The Hall of Fame needs objective standards

[progressiveman1]

So if you can't prove exactly how environmental changes such as different parks affect stats, we should ignore them entirely?

I don't even mean "exactly". I mean very vaguely, at best. The best you could do is say "chances are his stat(s) would be better or worse to some degree." The 'some' can't be determined at all though. It doesn't make sense to have it be an influential factor that means.

And why shouldn't we, if they are deserving?

I don't think they should because it's a different league. It sets a precedent that other leagues besides the MLB can have players elected in. Why the Japanese league, Negro Leagues, but not players from every foreign country or seperate league?

[dgarza]

I don't think that's right because being a HOF'er entails playing a career long enough to accumulate HOF numbers, not just be on pace for it, no matter what the unfortunate accident was that caused them to have a short career.

"HOF numbers" (if you want to use that term) are not just cumulative numbers (as you suggest), there are also rate numbers that can be seen as "HOF numbers".
Although HOF rules say there are no "HOF numbers".

[dgarza]

3. Just to ask a simple question: why should Negro League players be in this particular HOF? I don't see why it shouldn't strictly be for MLB players only. The Negro League was a completely different league, right? That would be like putting players from Japanese leagues in there too.

Although players from the Blue Jays and Expos can be in the HOF, this HOF is the National Baseball HOF and Museum. And the Negro Leagues were US leagues, but Japanese leagues are not.

[jalbright]

3. Just to ask a simple question: why should Negro League players be in this particular HOF? I don't see why it shouldn't strictly be for MLB players only. The Negro League was a completely different league, right? That would be like putting players from Japanese leagues in there too.

1) Baseball decided over 35 years ago to begin to address its shameful practice of excluding players for their heritage and nothing more. The genie is out of the bottle, and it ain't going back in. Even if it could be rebottled, it would be at enormous cost to the hall and the sport itself. I'm sorry, but that point is nothing if not idiotic. It could also be worse than that, but I have no reason (yet) to consider it comes from the same cesspool as the color line itself did.

[progressiveman1]

Although players from the Blue Jays and Expos can be in the HOF, this HOF is the National Baseball HOF and Museum. And the Negro Leagues were US leagues, but Japanese leagues are not.

So I guess players who have great careers in the minor leagues or in an Indpendent League(which isn't affiliated with MLB) should be considered as well. Going by your statement, they should be.

[hairmetalfreek]

I don't think they should because it's a different league. It sets a precedent that other leagues besides the MLB can have players elected in. Why the Japanese league, Negro Leagues, but not players from every foreign country or seperate league?

I'm not seriously advocating players from the Japanese Leagues to be voted into the HOF, but I do believe Sadaharu Oh should be given some consideration. There is a very good article written on this subject by Craig Tomarkin: http://baseballguru.com/ctomarkin/an...omarkin07.html

I don't really believe he should be inducted on the same level as an MLBer, but the Negro Leagues are a completely different matter. As I previously stated, they were segregated because of racism, not lack of talent. Several players (like Jackie Robinson, Larry Doby, Satchell Paige) later played in the MLB and showed that they were MLB-caliber. Others (like Josh Gibson) never got the chance.

There is some question as to whether Japanese Leaguers were of the same talent level (which is partially addressed in the article referenced above). That is the main reason for not including JL. But including the Negro Leagues is, in my mind (and the mind of most others) a wise and fitting tribute to those who were wrongly denied the opportunity to prove their skills on the MLB level.

[Windy City Fan]

Objective numbers just don't work. There is a difference in eras that have to be accounted for. If Randy Johnson and/or Mike Mussina get 300 wins, they will be the probably the last person to do it for ten or fifteen years if not longer. Its a lot harder to rack up wins into today's era. Similarly, homeruns are cheaper by the dozen nowadays. 400 round trippers used to be a pretty safe bet for a ticket into Cooperstown. Now, Fred McGriff with 490-something is probably going to have a hard time getting in, if he ever gets in.

Similarly, reaching a plateau of X hits, homeruns, wins, strikeouts, ect shouldn't be the make or break point for players. If you made 500 homeruns the threshold, do you feel comfortable keeping all time great slugger Lou Gehrig out? He was 7 short of 500. Is he less deserving than someone who limped across magic line like Eddie Murray?

