Posted by bad_luck on 12/16/2016 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 12/16/2016 10:38:00 AM (view original):
I think a reasonable size for a HOF is one person for every year the league has been around. That doesn't mean you MUST enshrine one player a year, and avoids the mentality of "We HAVE TO make sure someone is elected this year". Maybe have an election once every five years and have a maximum of five people each time. By having longer gaps between elections, you allow more time to evaluate a player against his peers and against the historical context of what he did.

Assuming MLB started in 1885, that would mean 130 people (give or take) should be in the HOF. Maybe 20 or 30 are contributors/coaches (your Connie Macks and Branch Rickeys, for example) and the rest are the players. Right now, there are over 300 people, with over 200 players. So, they're averaging 1.7 players for EVERY YEAR of MLB's existence. Are you telling me that two players retire every year that deserve to be in the HOF in five years?

Is the Hall of Fame a museum, or is it a shrine to the greatest ballplayers? Right now, it's a museum.

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment here but I wonder how far away from that we really are?

There are about 140 position players currently in. If you wipe away a lot of the old timers and veterans committee selections that just suck, you're down to 110 or 100. Take away the handful of bad BWAA voted in players and you've got a number in the 90's. There are even fewer pitchers. Knock out the really bad ones and you're south of 50.

That's a pretty slim HOF, especially when ~19,000 people have played major league baseball.

I guess my question is, would that make the Hall of Fame better? Not better in a statistical sense, but more enjoyable or more special?

Yeah, everyone knows there are some selections that don't make any sense, but the Hall of Fame is really for the fans. Is it better if the best players from your childhood or years as a hard core fan aren't able to be elected?

Does it hurt the Hall to have guys like Kirby Puckett and Catfish Hunter and Jim Rice next to Babe Ruth and Greg Maddux?

Or is it better to just accept that some mistakes were made and enjoy the fact that Gwynn and Ripken can be elected in the same year and Pedro and Randy Johnson can be elected in the same year?

If this is argument, I'm on board with changing the name from Baseball Hall of Fame to History of Baseball Museum. I'd have no problem visiting the Yankee Wing and looking at bits of history from Horace Clarke to Roy White to Thurman Munson to Ron Guidry to Don Mattingly and so on. Maybe even have a little spot for Roberto Kelly, Shane Spencer and Kevin Maas.

But that's not what the HOF is now. It's designed to showcase the best of the best not favorites of certain fan bases.

******* Bud Selig is in the Hall of Fame. Need I say more? Its a joke.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/16/2016 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 12/16/2016 10:38:00 AM (view original):
I think a reasonable size for a HOF is one person for every year the league has been around. That doesn't mean you MUST enshrine one player a year, and avoids the mentality of "We HAVE TO make sure someone is elected this year". Maybe have an election once every five years and have a maximum of five people each time. By having longer gaps between elections, you allow more time to evaluate a player against his peers and against the historical context of what he did.

Assuming MLB started in 1885, that would mean 130 people (give or take) should be in the HOF. Maybe 20 or 30 are contributors/coaches (your Connie Macks and Branch Rickeys, for example) and the rest are the players. Right now, there are over 300 people, with over 200 players. So, they're averaging 1.7 players for EVERY YEAR of MLB's existence. Are you telling me that two players retire every year that deserve to be in the HOF in five years?

Is the Hall of Fame a museum, or is it a shrine to the greatest ballplayers? Right now, it's a museum.

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment here but I wonder how far away from that we really are?

There are about 140 position players currently in. If you wipe away a lot of the old timers and veterans committee selections that just suck, you're down to 110 or 100. Take away the handful of bad BWAA voted in players and you've got a number in the 90's. There are even fewer pitchers. Knock out the really bad ones and you're south of 50.

That's a pretty slim HOF, especially when ~19,000 people have played major league baseball.

I guess my question is, would that make the Hall of Fame better? Not better in a statistical sense, but more enjoyable or more special?

Yeah, everyone knows there are some selections that don't make any sense, but the Hall of Fame is really for the fans. Is it better if the best players from your childhood or years as a hard core fan aren't able to be elected?

Does it hurt the Hall to have guys like Kirby Puckett and Catfish Hunter and Jim Rice next to Babe Ruth and Greg Maddux?

Or is it better to just accept that some mistakes were made and enjoy the fact that Gwynn and Ripken can be elected in the same year and Pedro and Randy Johnson can be elected in the same year?

