is 500HRs still 500Hrs??

[yanks0714]

The problem I have is players who only gets to 3,000 because of the number of AB they had, and then all of a sudden they're elevated to some other level. As if staying healthy and achieving 11,000 AB is some great accomplishment. Their other numbers aren't that impressive, in fact, they "compiled" them from having 11,000 AB, yet in the end the totals look all nice and pretty.

Can you say Cal Ripken, Jr? Oh, yeah, he had streak of some sort or other. While he was on that streak he had some years that may have gotten some other players benched or at the very least sat down a time or two.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I don't think any "benchmark" should be a "lock" for the HOF, including 500 HR and 3000 hits.

500 is not 500 anymore, just as 40 isn't 40, 50 isn't 50, and 60 isn't 60.

Some kind of New Age math there Sultan? But I agree there shouldn't be any statistical benchmark for the HoF. If you look at the pre-Steroid Era 500 HR hitters most of them did many things besides hit 500 HRs that helped them get into the HoF.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The number itself doesn't hold any intrinsic key to the HOF, but it is apparently set high enough that it self regulates quite effectively. I agree that the homerun itself has been cheapened, but despite that have any non worthy HOFers hit 500 yet? That's a simple question, the answer to which, I believe, is no. So it, itself is not a guarantee but until an undeserving player breaks it, it serves as a working, though arbitrary benchmark. 3,000 hits is the same way. If you set the benchmark high enough it reguates itself rather well. As I've said before, most of those guys who were supposed to discredit 500 never actually reached.

I will say that there is an element of using the word in the definition in this reasoning. If 500 HRs is something that is related with being HOF worthy, its going to hard, working from that perspective to then find the guy unworthy. IOW, its like when a guy has 500 he doesn't have to work himself in from that point, but rather not work himself out.

I'll tell you what number is meaningless though, 300. I remember, growing up, 300 homers was a big career milestone and a somewhat distinguished club. That's long since flew out the window.

I think you're on to something. If the "bar" is set at 3,000, then in most cases if a player reaches that number, he will have other numbers that are Hall worthy.

The problem I have is players who only gets to 3,000 because of the number of AB they had, and then all of a sudden they're elevated to some other level. As if staying healthy and achieving 11,000 AB is some great accomplishment. Their other numbers aren't that impressive, in fact, they "compiled" them from having 11,000 AB, yet in the end the totals look all nice and pretty.

Would would Frank Robinson have done in this era. What would Raffy Palmeiro have done if he were dusted off the plate a few times per game and didn't enjoy this offensive environment. 500 certainly doesn't mean 500 anymore, how can it.

[digglahhh]

The number itself doesn't hold any intrinsic key to the HOF, but it is apparently set high enough that it self regulates quite effectively. I agree that the homerun itself has been cheapened, but despite that have any non worthy HOFers hit 500 yet? That's a simple question, the answer to which, I believe, is no. So it, itself is not a guarantee but until an undeserving player breaks it, it serves as a working, though arbitrary benchmark. 3,000 hits is the same way. If you set the benchmark high enough it reguates itself rather well. As I've said before, most of those guys who were supposed to discredit 500 never actually reached.

I will say that there is an element of using the word in the definition in this reasoning. If 500 HRs is something that is related with being HOF worthy, its going to hard, working from that perspective to then find the guy unworthy. IOW, its like when a guy has 500 he doesn't have to work himself in from that point, but rather not work himself out.

I'll tell you what number is meaningless though, 300. I remember, growing up, 300 homers was a big career milestone and a somewhat distinguished club. That's long since flew out the window.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I don't think any "benchmark" should be a "lock" for the HOF, including 500 HR and 3000 hits.

500 is not 500 anymore, just as 40 isn't 40, 50 isn't 50, and 60 isn't 60.

[RedSoxVT92]

500 homers are quite impresive and is still a HOF number. The only people who would be left out of it and hit 500 is because they are tainted by steroid use. 500 home runs should guarentee a cooperstown invatation except now a days home runs are easier to come by. The becnchmark may be hired in the future, but for now it is still a lock for HOF.

[Tigerfan1974]

The Hall has no guarantees for election.
However, I do agree with you that 500 HRs has been cheapened.

[Ubiquitous]

For me Mark McGwire was never a real HoF type player until about 1996 or so, when he managed to stay healthy and productive. Up until that he had a really good rookie season and another good season besides but nothing to me that said HoF'er. Then along came that 4 years of home run hitting. He had 5 great years, 1 good year and then a lot of bad years for first basemens and some years that could have been good if they were not cut short because of injuries.

Now normally if you told me a player with a 15 year career had 5 great years and 1 really good one I would say he is a lock for the Hall. Because I would assume that at the very least 5 or 6 more of those years he was pretty good as well. But that is not the case for Mark. 4 of his 15 seasons are short seasons and not just by 20 or so games but by 80 games, 100 games, or more. The other season that were not cut drastically because of injury were marred by subpar performances. A SS with a .239/.339/.467 would be acceptable but not for a 1Bmen.

I'm not a large hall guy and so I wouldn't vote for Mark but at the same time I can see the evidence (the 5 great seasons) that would be enough for some to put him in.

[digglahhh]

The amazing thing is that the 500 barrier still stands. There's the constant banter about what will happen when a non-HOF-worthy player breaks it, but so far they have not. The PED cases aside for a second, assuming those guys were clean they would all be HOFers. So the numbers still retain the power, in fact isn't one of the things at the heart of the doubt regarding those guys is that their "500" isn't real?...

Fred McGriff is a great example. He misses by a hair, and 500 remains self-regulating. Actually I support McGriff, but that's another story.

