Should MLB raise its Hall of Fame standards?

Question

I think this question will get asked more and more in the future, but given that some 'plateau' numbers that once defined a Hall of Fame player are getting obsolete (like the 500 HR milestone that almost seems half of baseball is getting to), should baseball raise its standards in order of maintaining a hall comprised of the best players the sport has even seen?

Answer 1

yes, i think they should. i was sort of thinking of this the other day when i saw that craig biggio was approaching 3,000 hits. they say that 3,000 hits is a mark that puts you into the hall of fame, but in biggio's case it's more like a situation where he has played so many years in the league that of course he is going to amass 3,000 hits. i think biggio will get in anyway because he is the all-time leader in HBP, but he doesn't deserve to get in because of his 3,000 hits alone.
this situation is similar to mark mcgwire's. he had around 550 home runs, but he batted very badly considering. i think about a .230-.240 career average which is very bad to mine and probably most other's standards. and steroids or not, i don't think he deserves to get in.
so i think the 500 home run / 3,000 hit rule should be taken out of voters minds altogether. (although i know this is not a written rule, just most hall of fame voters go by it).

Answer 2

That is a hard question to answer yes or no to. I feel both sides of it. To start off with, yes because the numbers are plateauing a bit in how good is good. If the standards were raised then the players that really deserve it would shine higher above the ones that are just good but nothing special.

On the other hand, no ... the hall of fame is a classic standing that signifies baseballs amazing history. If we change it does that mean that the old players when rules were just being established aren't as good as the players now?

I'm torn ... I love base ball and the passionate side of me wants it to stay the same for honor and tradition. And I also want the players to have to be more than good, they should be one of a kind. I don't know! I like the question though :). Sorry I couldn't put up a better argument than that, kind of lost my train of thought half way through. Ironically I am watching A League of Their Own right now too!

Answer 3

GREAT question! I have discussed this several times in the past few years with other sports minds and I feel there are several players in the HOF who aren't worthy and it really irks me. Carlton Fisk and Ozzie Smith are classic examples. Fisk got in because he played a ton of games....big deal! Ozzie got in with about 40 career HR and 12 gold gloves while hitting under .300 and having virtually no RBI's. He got in because he was popular and flashy. His plaque will look real good next to A-Rod or Jeter's someday, when their numbers are about 10x what Ozzie's are. Barry Larkin was a better SS his entire career than Ozzie Smith was but Ozzie always got the AS votes because he was more popular with the fans and the writers loved him (for some reason, the guy is a complete a$$hole, I'm from STL). Yet Barry Larkin has no chance of ever getting in the HOF.

About today's generation, I agree, 500 HR these days is nothing. Guys like Palmeiro don't belong because Palmeiro was never a spectacular player and was never even the best player on any of the teams he played on. And McGwire and Sosa don't belong imo either, even without the steroids. Both guys had 4-5 really good seasons in their careers, the rest of the time they were very average at best. McGwire had great years in 1987, 1996-99 while Sosa had great years from 1997-2000. Other than that, nothing remarkable. The year Oakland won the World Series, McGwire hit .211 and was a complete non-factor. They won it DESPITE him. Neither of them could play a lick of defense or could run either, just two bombers and nothing else. At least Barry Bonds is a complete player who can do it all.

Bottom line: I think the standards should be tougher and I think they will be in the future with this current generation of players going before the committee, as I feel they will be scrutinzed beyond belief due to all the scandals and rumors that go with this generation.

Answer 4

Your point is well taken but different times call for different priorities when it comes to judging a players body of work. First of all I don't think there will be a rush on the 500 home run barrier. What we are seeing now is the result of the past 10 years of steroid use. Once baseball pulls its head out of its butt and lays down the law, very few will reach 500 home runs in the future.

Conversely there are many former players who should be in the hall of fame and are not. The reason is simply. The baseball writers association is out dated and is filled with members who have since retired and don't even go to any baseball games and haven't for many years. Yet these people still have a vote in the hall of fame balloting. This needs to stop and a complete revamping of the system has to take place.

Another problem is the Veterans Committee. They have not voted a single player into the hall of fame for 4 years. It seems they want to become even more exclusive that the hall itself. Again, things have to change.

The hall of fame voting system leaves much to be desired and because of their misguided approach many deserving players still wait their turn. It's wrong and I for one want the hall of fame executive board to come down hard on the baseball writers association. Until that happens nothing will change.

The criteria for voting is just fine. We just need better people sitting on the baseball writers association board placing those votes.

Answer 5

There are no real standards now. It is all based on how the voters feel about a certain player. A player can be HOF worthy for what he did on the field, but because he was not kind to some sportswriters, he won't get voted in. A player like Steve Garvey or Goose Gossage might not have been a media friendly guy, or an outright prick, but for some reason, they don't get the votes. I don't think there should be set standards, because every era, and position must be looked at individually. I'm not in favor of the system for voting players in now, but setting across the board standards isn't going to make it better.

Answer 6

That's a tough one, because the standards are whatever the voters say they are. There have been some questionable choices over the years, in part because the Veterans' Commitee at times put in buddies of members.

To get to your point, though, baseball has gone through all sorts of highs and lows statistically. There were great players in the dead ball era, and great players in 1930 when the average team batting average was above .300. We just have to pick them out, albeit with a little extra care. We just can't say a guy is a Hall of Famer because he has reached a certain milestone.

The tough part is going to be the steroid boys. Bonds was pretty clearly headed to Cooperstown anyway, but players like Sosa, Palmiero and McGwire are going to be problematic. Better living through chemistry?

Answer 7

First of all, there is no statistical number that anyone uses to determine HOF status. Whether or not a player is inducted into the Hall of Fame is determined by a vote of all members of the Baseball Writers Association that have been members of at least 10 years or by vote of a Veteran's Commitee that hasn't elected anyone since it was reorganized to prevent cronyism. Those people take all aspects of a player's career into account, not just their statistics, and it takes a 75% vote to be inducted.

The 500 HR milestone has already been thrown out (Mark McGwire only got 25%).

Answer 8

What really irks me is that players like Bert Blyleven, Steve Garvey and Alan Trammell are not in the Hall. They were some of the best players of their generation but they don't have the 3000 hits, 500 home runs or 300 wins that could have guaranteed their place in the hall.

Answer 9

I dont think so. Every generation has more and more great player, cause the athletic ability, and the knowledge of the game increases as the years go by. Pitchers are much better now than they were back in Babe Ruth's time, so I think anybody who reaches 500 homers is in the Hall of Fame.

Answer 10

They are no set standards for Hall of Fame consideration.
For one to get in, you have to be voted upon by the Veterans Committee or the Hall of Fame selection committee.
They judge your statistics and compare them to the other players during that playing era.
If a player receives 75% or more of the vote, they are in.

Answer 11

Absolutely. I can, like many others who follow the game, name a dozen players who should have been in a long time ago. Some with better batting records and some pitchers with better records than some already there. Doesn't seem right or fair and one wonders where the voter's heads really are when they cast their vote.