what is it about the baseball hall of fame. . .

[bhogg]

What is is about the Baseball HoF that polarizes people like it does? This is on the borderline guys I suppose, but it's so strange.

 

For example, I say I think Andre Dawson is a hall of famer and you won't find a fan who's indifferent or one who really doesn't care much. You get heated arguments.

 

Same thing with Santo and other players.

 

People are passionate about the baseball hall of fame. I think it's a pretty cool phenomenon.

 

I don't particularly like the mindset that a person is somehow dumb / stupid / idiotic for thinking XYZ player is a hall of famer, but I guess that is what makes the "arguments" fun.

 

 

Another cool thing about the baseball hall of fame --- when a baseball player retires (like Mussina), the media and fans immediately start with the "is he a hall of famer" conversations even though he won't be eligible for 5 years.

 

You don't hear that kind of talk when a football player or basketball player retires.

[OleMissCub]

I think the fact that baseball has a more well known and storied history than other sports has some part to do with it.

 

Furthermore, baseball is different from the other big sports because of the individual aspect of it i.e. a great majority of a player's individual achievements have little to do with what his team does (the most notable exception being pitching wins).

[Clem Fandango]

I don't even know what constitutes a football HOF'er, and I don't really care.

[bhogg]

I don't even know what constitutes a football HOF'er, and I don't really care.

 

 

 

I can tell you this much -- they're crap unless they have a good OBP.

[CubbieBum]

Three things are big and yet to mentioned. With baseball you have so many statistics its hard to pindown a HOFer. With other sports like football and basketball if you are high on one of the few really important alltime lists on a stat you are in. For instance the top guys in points, assists, and rebounds all get in or rushing yards, passing yards, receiving yards. However with baseball you have so many to pick from and none are clear cut the most important.

 

Tied into the statistic part with the other sports you have fewer people to pick from making it easier to designate. You have one running back on each team that will get enough yards each season, one QB ... etc. In basketball there are only 5 starters and two always gravitate to one stat which makes it even easier (PG's to assts and C's to rebounds). With baseball all batters go for the same statistics and all positions have an equal chance to lead any statistic.

 

The final one and the one I think is most important to the question of why is so polarizing is its the strictest. The baseball hall of fame makes it so hard to get in that it really raises arguments when people come eligible.

[CubbieBum]

Another one I just thought of is longevity. Baseball players can last a lot longer than the other sports players. This makes for the argument of people who played forever and thus are high on cumulative lists but per season aren't that great.

[CoolHandLuke]

How about the fact that people who aren't passionate about who is/isn't a hall of famer are a lot less likely to vocally express their middling position?

[TruffleShuffle]

How about the fact that people who aren't passionate about who is/isn't a hall of famer are a lot less likely to vocally express their middling position?

 

much like if you listen to political talk radio, you'd think that 90% of the population is extremely conservative and the other 10% of the world is extremely liberal.

[Tarver]

What is is about the Baseball HoF that polarizes people like it does? This is on the borderline guys I suppose, but it's so strange.

 

For example, I say I think Andre Dawson is a hall of famer and you won't find a fan who's indifferent or one who really doesn't care much. You get heated arguments.

 

Same thing with Santo and other players.

 

People are passionate about the baseball hall of fame. I think it's a pretty cool phenomenon.

 

I don't particularly like the mindset that a person is somehow dumb / stupid / idiotic for thinking XYZ player is a hall of famer, but I guess that is what makes the "arguments" fun.

 

 

Another cool thing about the baseball hall of fame --- when a baseball player retires (like Mussina), the media and fans immediately start with the "is he a hall of famer" conversations even though he won't be eligible for 5 years.

 

You don't hear that kind of talk when a football player or basketball player retires.

 

You get heated arguments about Dawson because you're wrong. If they start letting guys like him in, they may as well open the floodgates. He's not even borderline.

[OleMissCub]

He's not even borderline.

 

Oh please, I'd have been much more understanding of your sentiment if you hadn't said something like that. 440 HR and 2800 hits on their own has traditionally gotten people into the HOF, much less combined. Every single eligible person with more hits than him is in the HOF (other than Harold Baines, who rightfully doesn't get many votes on account of him basically being a career DH). Only two players, McGwire and Kingman, have more HR's than Dawson and aren't in the HOF. So, every player in baseball history having just one of those numbers has virtually always got in the HOF. Dawson has BOTH.

 

I have zero problem with people not thinking Dawson is a HOFer. I completely understand why someone wouldn't want him in, but to say he's not even borderline is completely laughable given the history of the HOF and their normal criteria.

[Tarver]

a corner OF with a career .805 OPS? They'd have to let everyone in.

[Derwood]

a corner OF with a career .805 OPS? They'd have to let everyone in.

 

so you're completely tossing his counting stats in favor of a rate stat?

[CubbieBum]

a corner OF with a career .805 OPS? They'd have to let everyone in.

 

so you're completely tossing his counting stats in favor of a rate stat?

 

This is what I was saying earlier. Some people have longevity and stay around long enough to be high up on the counting stats. Some think that makes the person a HoFer some don't.

