About Me

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

My input on the HOF

In response to this post I posted this as a comment:

As many of us, and others, have stated ad nauseam, the hall of fame voters obviously do not like, nor know anything about Baseball. Players must be considered in context. Pitchers should be considered in two distinct groups: starters and relief pitchers.

Position players should be considered at their respective positions in context of when they played, and their respective status in the game.

To illustrate my point, it's the Robert Horry argument in the NBA. Not an MJ, not Bird, not Magic, but in 16 years he won 7 titles and hit some huge, huge, let me say it again huge shots. For Pete's sake his nick name is Big Shot Rob. Anyway, is he a hall of famer? I say yes. As silly as that sounds, its the hall of fame, not the Hall of Stats. Even if it is the Hall of Stats, many players such as Tram and Sweet Lou deserve to be in. Often referred to as the greatest double play combo of all time. Hence the Fame aspect is met.

Many people believe that no one that played after their precious Golden Age deserves to be in. The Wall of Nostalgia keeps a lot of players out. The fact that anyone argues against Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Lee Smith, Dale Murphy, etc proves my point. If these guys don't deserve to be in then who since 1975 does?

I tend to work on an era theory. Who were the 10 most dominant players for any particular 5 year period works well. For example, look at the league leaders from 1981-1985. The names will probably surprise you and you will see them on the lists over and over and over again.

Apparenlty there is some sort of collective amnesia on behalf of voters and the media. It would be cool to see aggregate rolling 5 year stat leaders. Batting average, HR, and RBI would shock quite a few people.

Not sure if I have made any sense but my point is, its the Hall of Fame not stats and it doesn't get much more famous than Tram to Sweet Lou. Even if it is the HOS many of these players deserve to be in. What I want to know is how is Steve Garvey not in the HOF?


Captain Canuck said...

I used to love watching Horry play, especially with the Lakers.
He was sweet. And yet year after year, no one covered him late in the game.

Duane said...

You lost me Jeff. By the Horry theory positions matter, ie expecting SS 2B and C to have the same offense numbers as OF and 1B is just no fair or acceptable, I mean that is how we end up with tons of OF in the Hall, to many of which really aren't that elite. Then you talk about rolling 5 yr look at the league leaders...which is the exact opposite of the Horry theory....cause Big Shot Bob didn't make any league leader lists. So i am confused. I guess if all SS's now have to be compared to Cal Ripken, then all OF should be compared to Mickey Mantle. I understand you are a big hall kind of guy which is cool. 5 years though is not enough, I mean you need to play for 10 years to even be eligible so longevity does matter. Of course I am probably making no sense, as it is way too late for me to be writing!
off topic my 12 greens showed up and 3 were linens---1 of which is on your wantlist.

stusigpi said...


my point was that there is more than one way to get in. The Horry theory ie, such a famous player hough his stats probably don't measure up. Second way is that the all time stats are beyond compare I.e Hank Aaron. Third, the stats when they played are undeniable I.e. You led the league in batting for 10 straight years even though you only hit .295 for example. Fourth, by position I.e Ozzie smith who was beyond compare at your position.

My point is there should be many many ways rather than oh he hit 400 hrs but he hit 700 thus 400 doesn't get in.

Laurens said...

For players who may have been good for a period of time, fans tend to forget the guys who were merely 'very good' or didn't finish up as future HOF inductees.

The numbers a player generated is the one tangible form of evidence to dictate whether or not he is a Hall of Famer or not.

The number guys rely at the stats and when they start to nitpick at the numbers, it easy to see the flaws, especially when applying 'metrics' than may have only been developed in the last 10-15 years.

A player is a Hall of Famer or he isn't in the sense that he has to have the numbers just to be considered, but sometimes the perspective is lost.

It doesn't seem right to judge players solely by their numbers, when there is no understanding the impact a player had in his prime.

the sewingmachineguy said...

I like the "FAME" argument. Had not thought of that. Mark Grace may have to be considered. Dude hit 2nd or third for his whole career. You don't suck if your manager pencils you in there everyday.

ttyl2535 said...

The HOF should be about the Double Ds. Dominance and Durability. Cal Ripken is at the Apex of Durability and many players such as Ruth, Cobb, Bonds were the Apex of Dominance (and to a degree Durability).

Big Shot Rob does not belong in the HOF. If he played in the 1960s on those Celtic teams he might get in. There were many Yankee in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s who played on Championship teams but only the Dominant players from those teams made it. So in wth Olajuwon, Duncan, Robinson, O' Neill but not Robert Horry