Robinson and the just-totally-wrong inclusion of Sandy Koufax. Likewise, Bench and Joe Jackson have no business being listed among Close Calls.
A good consensus is being compiled by the Baseball Survivor project. Check it out here:
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main