Of the guys actually on pace for 500, how many of them would you not support? Additionally some of the guys used then this case was originally made out to be a big thing, I remember a Sports Illustrated article a few years ago, didn't (or probably won't) reach 500 and will still go, i.e. Thomas, Bagwell

Some of those other questionable HOFers that would provoke a debate when they hit 500 never did.

Juan Gonzalez, Canseco, Greg and Mo Vaughn...

The next round of questionable guys is coming with Thome, Delgado, Giambi, Sheff etc. We'll see how many of them actually get the 500, and if any of them upon doing so still don't look like legit HOFers.

Most of the guys who look like they will do it seem like good choices: Manny, A-Rod, Vlad...

[Ubiquitous]

So how much better is a pitcher playing his 7th innning compared to a reliever playing his first? And again it isn't like it is night and day between starter and reliever in the 9th. It isn't like it is flawless perfect baseball through 6 innings and then in the 7th innning 10 runs get scored. If we are truly talking about 1 or two innings a game of below average pitching and compare it to say 1 inning below par before expansion. Then we are really only talking about 500 or so plate appearances per team spread out somewhat randomly throughout the batting order. I seriously doubt that those 500 plate appearances are moving the numbers in anyway that would be major or even somewhat more then minor.

While it might be easier to be a great hitter then a great hitter (debateable) that doesn't mean it is easier to be a good hitter or that it is harder to find a decent pitcher then a decent hitter. A mediocre hitter is still going to fail against a good or better pitcher and it isn't like these kind of pitchers vanish because of expansion, nor does it mean that suddenly a mediocre hitter becomes a great hitter because of expansion.

[DoubleX]

So there was no expansion in the 60's? And a tired overworked Starter in the 9th is better then an average fresh reliever?
And on top of that relievers are generally reserved for the last 3 innings with I'm willing to bet the 9th overall being an inning in which the relief corp is better then the starter. So at most you have a window of around 2 innings in which supposedly mediocre relievers are pitching and somehow this little window is going to inflate home run numbers greatly? Throw in the somewhat random batting order in those 2 innings and I think it gets dampened even more.
But on top of all that why wouldn't expansion dilute hitting? Why are the only new bodies mediocre arms?

There was expansion in the 60s, but we have 30 teams now and I don't believe the quality of pitching has kept up with that expansion (as it is more difficult to be a great pitcher than a great hitter, IMO). And where do all these sub-par pitchers end up for the most part? As journeymen middle relievers.

I also didn't say anything about complete games, but I'd rather have a quality starter on the mound in the 7th inning than a journeyman reliever coming in around that time. That's essentially what the game is now, you get 6 innings from your starter, and then you turn it over to the pen to some guy who couldn't hack it as a starter, but whose stuff isn't electric enough to be a closer. The bullpen is where the dregs end up for the most part, and today we have about 1/3 of most games where these dreg pitchers are featured.

Basically, just because a pitcher is fresh by no means makes them good or the best option.

[Ubiquitous]

- Major Expansion in which Pitching Staffs are diluted with less-talented players that manages feel compelled to bring into the game because of this modern emphasis on over-managing and using mediocre relievers (when in the past, the starters would have been given a longer rope)

So there was no expansion in the 60's? And a tired overworked Starter in the 9th is better then an average fresh reliever?
And on top of that relievers are generally reserved for the last 3 innings with I'm willing to bet the 9th overall being an inning in which the relief corp is better then the starter. So at most you have a window of around 2 innings in which supposedly mediocre relievers are pitching and somehow this little window is going to inflate home run numbers greatly? Throw in the somewhat random batting order in those 2 innings and I think it gets dampened even more.
But on top of all that why wouldn't expansion dilute hitting? Why are the only new bodies mediocre arms?

[jpenrod]

If the writers really went by rule 5, then the majority of the players IN the HOF wouldnt be there.

I disagree. While there are players in the Hall that have were not the best sportsman etc. those players excelled on the field so far beyond what others did that their attitudes and personalities were overlooked. It is a total package. The only reason I bring up Rule 5 is because when you are talking about a guy whose performance on the field is not so far above the norm that they are clear Hall of Fame candidates the other factors do come into play. With Palmero and McGwire we have two textbook cases. The argument for them is they have 500 HR and there has never been a 500 HR hitter to be left out of the hall of fame. To my knowledge there has never been a 500 HR hitter that had so many questions surrounding them.

[DoubleX]

Just imagine all the homeruns that would have been hit, say in the 60s, if conditions were as they are now. By this I mean:

- Smaller Parks
- Better Conditioning and Weight Training
- Better Medicine to treat Injuries
- Steroids
- Major Expansion in which Pitching Staffs are diluted with less-talented players that manages feel compelled to bring into the game because of this modern emphasis on over-managing and using mediocre relievers (when in the past, the starters would have been given a longer rope)
- Less Pitching Advantages (no raised mound and smaller strike zone)

Just imagine how many homeruns guys like Aaron, Mays, Robinson, Killebrew, Mantle, McCovey, Banks, Mathews, Howard, Allen, Cepeda, Yastrzemski, Kaline, Santo, Cash, Powell would have hit in today's conditions? Of that group, there could legitimately be 12-15 guys with 500+ homeruns, 7-10 with 600+ homeruns, and perhaps even 5 or more with 700+.

[bigtrain]

This discussion would be much more interesting if Fred McGriff would have made it to 500. Rather he came up just short. If he had made it I think he would have been the first person to hit 500 homers and not get in the hall. But we will never know.

Pete Rose could get into the hall without MLB removing him from the banned list. The hall of fame could remove their rule that states someone who is banned from baseball is banned from induction into the hall of fame. But that is unlikely to happen.