Affirmative Action and the "Domination" Clause

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I've heard many writers vote on players for the HoF based on whether or not they "dominated" their era/competition.

Affirmative action is the consideration of race, gender, ethnicity, etc. when hiring, promoting, or performing other such functions.

What are your thoughts on affirmative action in Cooperstown? Should players be bestowed the honor if their era or position is lacking in HoF players? Does dominating an era, even if the player wasn't superb in the long run, merit induction?

[toomanyhatz]

Dominating an era or position for a significant enough period of time proves that a player was superb, to my mind. My case for Lee Smith absolutely includes this argument. To me it matters less that a players' acheivements seem lesser in retrospect after oft-duplicated than it does that they accomplished something unique or important. It does have to be over a period of time for me, but I do value 'the first to___' very highly. Setting the tone for future players is to me as big an accomplishment as 3,000 hits or K's. DHs not included, unless they really show me something. Smith's ahead of E. Martinez in my pecking order.

[jalbright]

Dominance is typical of a great player, and it's certainly a favorable indicator for a players' HOF case. However, that alone can't be the whole case for a guy to make the HOF. If he's dominating a Babe Ruth league or even a very mediocre set of players without meeting other HOF standards doesn't merit induction. Also, if a guy dominates over several years on a league-wide level, that's far more impressive than dominating a league at a position, especially if there were only eight teams in the league.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Dominance is typical of a great player, and it's certainly a favorable indicator for a players' HOF case. However, that alone can't be the whole case for a guy to make the HOF. If he's dominating a Babe Ruth league or even a very mediocre set of players without meeting other HOF standards doesn't merit induction. Also, if a guy dominates over several years on a league-wide level, that's far more impressive than dominating a league at a position, especially if there were only eight teams in the league.

So should Jim Creighton be as revered as he is in some circles?

[jalbright]

Creighton is worthy of the HOF as a pioneer, the guy who made pitching as a key part of the game. As a player, a guy who dies at 21 can only have a brief period of dominance, and I'm not inclined to support him solely for his play.

[jjpm74]

I go back and forth on this very issue when it comes to Lave Cross. Cross was among the best of his era at his position, but mainly because of a lack of great players at his given position. Wally Schang is another player I usually am on the fence with for the same reason.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Maybe for Barnes, Spaulding, and a few 1870's guys.

[leecemark]

--Dominating your league (even it was the NA or AA or the weakest period of AL or NL) for any length of time is a pretty strong Hall of Fame indicator. You need a good reason NOT to support such a player. Being the best at your position for a few years or even over a decade is a point in your favor, but by itself doesn't make you a Hall of Famer. Most decades have a position or two where there just weren't any great players. Being the best of a weak field doesn't do it for me.

[Bothrops Atrox]

--Dominating your league (even it was the NA or AA or the weakest period of AL or NL) for any length of time is a pretty strong Hall of Fame indicator. You need a good reason NOT to support such a player. Being the best at your position for a few years or even over a decade is a point in your favor, but by itself doesn't make you a Hall of Famer. Most decades have a position or two where there just weren't any great players. Being the best of a weak field doesn't do it for me.

Agree 100%. I could have not said it better myself.

[PVNICK]

That's one of the legs of the Lou Whitaker for the HOF argument. Maybe I'm missing someone but I think he was the best 2B in the AL between Grich and Alomar or at least the rise of Baerga.

[dgarza]

--Dominating your league (even it was the NA or AA or the weakest period of AL or NL) for any length of time is a pretty strong Hall of Fame indicator.

It's too bad the dominating players from the NA and AA are not in the Hall.

[jjpm74]

--Dominating your league (even it was the NA or AA or the weakest period of AL or NL) for any length of time is a pretty strong Hall of Fame indicator. You need a good reason NOT to support such a player. Being the best at your position for a few years or even over a decade is a point in your favor, but by itself doesn't make you a Hall of Famer. Most decades have a position or two where there just weren't any great players. Being the best of a weak field doesn't do it for me.

Fred Dunlap and his dominance in the UA says hello. So does Silver King and his dominance of the PL. :clowning:

[jalbright]

A guy who made it to the Hall on this argument is Hack Wilson. Another one I'd say relied strongly on this argument is George Sisler. Some guys I can think of who as players have this argument but aren't in or are considered in for other reasons are Hughie Jennings, Ross Barnes, Al Spalding and to a lesser extent, John McGraw. An interesting best catcher argument case is Bill Freehan, who was the best between Berra and Bench

[Fuzzy Bear]

My own standard of dominance is whether or not a player was the best player in the league at his position, arguably, for a period of years. If a guy is the best player in his league at his position for a 3-4 year period, that's a starting point for me. That's not as easy a standard to meet as it sounds.

If a guy can't meet that standard, then the competition comes into play (Cobb/Speaker, Mays/Snider, Mathews/Santo/Boyer) If there's a glut of talent at a position, I'll look at the number 2 or 3 guy. On the other hand, Terry Steinbach was once the best catcher in the AL for a few years; he wasn't a HOFer on his best day (although he was a good player and, in his best years, a quality regular).

[Jackaroo Dave]

That's one of the legs of the Lou Whitaker for the HOF argument. Maybe I'm missing someone but I think he was the best 2B in the AL between Grich and Alomar or at least the rise of Baerga.

I don't know how many legs an argument needs, but among AL second basemen with 5000+ PA (roughly minimum for HOF) Sweet Lou ranks 4th all-time in WAR and doubles, 2nd in homers, 6th in RBI, and 7th in fielding runs. He was also 10th in OBA and OPS+, and 11th in slugging. He certainly holds his own with Grich and overshadows Baerga.

But I think you are right about the importance of his standing alone: such broad-based value and Lou's great consistency barely stand out even when he's all by himself.