Do you feel it's becoming too easy to get in the HoF?

Question

It seems they are starting to let people with great careers in. I feel a hall of famer should be someone that changed the game. If their is a question about someone making the hall of fame, they aren't good enough. True Hall of Famers are players like Nolan Ryan, Derek Jeter, Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth, Albert Pujols, ect. Players that there doesn't even need to be a debate for are the ones that are Hall of Famers. Not people with simply great careers.

Answer 1

I COULD NOT DISAGREE MORE.

If anything, getting into the HOF is becoming TOO HARD. Jeff Bagwell, probably the best 1st baseman the NL has had since WWII, couldn't even get 50% last year.

Marvin Miller, who LITERALLY CHANGED THE GAME, is not in the HOF.

Curt Flood, who LITERALLY CHANGED THE GAME, is not in the HOF- precisely because he did NOT have a good-enough career, overall (which essentially destroys your premise).

Tommy McCarthy, who LITERALLY CHANGED THE GAME, was elected by the VC in 1946, but if he were a player on the ballot 'today,' he might not even get a single vote! Because his career wasn't good enough!



But my biggest point is this:

Before about 1960, there were only 16 teams. There are now 30. The number of players has almost doubled, and players have a much better chance to 'complie stats' because they can extend their careers through free agency. If the HOF was simply electing guys who had great careers, wouldn't they be electing more people these days than they used to?

But that isn't the case- in fact, the voters 'arent even voting for as many players as they used to.' Look at this:

In 2010, the BBWAA voters averaged 5.67 players per ballot. That's pretty typical of the last few years. That might sound high to you, actually, but just wait. It should also be noted that 2010 featured a ballot with 11 candidates returning from the previous ballot, which might sound high to you- until you realize THAT IS THE RECORD LOW, all-time!

In 2008, they averaged 5.35 players per ballot- the lowest EVER.

Just twenty years earlier, in 1988, they averaged 6.61 per ballot- which was the lowest ever THEN. Before 1987, the voters ALWAYS averaged at least SEVEN players per ballot. In 1976, for example, they averaged 7.65 players per ballot. And it wasn't an especially-strong ballot, either.

In 1966, they averaged 7.31. But keep in mind that AL LOPEZ was in sixth place, with 36.1% of the vote. AL. LOPEZ. A guy who compares best with Jim Sundburg and Brad Ausmus, according to Baseball-Reference.com.



And don't get me started on the Veterans Committee; in the last eleven years, they've elected precisely TWO players.

Answer 2

If it were to easy to get in the Hall of Fame, you'd have numerous players voted in every year (well, 5 or 6 anyway). Last year we had two-Blyleven and Alomar. This year likely only one in Barry Larkin.

The last time we had as many as three was 1999-George Brett, Nolan Ryan, and Robin Yount.



On the other hand, there are a lot of Hall of Fame worthy players who have had to wait for selection by the Veterans Committee. This year only Ron Santo. Yet, Tony Oliva, Jim Kaat, Minnie Minoso, and others were passed over yet again.



Of the players you mentioned who changed the game, only Babe Ruth really changed the game. The others were great players, something you apparently don't want in your Hall of Fame.



Your criteria doesn't need a Hall of Fame, a large closet will do.

Answer 3

I agree 100 % but rules are rules and it is set up as long as you get 5 % you can stay on ballot 15 years then the Veterans committee gets you. Please don't blame it on modern voting it all started with the Veterans picking friends and ditching others. Explain Schalk explain Carey how about 10 year men like Ross Youngs. I guess unless they change the rules we will for ever get a watering down of talent in the hall.

I really don't know if that good or bad though I guess it be clear cut when players like Mookie Wilson get voted in by Veterans committee in 50 years. There will always be human error how else can you explain one and done for Lou Whitaker or Lefty Grove getting 6 votes in 1960 13 years after election and Ralph Kiner 3 in his first year eligible.

Answer 4

Yeah? Really? Explain me this, Loosy. Why did Ron Santo have to die to get in? Why is it players with great fielding in there dossiers get passed over? Why are guys who win 280 + games not voted in? Why are guys the writers just don't like passed over? Why isn't Billy Martin in? Why isn't Tommy John in? Why isn't Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, Jeff Bagwell, or Dewey Evans in? Why isn't Jack Morris, Jim Kaat, Roger Maris, or Luis Tiant in?

It's a Silly Hall of Fame. Writers are the only voters and first a player must look good in a two piece swimsuit to get in. Then, if they have numbers that could make George Clooney want to make a film out of the player they can get in.

It's not the Hall of Fame any more than MVP has anything to do with 'valuable'.

Answer 5

Derek Jeter? Really? That's your idea of a true hall of famer?



Jeter has had a good career and by today's standard is a sure hall of famer.. but if you're going to tighten the criteria for entrance, he is NOT in the list of people to hold up as an example.

Answer 6

Yea, I agree, though I wouldn't say some of the players you mentioned changed the game. The vote is turing in to someone the media likes more and friendship biased election. Same goes with the MVP voting, I still can't believe Matt Kemp didn't get it he was way better in every category except for AVG and his team didn't help that much. Personally I would vote for steroid users like Bonds and Mcgwire, I meant let's all face it just how many players have been clean through their whole career? I bet not everyone would play like Bonds even if they took the same or more amount of juice and remember Ken Caminiti? He turned out to be the only player who had the guts to admit and say that most player uses it.

Answer 7

I agree, the only thing I can say for players like Jeter and Rivera are their consistency and will be going in playing for one team. This is a modern (since the 90's) day game changer. There are not many off the top of my head I can think of since the 90's that have played for only one team and will go in.



I think also they will need to get rid of the Veterans Committee as well, their purpose is to put players in who normally would not have made it due to the normal voting process.

Answer 8

You are not going to like this answer, but in reality it is harder now then it was back in the 50's and 60's to garner enshrinement into the the HoF, Back in the 50's and 60's those already elected to the HoF chose their counterparts, peers, and teammates to join them in the hallowed halls. If you do your research you would see that there are players in the HoF that garnered less then 5 percent of the writers votes only to be renamed on the veterans committee years later and elected by their teammates. All of those names you listed, i agree, they are deserving of their bronze plaques in Cooperstown. Before you decide this answer is just bad, click on the links provided of the 1964 HoF ballot and the next link is the career profile of Monte Ward, who received 3.8 percent of the writers vote in 1936 never to appear on another ballot, until he was selected by his peers on the veterans committee in 1964. This is just one example, the Hall is full of examples like this.

Answer 9

How did Pujols change the game? Jeter?



Be specific. These men apparently meet your criteria, so you have to provide details.

Answer 10

In what way did Jeter change the game?

Answer 11

Absolutely

It's turned into politics complete w/ lobbyists.

First time one of the cheaters gets in will be the cement of how it lacks integrity.

They put people in that wouldn't qualify for MY HOF. The way I look at it, if there's reasonable doubt, he doesn't make it.

Baseball has been engaging that mercy induction for decades but now there's campaigning that works.