If this is argument, I'm on board with changing the name from Baseball Hall of Fame to History of Baseball Museum. I'd have no problem visiting the Yankee Wing and looking at bits of history from Horace Clarke to Roy White to Thurman Munson to Ron Guidry to Don Mattingly and so on. Maybe even have a little spot for Roberto Kelly, Shane Spencer and Kevin Maas.

But that's not what the HOF is now. It's designed to showcase the best of the best not favorites of certain fan bases.

If you've never been to the HOF, you might not know this, but it's actually both "("The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum"). Physically, the HOF portion, i.e the plaque gallery, is probably less than 10% of the footprint of the entire building. It's just one big room. And to the casual baseball fan, is probably the least interesting part of the building. The museum is where the meat of the experience is for most people. I took my 14 year old son (who has been there 3 or 4 times) and four of his friends (3 of whom were first-timers to Cooperstown) there a little over a month ago. They pretty much blew through the plaque gallery after spending most of their time in the museum part of the building.

Having fewer plaques on the wall is certainly not going to lessen the majority of people's experience when they visit Cooperstown.

Well, obviously, I know it's a museum since players are always sending a historic bat or ball or pair of cleats to it. Obviously, Rose has pretty much everything there except a plaque. I will say I'm surprised the HOF section is less than 10%.

Because, in that case, it's nothing more than the honor of being in the HOF that matters. And guys like Raines and Bagwell are not deserving of that honor.

The plaque gallery is roughly the same size as the gift shop.

Here's a map of the floor plan.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/16/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/16/2016 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 12/16/2016 10:38:00 AM (view original):
I think a reasonable size for a HOF is one person for every year the league has been around. That doesn't mean you MUST enshrine one player a year, and avoids the mentality of "We HAVE TO make sure someone is elected this year". Maybe have an election once every five years and have a maximum of five people each time. By having longer gaps between elections, you allow more time to evaluate a player against his peers and against the historical context of what he did.

Assuming MLB started in 1885, that would mean 130 people (give or take) should be in the HOF. Maybe 20 or 30 are contributors/coaches (your Connie Macks and Branch Rickeys, for example) and the rest are the players. Right now, there are over 300 people, with over 200 players. So, they're averaging 1.7 players for EVERY YEAR of MLB's existence. Are you telling me that two players retire every year that deserve to be in the HOF in five years?

Is the Hall of Fame a museum, or is it a shrine to the greatest ballplayers? Right now, it's a museum.

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment here but I wonder how far away from that we really are?

There are about 140 position players currently in. If you wipe away a lot of the old timers and veterans committee selections that just suck, you're down to 110 or 100. Take away the handful of bad BWAA voted in players and you've got a number in the 90's. There are even fewer pitchers. Knock out the really bad ones and you're south of 50.

That's a pretty slim HOF, especially when ~19,000 people have played major league baseball.

I guess my question is, would that make the Hall of Fame better? Not better in a statistical sense, but more enjoyable or more special?

Yeah, everyone knows there are some selections that don't make any sense, but the Hall of Fame is really for the fans. Is it better if the best players from your childhood or years as a hard core fan aren't able to be elected?

Does it hurt the Hall to have guys like Kirby Puckett and Catfish Hunter and Jim Rice next to Babe Ruth and Greg Maddux?

Or is it better to just accept that some mistakes were made and enjoy the fact that Gwynn and Ripken can be elected in the same year and Pedro and Randy Johnson can be elected in the same year?

If this is argument, I'm on board with changing the name from Baseball Hall of Fame to History of Baseball Museum. I'd have no problem visiting the Yankee Wing and looking at bits of history from Horace Clarke to Roy White to Thurman Munson to Ron Guidry to Don Mattingly and so on. Maybe even have a little spot for Roberto Kelly, Shane Spencer and Kevin Maas.

But that's not what the HOF is now. It's designed to showcase the best of the best not favorites of certain fan bases.

If you've never been to the HOF, you might not know this, but it's actually both "("The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum"). Physically, the HOF portion, i.e the plaque gallery, is probably less than 10% of the footprint of the entire building. It's just one big room. And to the casual baseball fan, is probably the least interesting part of the building. The museum is where the meat of the experience is for most people. I took my 14 year old son (who has been there 3 or 4 times) and four of his friends (3 of whom were first-timers to Cooperstown) there a little over a month ago. They pretty much blew through the plaque gallery after spending most of their time in the museum part of the building.

