Minimum of ten years experience

[hairmetalfreek]

Has this always been a rule for the Hall of Fame? The reason I ask: I am reading "The Last Icon," a book about Tom Seaver, and the author has made several statements to the effect that if Seaver retired in 1973, he would still be in the Hall of Fame. I'm not sure if he is saying that for effect, or if he was unaware of the Hall of Fame rules, or if that rule was not in existence in the early 1970s.

[Freakshow]

The 10-year rule has been employed since the 1958 election. If Seaver had retired in 1973 they probably would have made an exception for him, as they did for Addie Joss. My recent article at Baseballthinkfactory, Nine (Year) Men Out: Free El Duque!, has a lot of good background.

[SavoyBG]

The 10-year rule has been employed since the 1958 election. If Seaver had retired in 1973 they probably would have made an exception for him, as they did for Addie Joss. My recent article at Baseballthinkfactory, Nine (Year) Men Out: Free El Duque!, has a lot of good background.

I doubt that they would make an exception for anybody who only played 7 seasons.

[Freakshow]

I doubt that they would make an exception for anybody who only played 7 seasons.

Why not? Since 1890 15 players have accumulated more than 50 WAR in their first 7 seasons, and all the league leaderships and MVP's that accompany that:

Rk            Player WAR/pos OPS+   PA From   To   Age    G
1       Ted Williams    66.1  195 4615 1939 1948 20-29 1029
2      Albert Pujols    57.8  167 4741 2001 2007 21-27 1091
3      Mickey Mantle    56.2  173 4114 1951 1957 19-25  952
4    Jackie Robinson    52.5  137 4518 1947 1953 28-34 1036
5         Wade Boggs    52.3  151 4629 1982 1988 24-30 1027
6       Joe DiMaggio    52.0  159 4419 1936 1942 21-27  979
7            Ty Cobb    50.8  176 3730 1905 1911 18-24  881
8        Stan Musial    50.6  171 4031 1941 1948 20-27  915
9        Barry Bonds    50.2  147 4255 1986 1992 21-27 1010
10         Babe Ruth    35.1  211 1946 1914 1920 19-25  533

Rk           Player WAR/pos   PA From   To   Age   G
1         Babe Ruth    35.1 1946 1914 1920 19-25 533
2    Walter Johnson     2.8  809 1907 1913 19-25 287
3        Tom Seaver     1.4  728 1967 1973 22-28 269
4       Kid Nichols     0.2 1322 1890 1896 20-26 362
5    Pete Alexander    -0.0  945 1911 1917 24-30 336
6          Cy Young    -2.4 1173 1890 1896 23-29 330

Rk           Player  WAR ERA+     IP From   To   W   L
1       Kid Nichols 61.1  142 2897.1 1890 1896 214 109
2          Cy Young 59.4  141 2639.2 1890 1896 195 103
3    Pete Alexander 55.0  143 2492.0 1911 1917 190  88
4        Tom Seaver 52.0  147 1931.1 1967 1973 135  76
5    Walter Johnson 49.3  176 2070.1 1907 1913 151  97
6         Babe Ruth 18.1  125 1194.1 1914 1920  90  46

[dgarza]

Musial was awarded 3 MVP awards in just his 1st seven seasons.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I think it should be changed to certain amount of plate appearances, innings pitched, and/or games pitched. Ten years is a little vague.

[StanTheMan]

Musial was awarded 3 MVP awards in just his 1st seven seasons.

He should have hung em up!

[hairmetalfreek]

Thanks for the info, and for the interesting read Freakshow.

[SavoyBG]

I think it should be changed to certain amount of plate appearances, innings pitched, and/or games pitched. Ten years is a little vague.

There's nothing vague about ten years.

[jalbright]

There's nothing vague about ten years.

It may not be vague, but it sure does encompass a wider range of achievement than using IP/PA type standards the poster suggested would. The big problem with IP would be dealing with relievers, but you could incorporate a third standard of pitching appearances to cover that.

[jjpm74]

I definitely agree that IP/PA/G(for relievers) is a better cutoff than 10 years, but IMO there should not be any arbitrary cutoff. Let's say that the NBHOFM sets the cutoff for a hitter at 5000 PA and 10 years from now, a player comes along and in 4800 PA manages to get 61 WAR, but then is forced to retire. Why should that player be kept out of the HOF due to some arbitrary cutoff? While the 10 year thing may seem illogical and silly to most of us, it is a lot easier to waive than a rigid statistical cutoff would be if a Seaver like player were to retire before hitting the minimum.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I definitely agree that IP/PA/G(for relievers) is a better cutoff than 10 years, but IMO there should not be any arbitrary cutoff. Let's say that the NBHOFM sets the cutoff for a hitter at 5000 PA and 10 years from now, a player comes along and in 4800 PA manages to get 61 WAR, but then is forced to retire. Why should that player be kept out of the HOF due to some arbitrary cutoff? While the 10 year thing may seem illogical and silly to most of us, it is a lot easier to waive than a rigid statistical cutoff would be if a Seaver like player were to retire before hitting the minimum.

5000 PA would be a lot. I was thinking more like 3500, which if a guy hasn't attained then he simply wouldn't have played enough time for us to recognize as a HoFer.

3500 PA
1500 IP
350 Games

That would be my criteria

[Seels]

I think its pointless honestly. If guys like Dizzy Dean and Addie Joss can get in without really doing ten years, why even bother having the rule? Either have the rule in place and draw the line firm, or get rid of it all together.

[dominik]

I think it should be changed to certain amount of plate appearances, innings pitched, and/or games pitched. Ten years is a little vague.

too complicated. 99% of the guys with short careers won't make it anyway because of a lack ouf counting stats. the ten years is just an arbitrary number to make a cutoff for including very dominant guys with short careers. but very few of those guys are HOF candidates anyway so this should be no big deal.

[dgarza]

. the ten years is just an arbitrary number to make a cutoff for including very dominant guys with short careers.

And to deal with potential homerism.