Tweet
It is my belief that the HOF rules are being generally misinterpreted. Well, more uninterpreted, as the steroid-hysteria has created much more variation among the voters in how these rules are applied. While some evolution is inevitable, the current situation is radically discomfiting much of the electorate, putting voters at polar opposites in how they interpret the rules. The consensus is breaking down, which I think is a serious problem that is only just beginning to dawn on the HOF’s board of directors.
Due to this negligent oversight, the HOF rules are transmuting into a polymorphic state making the process increasingly untenable; they can mean what anyone wants them to mean. The rancor, confusion, and frustration are at unprecedented and increasing levels. There can be no rational discussions of candidates’ qualifications because the shiny peel of my apple is incomparable to the juiciness inside your orange; there is less and less agreement about what makes players worthy or unworthy for the HOF. Voters are not just arguing their preferences in assessing players, but are battling over how the rules should be interpreted. Clearly, the Hall needs to step up and clarify the rules.
Those rules specify six criteria to be considered by voters:
the player's record
playing ability
integrity
sportsmanship
character
contributions to the team(s) on which the player played
The Hall has left it entirely open to interpretation from there. Sooner or later that was going to cause trouble and that’s where we are now.
Well, fools rush in, as they say, so I’ll take a stab at interpreting what I think was intended by this set of rules. This interpretation is based upon some of my own assumptions, the historic environment in which they were generated 70+ years ago, as well as their meaning as evidenced by voting results.
1) Player’s record – This is basically the WAR question. How good was he? What does the record tell us?
2) Playing Ability – This is the Narrative question. Is there anything beyond the record to indicate he was better or worse than that? Was he feared/respected by other players and media? Did he win awards? Did circumstances beyond his control reduce his playing record from what it should have been?
3) Integrity – Did he gamble? This was THE question back in the reign of Judge Landis. More generally, Did he do anything to damage baseball’s public image? The media’s/Congress’ newfound outrage against PED users has made this a pertinent question for some candidates.
4) Sportsmanship – This is the popularity question. Did the fans like him? Did the media? Was he a Sport?
5) Character – This means character as related to professional baseball. Did he show up every day ready to help his team win? Did he stay in shape? Did he play hard? Was he sober? These days, this criterion is popularly misapplied to non-baseball related behavior. Note that the very first HOF class had men of fairly suspect personal morals. It’s clear to me that individual’s peccadilloes are not what Cooperstown wants voters to consider when assessing candidates.
6) Contributions to the team – This is the leadership question. Did he have a positive influence on his teammates? Back in the day, players traveled long distances in close quarters. Did he get along? What do his teammates say about him? Collecting lots of rings is often (mis)interpreted as evidence of this.
That’s how I see it. Anyway, it’s exactly what the HOF needs to do – define each criterion so that voters can work from the same base.
You want a simple system? Assume that these six criteria were intended to carry equal weight. (Or come up with your own weighting scheme, if you’re so inclined.) Rank each candidate 1 to 10 in every category. A “5” is an average hall of famer, so the average HOFer should score a total of 30 points.
Here’s Barry Bonds:
10 - Player's record: an all-timer
10 - Playing ability: terribly feared, IBB totals are off the charts. Was black-balled out of the game, record would have been more.
2 – Integrity: one of the guys at the center of the Game’s current black eye, although this status is not entirely of his making.
2 – Sportsmanship: often acted like a jerk, but nobody loves Goliath.
5 – Character: not quite what one thinks of as a “Team Player”. Fortunately, baseball doesn’t demand this as much as other sports.
4 - Contributions to the team(s) on which the player played: seen as selfish, but took a serious approach to the game. Generally a positive example for his teammates, AFAIK.
So I have him with 33 points. YMMV. He should be in, according to my interpretation of the Hall’s voting criteria.
Due to this negligent oversight, the HOF rules are transmuting into a polymorphic state making the process increasingly untenable; they can mean what anyone wants them to mean. The rancor, confusion, and frustration are at unprecedented and increasing levels. There can be no rational discussions of candidates’ qualifications because the shiny peel of my apple is incomparable to the juiciness inside your orange; there is less and less agreement about what makes players worthy or unworthy for the HOF. Voters are not just arguing their preferences in assessing players, but are battling over how the rules should be interpreted. Clearly, the Hall needs to step up and clarify the rules.
Those rules specify six criteria to be considered by voters:
the player's record
playing ability
integrity
sportsmanship
character
contributions to the team(s) on which the player played
The Hall has left it entirely open to interpretation from there. Sooner or later that was going to cause trouble and that’s where we are now.
Well, fools rush in, as they say, so I’ll take a stab at interpreting what I think was intended by this set of rules. This interpretation is based upon some of my own assumptions, the historic environment in which they were generated 70+ years ago, as well as their meaning as evidenced by voting results.
1) Player’s record – This is basically the WAR question. How good was he? What does the record tell us?
2) Playing Ability – This is the Narrative question. Is there anything beyond the record to indicate he was better or worse than that? Was he feared/respected by other players and media? Did he win awards? Did circumstances beyond his control reduce his playing record from what it should have been?
3) Integrity – Did he gamble? This was THE question back in the reign of Judge Landis. More generally, Did he do anything to damage baseball’s public image? The media’s/Congress’ newfound outrage against PED users has made this a pertinent question for some candidates.
4) Sportsmanship – This is the popularity question. Did the fans like him? Did the media? Was he a Sport?
5) Character – This means character as related to professional baseball. Did he show up every day ready to help his team win? Did he stay in shape? Did he play hard? Was he sober? These days, this criterion is popularly misapplied to non-baseball related behavior. Note that the very first HOF class had men of fairly suspect personal morals. It’s clear to me that individual’s peccadilloes are not what Cooperstown wants voters to consider when assessing candidates.
6) Contributions to the team – This is the leadership question. Did he have a positive influence on his teammates? Back in the day, players traveled long distances in close quarters. Did he get along? What do his teammates say about him? Collecting lots of rings is often (mis)interpreted as evidence of this.
That’s how I see it. Anyway, it’s exactly what the HOF needs to do – define each criterion so that voters can work from the same base.
You want a simple system? Assume that these six criteria were intended to carry equal weight. (Or come up with your own weighting scheme, if you’re so inclined.) Rank each candidate 1 to 10 in every category. A “5” is an average hall of famer, so the average HOFer should score a total of 30 points.
Here’s Barry Bonds:
10 - Player's record: an all-timer
10 - Playing ability: terribly feared, IBB totals are off the charts. Was black-balled out of the game, record would have been more.
2 – Integrity: one of the guys at the center of the Game’s current black eye, although this status is not entirely of his making.
2 – Sportsmanship: often acted like a jerk, but nobody loves Goliath.
5 – Character: not quite what one thinks of as a “Team Player”. Fortunately, baseball doesn’t demand this as much as other sports.
4 - Contributions to the team(s) on which the player played: seen as selfish, but took a serious approach to the game. Generally a positive example for his teammates, AFAIK.
So I have him with 33 points. YMMV. He should be in, according to my interpretation of the Hall’s voting criteria.
Comment