Having fewer plaques on the wall is certainly not going to lessen the majority of people's experience when they visit Cooperstown.

I don't mean the physical hall itself, but the honor of being in the hall.

I'm not a Yankee fan, but I'm sure it means something to Yankee fans that watched Reggie Jackson play to know that he is a hall of famer. I'm sure current Yankee fans will feel the same way about Jeter.

A tiny hall of fame, one that excludes all but the very, very elite 100 or so players, does not include Jackson or Jeter.

Is that smart? I don't think so.

I don't need to see a plaque on the wall to remember Reggie or Jeter.

Hell, my two favorite Yankees that I watched play were Munson and Mattingly. Their not being in the HOF doesn't diminish my memories of watching them play and enjoy them being "my" guys.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/16/2016 2:52:00 PM (view original):
I don't need to see a plaque on the wall to remember Reggie or Jeter.

Hell, my two favorite Yankees that I watched play were Munson and Mattingly. Their not being in the HOF doesn't diminish my memories of watching them play and enjoy them being "my" guys.

Fine, whatever.

You know you'd be outraged if the BBWAA decided not to elect Jeter in 2020 because the Hall is bloated.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/16/2016 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/16/2016 2:52:00 PM (view original):
I don't need to see a plaque on the wall to remember Reggie or Jeter.

Hell, my two favorite Yankees that I watched play were Munson and Mattingly. Their not being in the HOF doesn't diminish my memories of watching them play and enjoy them being "my" guys.

Fine, whatever.

You know you'd be outraged if the BBWAA decided not to elect Jeter in 2020 because the Hall is bloated.

I would, because Jeter is a clear cut HOFer, worthy of first ballot induction.

"Your" guys are not.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/16/2016 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/16/2016 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/16/2016 2:52:00 PM (view original):
I don't need to see a plaque on the wall to remember Reggie or Jeter.

Hell, my two favorite Yankees that I watched play were Munson and Mattingly. Their not being in the HOF doesn't diminish my memories of watching them play and enjoy them being "my" guys.

Fine, whatever.

You know you'd be outraged if the BBWAA decided not to elect Jeter in 2020 because the Hall is bloated.

I would, because Jeter is a clear cut HOFer, worthy of first ballot induction.

"Your" guys are not.

He is a clear cut Hall of Famer by the current standard.

If the standard is increased to reduce the size of the Hall, he isn't a clear cut Hall of Famer.

Nobody's reducing the size of the HOF. Why are you even saying that?

Jeter was a somewhat above average hitter and a far below average fielder for his position during his career. Don't see how that makes him a clear cut or first ballot HOFer. His longevity coupled with his luck of being a Yankee media darling probably get him, but let's not get carried away with what his on-field performance was.

Reggie Jackson belongs in a Hall of Fame
Reggie Jackson does not belong in the Hall of the Greatest MLB players ever

Willie Mays belongs in both, Mickey Mantle belongs in both, Kenny Lofton belongs in neither.

Posted by all3 on 12/16/2016 3:52:00 PM (view original):
Jeter was a somewhat above average hitter and a far below average fielder for his position during his career. Don't see how that makes him a clear cut or first ballot HOFer. His longevity coupled with his luck of being a Yankee media darling probably get him, but let's not get carried away with what his on-field performance was.

I spent the entirety of Jeter's career hating the Yankees too, but come on, be serious here.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/16/2016 3:50:00 PM (view original):
Nobody's reducing the size of the HOF. Why are you even saying that?

We're talking about how a different standard would impact the hall, try to keep up, bud.

Right now, the standard (THE standard, not my standard or your standard or mike's standard) for SS's in the hall of fame is somewhere between Honus Wagner and Phil Rizzuto. We agree on that, right? Just being better than Rizzuto isn't good enough to make it but you don't have to be as good as Wagner. The line falls somewhere in between.

Right now, Jeter is above that line.

In LF, the standard is somewhere between Williams and Jim Rice. Being better than Rice isn't good enough but being as good or better than Williams isn't the requirement. The line is somewhere between them. Right now, Raines is above the line.

If someone like mike wants to argue that the current standard is a bad standard and Raines should be left out, fine, but bringing that standard up also leaves guys like Jeter out. I think that's a bad idea.