Tweet
In his newly released book, James estimates the hall of fame chances for dozens of players active in 2007. He also discusses the evolving changes in HOF standards. He writes:
I have to begin here by making a very fundamental admission. To a large extent, the way that I have always looked at the Hall of Fame debate no longer works, or no longer can be expected to work.
---
On a certain fundamental level this approach either
a) no longer works, or
b) never actually worked, or
c) will need to be radically re-calibrated.
---
The real standards for Hall of Fame election - the de facto standards - have always been much, much more liberal than the public thought they were or wanted them to be. People have always had the idea that the standard for selection to the HOF was Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle. In reality, almost from the day the institution was built, the real standard was more like Johnny Damon or Bernie Williams. Richie Ashburn is in the HOF, as are Larry Doby, Earle Combs, Earl Averill, Kiki Cuyler, Ed Rousch and Lloyd Waner. Those guys are much closer to Johnny Damon, Bernie Williams and Steve Finley than they are to Willie, Mickey and the Clipper.
In order to carry the past standards forward, the HOF would have to start inducting twice as many people, or it's not going to get around to Damon and Bernie. My opinion is there will not be sufficient pressure to open the doors wider, because
1) most of the public doesn't really understand what the historic standard has been, and
2) those people who do understand by and large don't like it.
Absent a massive adjustment by the selection process, which I don't think will happen, there is going to be a very significant shift in the standards for selection to the HOF. There's a new sheriff in Cooperstown. Most sportswriters will interpret that shift as resulting from the inflated scoring numbers of the modern era, but that's really not what is causing it; it's actually expansion.
---
Let's assume that the HOF in the future will continue to induct two or three players per year. That means that there will be room for two or three players from each year of birth - five in one year, none in the next, but two or three on average. The standard I will use in this article, to try to figure out which active players have a chance to go into the HOF, is "is this player one of the two or three best-qualified players from a typical birth year?"
I think that this raising of standards is something we already see happening. Is it right? Is it fair? Or should the HOF be opening the doors to increasing numbers of players from recent decades?
I have to begin here by making a very fundamental admission. To a large extent, the way that I have always looked at the Hall of Fame debate no longer works, or no longer can be expected to work.
---
On a certain fundamental level this approach either
a) no longer works, or
b) never actually worked, or
c) will need to be radically re-calibrated.
---
The real standards for Hall of Fame election - the de facto standards - have always been much, much more liberal than the public thought they were or wanted them to be. People have always had the idea that the standard for selection to the HOF was Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle. In reality, almost from the day the institution was built, the real standard was more like Johnny Damon or Bernie Williams. Richie Ashburn is in the HOF, as are Larry Doby, Earle Combs, Earl Averill, Kiki Cuyler, Ed Rousch and Lloyd Waner. Those guys are much closer to Johnny Damon, Bernie Williams and Steve Finley than they are to Willie, Mickey and the Clipper.
In order to carry the past standards forward, the HOF would have to start inducting twice as many people, or it's not going to get around to Damon and Bernie. My opinion is there will not be sufficient pressure to open the doors wider, because
1) most of the public doesn't really understand what the historic standard has been, and
2) those people who do understand by and large don't like it.
Absent a massive adjustment by the selection process, which I don't think will happen, there is going to be a very significant shift in the standards for selection to the HOF. There's a new sheriff in Cooperstown. Most sportswriters will interpret that shift as resulting from the inflated scoring numbers of the modern era, but that's really not what is causing it; it's actually expansion.
---
Let's assume that the HOF in the future will continue to induct two or three players per year. That means that there will be room for two or three players from each year of birth - five in one year, none in the next, but two or three on average. The standard I will use in this article, to try to figure out which active players have a chance to go into the HOF, is "is this player one of the two or three best-qualified players from a typical birth year?"
I think that this raising of standards is something we already see happening. Is it right? Is it fair? Or should the HOF be opening the doors to increasing numbers of players from recent decades?
:grouchy :hyper: 
Comment