What should the criteria be for a player to be in the Hall of Fame?

Question

I heard somebody say once that you should really look at whether or not that player was among the elite players (either overall or at his position) for a significant portion of his career. The way players are compiling stats nowadays, I think it's wrong to say that Rafael Palmeiro was a better player than Mickey Mantle because he hit more home runs. Was Palmeiro ever MVP? How many MVP votes did he even receive during his career? How many All-Star games did a player play in? Palmeiro was never even the best at his position. During his career that honor would probably have had to go to Don Mattingly, Mark McGuire, Frank Thomas, and Albert Pujols. What do you think? (see my answer re: most underrated and overrated as well).

Answer 1

The person who told you that is pretty smart.

To go to the hall of fame, a player should have been at least 'Top 3' in his position in all of baseball... for a good portion of his career.

In Don Mattingly's case, yeah... the guy was the best first baseman in baseball for about 5 years. But he didn't play for very long compared to a lot of others. And in the years after his back problems started, he wasn't a dominant player.

The arguement is compelling though. Without the back problems, Mattingly would be a first-ballot hall of famer. He's recognized as one of the best defensive players in the history of his position, he won an MVP, he compiled solid numbers... I'd vote for him. But I'm a Yankee fan.

In Palmeiro's case, he was never a dominant player. He only made 4 all-star teams, and 3 gold gloves (although one was a crock as he only played 28 games at first base in 1999).

His best voting postion for MVP was 5th. And I'm pretty sure he never won a championship to boot. He's a guy who hung around forever, and managed to play long enough to have hall of fame numbers... without ever being one of the best players in the game, or at his position.

And then come the steroid alegations.

Answer 2

it depends on the type of player. For a power hitter they should have at least 350 homeruns at the very least. For a line-drive, 20 HR kinda player (sorta like what a nomar garciaperra does when hes healthy) I'd say at least 2250 hits and at least a .300 lifetime average. For a speedster like lou brock---stolen bases, on base percetage, his setting the table abilities...batting average. For pitcher---wins, strikeouts, ERA, cy youngs, grit, workhorse ability. Also for all players things like how they stacked up to other dominant players, and World Series appearances and rings.

also popularity should def help a player but not hurt him....like derek jeter it will certainly help his case in a few years but unfortuantely it hurt a guy like jim rice---one of the most dominant hitters ever while in his prime---but the media hated him.

also defense and all star games too...but to the guy who said 3000 hits above you're wrong...mantle and joey d never got even close to 3000 and a guy like clemente got exactly 3000 what if he had only got 2999 would you exclude any of those guys... i wouldnt

Also to clarify...there is no definite criteria...its a matter of the difference the player made to the game if that player isn't a shoe in. palmeiro, even before the allegations in my opnion isn't a hall of famer, even though he met the statistical criteria i listed above...he stayed relatively healthy (knee problems yes, but overrall he was fine)....and he played so many seasons. Also it wasn't until the late 90's and early 21 century that he put up his best numbers---when he was old, and they were a result of steroids. So rafy no, but puckett got glocoma or however its spelled so that cut his career short so he didn't have the extra time that other older players have to add on cheap stats that make their case look better

Answer 3

Stats and status are only a couple of the criteria used for establishing who should make the HOF. Players like Palmeiro and McGwire obviously have good enough stats to make it, but their respective steroid problems may keep them out. However, several other former players with lesser stats have made it; two that come to mind are Ryne Sandberg and Kirby Puckett. In Sandberg's case, he made it in because he ranks as one of the best 2nd basemen of all-time, although his stats aren't anywhere near that of a Palmeiro or McGwire. In the case of Kirby, he was given extra consideration because of the way his career ended (vision problems), as well as his standing in the community. With that being said, I don't think you can define what constitutes a guaranteed Hall of Famer. If their was a criteria that you had to bat a certain average or hit a certain number of homeruns, a lot of players might never have made it in, even though they were obviously deserving (Sandy Koufax to name one)...

Answer 4

About 20 years ago, Bill James came up with what he called "The Keltner List". This was a list of questions with which one can evaluate a players career.

This is not a formal methodology. You can't total up the number of "yes" answers and say "anyone with 8 or more 'yes' answers should be in the HOF", or anything like that.

But answering these questions allows you to get a pretty good idea of where a particular player stands in terms of his eventual selection (or non-selection) to the Hall of Fame.

The "Keltner" list is named after Ken Keltner, a fine third baseman for the Cleveland Indians during the 1940s... he is perhaps most 'famous' for making two outstanding defensive plays at third base to help end Joe DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak.

He also hit a key home run in the 1948 A.L. one game playoff between Cleveland and Boston, putting the Indians in the World Series (which they won).

James received some mailings from some of Keltner's old friends, suggesting that Keltner should be in the Hall of Fame. James compiled this list of questions, and used them to evaluate Keltner's HOF credentials. We can do the same with any player in history.

Here is the list:

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

2. Was he the best player on his team?

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame (but not in)?

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?



I think this is an excellet way to evaluate the HOF credentials of players (in any sport, not just baseball). If you look at Mickey Mantle, you get just about all 'yeses', while Raffy Palmeiro gets you mostly 'no' answers.


www.baseball-reference.com is an excellent resource to answer some of these questions, such as MVP awards, and how often the player finished high in MVP voting.

In another question about Don Mattingly elsewhere in Yahoo answers, I came to the conclusion that Mattingly falls short of being a HOFer, because his career was relatively short. One thing about the HOF, you really should not give players 'extra' credit for time lost because of injuries (even if a player died while still active, such as Ross Youngs, Addie Joss etc). You have to ultimately evaluate a player by what he DID, not by what you think he WOULD have done.

There are a few instances in which you can give a player 'extra credit' for interruptions in his playing career.. those are:

1) time missed to to wartime service
2) seasons missed because of racial segregation
3) seasons in which a major league star was trapped in the minor leagues by factors beyond his control (e.g. Lefty Grove)
4) Seasons missed by players born before 1856 who may have been in mid-career by the time the National League was organized
5) Players who were blocked from playing by league wars impacting their contracts.

Answer 5

Lots of things:

MVP Awards
World Series Rings
3,000 hits
500 Homeruns
Gold Glove Awards
Wins
Saves
ERA
Cy Young Awards
All Star Games

It all adds up.

I'm not saying a guy who is on 5 world series teams but has a career .260 average with 200 home runs should make it, but im saying a guy like Derek Jeter who has 5 rings, more than 2000 hits now, gold gloves should.

Answer 6

Lifetime compilation numbers are meaningless to me. A player should be dominant at his position for an extended period of time. Also, WS rings mean nothing to me. That's giving extra credit because a guy played for a good GM.

Some guys who might not get much support who should go in: Blyleven, Santo, Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio.

Some guys who are questionable: Molitor, Winfield, Eddie Murray.