[hairmetalfreek]

If you made 500 homeruns the threshold, do you feel comfortable keeping all time great slugger Lou Gehrig out? He was 7 short of 500. Is he less deserving than someone who limped across magic line like Eddie Murray?

Or someone who cheated across the line like Barry Bonds?

[dgarza]

So I guess players who have great careers in the minor leagues or in an Indpendent League(which isn't affiliated with MLB) should be considered as well. Going by your statement, they should be.

My statement suggested no such thing.
I only made 1 distinction between the two leagues. That distinction being nationality.

[dgarza]

Objective numbers just don't work. There is a difference in eras that have to be accounted for.

Agreed.

Let's put some "objective standards" into time-machine practice and go back to the Class of 1936.

If they would have had objective standards, they might have looked something like this :

275 HRs - after all, only 5 players had hit that many at the end of '36

2000 Ks - only 8 pitchers had that many at the end of '36

A career fielding % of .992 was a rare feat in those days

Of course, my favorite is, "What the Hell's a save?"

[progressiveman1]

But including the Negro Leagues is, in my mind (and the mind of most others) a wise and fitting tribute to those who were wrongly denied the opportunity to prove their skills on the MLB level.

But eligibility needs to be founded on a principle which can be used in a consistent manner. 'Only playing time in MLB count towards this HOF' works well for means of eligibility. When you go ahead and include the negro league players as well, then eligibility broadens to whoever they feel like making eligible from then on, unless objective standards are established on which outside leagues should be considered. That's why you can't just induct Sadaharu Oh and no other Japanese players, since it's not based on a consistent principle. It's fine if it's a global HOF, but it still needs rational principles to determine who exactly is eligibile.

Objective numbers just don't work. There is a difference in eras that have to be accounted for.

That's why I'm thinking it would be better for the point system to be based on percentage compared to the other players' stats during their career. Basically, it would measure their stats in terms of how well they did compared to the other players of his time.

My statement suggested no such thing.
I only made 1 distinction between the two leagues. That distinction being nationality.

Your statement did suggest it. You're even suggesting it now in a more clear manner by saying eligibility for the HOF is based on US nationality. You said Negro players are eligible and not Japanese players because of where the leagues take place. Based on that reasoning it would make sense to include great players from Independent leagues and minor leagues that are in the US.

[hairmetalfreek]

'Only playing time in MLB count towards this HOF' works well for means of eligibility. When you go ahead and include the negro league players as well, then eligibility broadens to whoever they feel like making eligible from then on, unless objective standards are established on which outside leagues should be considered.

I'm going to say this one last time, because maybe I just haven't made myself clear. The Negro Leaguers are eligible because they had the talent to play in the MLB, but were denied the opportunity because of racism.

Japan is a different monster altogether, and really should not even be a part of the discussion of the Negro Leagues. Two completely different situations.

[progressiveman1]

I'm going to say this one last time, because maybe I just haven't made myself clear. The Negro Leaguers are eligible because they had the talent to play in the MLB, but were denied the opportunity because of racism.

Japan is a different monster altogether, and really should not even be a part of the discussion of the Negro Leagues. Two completely different situations.

I'm sure some Negro players were talented enough to play in MLB, but the fact that they were denied the opportunity should not give them eligibility rights. You need to prove you're good enough.

I don't think the Negro league and Jap league in consideration for the HOF is a different question. The players of both leagues have not proved themselves in MLB, but some were great in the leagues they did play in. The Negro players weren't given a fair chance to participate in MLB as opposed to the Jap league now, but essentially it's the same situation.

[dgarza]

Your statement did suggest it.

I did not suggest. You inferred.

You're even suggesting it now in a more clear manner by saying eligibility for the HOF is based on US nationality.

I made 1 distiction. And did not say it was the only distinction.
I'll say the US flag is red, white, and blue.
I'll be waiting for you to wave the French flag in my face.

Based on that reasoning it would make sense to include great players from Independent leagues

If those leagues are the top of their profession or "major" league, than yes, such as the AA and NA.

and minor leagues that are in the US.

But doesn't playing in the minor leagues mean you are not great, by association?

[dgarza]

The players of both leagues have not proved themselves in MLB, but some were great in the leagues they did play in.

The HOF is not just about MLB the organization. It can include players from other "major" leagues.
I would like to suggest that the Negro Leagues were "major" leagues during their time.