[OleMissCub]

a corner OF with a career .805 OPS? They'd have to let everyone in.

 

so you're completely tossing his counting stats in favor of a rate stat?

 

This is what I was saying earlier. Some people have longevity and stay around long enough to be high up on the counting stats. Some think that makes the person a HoFer some don't.

 

Exactly, and if someone looks at Dawson in a favorable or negative light regarding the Hall, that's OK with me. But saying he's NOT EVEN borderline is just false. When you are practically the only person in the history of baseball with certain uber-stats like HR and Hits that isn't in the HOF, you are damn sure a borderline candidate.

[treebird]

rate stats are better than counting stats.

 

dawson is not a HOF. he was mostly just a nice guy to have around outside of his age 25-27 years, so long as you understood what you had in him and didn't try to act like he was a top ten player in the league in any given season. this is true of a lot of players, virtually none of which deserve to be in the hall of fame.

 

i suppose this would be different if you could have that wonderful player that most dawson-for-hof types cite, the guy who didn't mess up his knees and could play great defense in center field. that man never lived, unfortunately, so his relevance to the conversation is limited.

[OleMissCub]

rate stats are better than counting stats.

 

In actual practice, of course they are, but in the context of the Hall of Fame, nobody has ever been elected because of their rate stats. For batters, voters have always looked at hits, home runs, rbi, runs, stolen bases and those type things. I'm not endorsing that method totally, but that's just the way it always has been. Given the entire history of the Hall of Fame and their criteria, Dawson is clearly AT LEAST a borderline candidate.

[treebird]

rate stats are better than counting stats.

 

In actual practice, of course they are, but in the context of the Hall of Fame, nobody has ever been elected because of their rate stats. For batters, voters have always looked at hits, home runs, rbi, runs, stolen bases and those type things. I'm not endorsing that method totally, but that's just the way it always has been. Given the entire history of the Hall of Fame and their criteria, Dawson is clearly AT LEAST a borderline candidate.

 

if we're going to make arguments about "the way it always has been," we should probably stop acting so upset that santo can't make the cut. given the entire history of the hall of fame and their criteria, santo's not a guy who gets in. third baseman have always been underrepresented, guys who don't play in the playoffs don't get in, guys who don't win mvp's don't get in, and power hitters with 342 career home runs don't get in.

 

i support santo's induction because he was a great player, not because of the bogus standards voters have used and continue to use. i'm against dawson because he wasn't a great player, not because he didn't quite meet the bogus standards voters have used and continue to use.

[CubbieBum]

Oh and for the record I wouldn't put Dawson in. He has only two seasons of 100+ runs, 3 of 100+ RBI's, 1 40+ HRs, didn't walk much, struckout a lot, and his average is only .279. He is the classic example of a very good player who was lucky enough to not get injured and play 21 seasons. That makes him high on some career lists but not a HoFer. Close but no plaque.

[bhogg]

see what I mean?

 

 

I had no intention in this turning into a Dawson argument.

[CubbieBum]

see what I mean?

 

 

I had no intention in this turning into a Dawson argument.

 

Any general HoF thread turns into a Santo and/or Dawson argument on a Cubs message board.

[bhogg]

True. . . . used to be a Sandberg argument, but the writers finally got it right.

 

Ooops, did I do it again?

[Illini Iceman]

Oh and for the record I wouldn't put Dawson in. He has only two seasons of 100+ runs, 3 of 100+ RBI's, 1 40+ HRs, didn't walk much, struckout a lot, and his average is only .279. He is the classic example of a very good player who was lucky enough to not get injured and play 21 seasons. That makes him high on some career lists but not a HoFer. Close but no plaque.

 

I wouldn't describe Dawson as a guy who was "lucky enough not to get injured". He was a guy that despite getting injured still managed to play 21 seasons. I am sure a lot of other guys would have just hung up the cleats much earlier and not put up with the constant pain. Loved having him on the team, not a hall of famer (in my opinion).

[jersey cubs fan]

For example, I say I think Andre Dawson is a hall of famer and you won't find a fan who's indifferent or one who really doesn't care much. You get heated arguments.

 

Same thing with Santo and other players.

 

People are passionate about the baseball hall of fame. I think it's a pretty cool phenomenon.

 

I think there's a hell of a lot more people who are indifferent than you think. Personally, I think the HOF arguments are stupid and pointless. I couldn't care less about it and I don't really care if Santo gets in or not. I'm sure his constant campaigning for the call works against him with the voters.

 

I don't care about individual awards or recognition. I care about how well the Cubs do. I don't know a single friend who puts an ounce of thought into things like MVP, All Star and HOF voting. The only time I discuss it is when I'm bored and on this site, but I usually try and avoid those threads.

[BigbadB]

I find it rather stupid that a top 10 3b of all time can't find his way into the HOF. Especially if there are lesser talented players in there, which there are.

 

There have been a lot of 3b's to play the game over the last 130 some odd years. Santo's numbers are extremely impressive during the dead ball era. I have very little appreciation for the Veteran's Committee.