When great players are omitted from the HOF, does that hurt the player or the HOF?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Precisely. That's why any thoughtful kid will see the Hall of Fame as a hall of the greatest players who never broke any rules rather than a hall of all the greatest players.

Actually no. It's not a matter of not breaking rules though. It's a matter of one single rule and the integrity behind it.

A thoughtful kid will undertstand consequences. And not believe those who ignore them should be honored. The greatest players are honored. Too bad, so sad.

[walter sobchak]

Then the kid will be quick to proclaim that it's not a hall of the greatest players, but a hall of the greatest players who never broke any rules.

More likely "a hall of the greatest players who never broke the cardinal rules."

And just out of curiosity, what's wrong with that?

[pedrosrotatorcuff]

In my opinion the OP didn't exactly use the BEST examples of "great players that are omitted" (Jim Kaat, Dale Murphy and Pete Rose, only the latter of which is in my personal HOF), but it's definitely a slight on both the player and the institution when an objectively great player is not enshrined.

[Chadwick]

The Hall of Fame is, for better or worst, the official historian of baseball, not just in curating a museum, but in its selection of the greatest players in the game's history (and/or of their respective eras). The absence of players who meet that standard injures the game's collective memory more than anything.

It's always more about the game than any individual. While some omissions may be rightly dumbfounded that they haven't yet been elected, I am no more willing to steer the Hall of Fame on the basis of his feelings than I am keen to let the feelings of existing honorees guide it. The Hall of Fame, like baseball itself, is much bigger than any one individual or group of players.

[Stieb37]

I think one of the worst things is inducting people after they've died when it can be prevented; especially a surefire Hall of Famer like Santo. I believe Luis Tiant told his family not to go; if he passes away before.

[dwj21792]

I think one of the worst things is inducting people after they've died when it can be prevented; especially a surefire Hall of Famer like Santo. I believe Luis Tiant told his family not to go; if he passes away before.

Earl Averill instructed his family to refuse the induction if it happened after his death.

[Chadwick]

I think one of the worst things is inducting people after they've died when it can be prevented; especially a surefire Hall of Famer like Santo. I believe Luis Tiant told his family not to go; if he passes away before.

People who act poorly like that - sour grapes and all - suck up what sympathy I have for them to begin with. If Tiant or Averill, for example, want to act petty over it, the Hall of Fame (and baseball, generally) can move right along. Two wrongs do not make a right, as my mother used to say.

Yes, it's unfortunate that people pass away before the Hall of Fame voters can reach a consensus on them and, yes, this has happened more often than it should (because the voters aren't particularly good at their job), but this is also inevitable to a certain extent. Averill, for example, was not an obvious Hall of Fame choice. Tiant has only become the top pitcher candidate outside his era after his superior contemporaries (Seaver, Palmer, Carlton, etc.) were elected.

I completely agree with you - it's a shame that the "death effect" has to happen in order for some deserving guys to get in, but it's just one more symptom of an electoral system that isn't conducive to serving the Hall of Fame's best interests.

[dwj21792]

I say neither the players nor the Hall is hurt. Who is hurt are the fans, particularly those not yet born. Over the years, the average fan will look to the HOF for their knowledge of baseball history, much as we do today. I think even the above average fan uses the Hall as a starting point. If a player is not elected he tends to be forgotten until someone brings up a Jack Glasscock or Bill Dahlin. Even then there is some brief discussion before the player goes back into obscurity.
I find myself looking at my crystal ball 100 years into the future. I see 3 things happening.
1. Most of the players we talk about today as deserving will be in the HOF. Those who are not will be long forgotten, except by a few. They will be replaced by discussions about how players such as Jack Smyth of the London Beefeaters should or should not be in.
2. Somebody will come up with a new stat, which will make the current metrics seem obsolete. People will start asking why John Doe isn't in when his newstat numbers are so much better than Joe Schmoe's, who is in.
3. They will continue to tweak the process about 30-40 more times to try to "get it right" and still not satisfy everyone.
There will always be complainers.

[Chadwick]

3. They will continue to tweak the process about 30-40 more times to try to "get it right" and still not satisfy everyone.
There will always be complainers.

That's because there will always be people who insist their personal observations and guesstimates are more accurate than objective, peer-reviewed, measurements of performance evaluation.

People who approach player evaluation from the latter basis, no matter their disagreements over individual players, have far more civil debates over those disagreements than the "my eyeball is better than your math" or "My 1979 Topps card is better than your data" slaves.

[dwj21792]

That's because there will always be people who insist their personal observations and guesstimates are more accurate than objective, peer-reviewed, measurements of performance evaluation.

People who approach player evaluation from the latter basis, no matter their disagreements over individual players, have far more civil debates over those disagreements than the "my eyeball is better than your math" or "My 1979 Topps card is better than your data" slaves.

Of course now there will be the " Newstat" people who will claim that both of the above groups are way off base.