What makes a Hall of Famer

[Pavelb1]

For me a Hall of Famer is like the definition of porn. I know it when I see it. Frank Thomas is a Hall of Famer, Gary Sheffield is not.

[RedsoxRockies]

Sheffield has a good case to make it, as long as 'roids are not used against him

[justanewguy]

Frank Thomas will make it because he was the AL's best hitter in the 90s. Sheffield will make it eventually, but probably shouldn't. There will be too many players on the ballots he'll get on that outshine him, and there were too many outfielders in his generation that were superior players.

For me, the most important HOF qualifiers:

1) How does the player stack up against the rest of the players in his era? This makes guys like Ruth, Williams, Aaron, Mays and Maddux automatics. It makes guys like Frank Thomas first-ballot guys. Black/grey ink, MVP or Cy Young voting ranks... I would take things like that into account.
2) How does the player stack up against the rest of the players AT HIS POSITION, in his era? The best one or two players at each position in a decade, or some time frame, are automatically deserving in my mind.
3) How does the player stack up, ALL TIME, at his position? This is what puts a Jeff Kent into the HOF.
4) Career totals. The 500 HR or 3000 hits thing isn't necessary, but it really makes a strong case. Most players (outside of special cases like Koufax) probably aren't HOF worthy if they didn't put up very solid career totals. It's just inherent to the nature of getting into the Hall. You've got to be good for a long time.
5) Career averages/metrics/YBY stats. This is why Koufax is in, along with being the best pitcher in baseball for 5 years. Pedro becomes a first-ballot pitcher for the same two reasons.
6) Impact on the game. Jackie Robinson. And yet another point for a guy like Ruth.
7) Winning. The least important, but it could sway me on a borderline HOFer. Being a part of championship teams certainly cannot hurt anyone's Hall of Fame chances.

[YEAH DAAAAWG]

For me a Hall of Famer is like the definition of porn. I know it when I see it. Frank Thomas is a Hall of Famer, Gary Sheffield is not.

Frank Thomas will make it because he was the AL's best hitter in the 90s. Sheffield will make it eventually, but probably shouldn't. There will be too many players on the ballots he'll get on that outshine him, and there were too many outfielders in his generation that were superior players.

For me, the most important HOF qualifiers:

1) How does the player stack up against the rest of the players in his era? This makes guys like Ruth, Williams, Aaron, Mays and Maddux automatics. It makes guys like Frank Thomas first-ballot guys. Black/grey ink, MVP or Cy Young voting ranks... I would take things like that into account.
2) How does the player stack up against the rest of the players AT HIS POSITION, in his era? The best one or two players at each position in a decade, or some time frame, are automatically deserving in my mind.
3) How does the player stack up, ALL TIME, at his position? This is what puts a Jeff Kent into the HOF.
4) Career totals. The 500 HR or 3000 hits thing isn't necessary, but it really makes a strong case. Most players (outside of special cases like Koufax) probably aren't HOF worthy if they didn't put up very solid career totals. It's just inherent to the nature of getting into the Hall. You've got to be good for a long time.
5) Career averages/metrics/YBY stats. This is why Koufax is in, along with being the best pitcher in baseball for 5 years. Pedro becomes a first-ballot pitcher for the same two reasons.
6) Impact on the game. Jackie Robinson. And yet another point for a guy like Ruth.
7) Winning. The least important, but it could sway me on a borderline HOFer. Being a part of championship teams certainly cannot hurt anyone's Hall of Fame chances.

I'd agree with both of these. Although I think you have to factor character into the equation with you list too, justanewguy, which is part of the reason that Sheffield is borderline.

[dps]

Reminds me of the list Bill James came up with that he calls the Keltner List:

1 Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

2 Was he the best player on his team?

3 Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

4 Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

5 Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

6 Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

7 Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

8 Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

9 Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

10 Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

11 How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

12 How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

13 If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

14 What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

15 Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Let's Keltnerize both Thomas and Sheffield:

1 I don't think either was ever the best player in baseball. When Sheffield was a young player, I believe that some observers did think that he had the best skills of anyone out there, but he never really deliveried that level of performance. Thomas was, at one time, the best pure hitter around, but his defense was terrible even by first base standards, and he certainly wasn't much of a baserunner.

2 Through the first half of their careers, both men were the best players on their teams, at least arguably.

3 Thomas was probably the best first baseman in the AL in his prime in spite of his defense. He wasn't the best in the majors, becuase Bagwell was also a great hitter who played good defense and could run, at least for a few years.

The Brewers tried Sheffield at short and later at third. His defense was worse at those positions than Thomas' was at first, which is saying a lot. He was adequate defensively in the outfield, but I don't think that he was ever the best in the league.

4 Yes, for both.

5 Again, yes for both.

6 No, though a lot of the guys who would rank ahead of them are contemporaries or near contemporaries of theirs who are also not yet eligible.

7 Yes, I'd say moreso for Thomas than for Sheffield. Techinally, if you look at similarity scores, the majority of the best matches for both aren't in, but that's because thoes matches include a lot of other recent players like Bagwell and Griffey Jr who also aren't eligible yet. BTW, Thomas and Sheffield are both on the list of 10 most similar to each other.

8 Both score at around 60 on the Hall of Fame Standards list, on which the average HoFer scores a 50.

9 Both men played much of their careers in fairly tough parks for hitters.

10 Well, of course neither is eligible yet, but looking ahead, I'd say Thomas will be the best eligible first baseman once Bagwell goes in. I'm not so sure about where Sheffield would rank once he becomes eligible.

11 Thomas won 2 MVPs, finished 2nd once, 3rd twice, 4th once, and had 3 other top 10 finishes. Sheffield never won, but he finished 2nd once, 3rd twice, and had 3 other top 10 finishes. Thomas rates much higher on this question, but Sheffield does OK here, too.

12 Surprisingly, Sheffield has played in almost double the number of All Star Games that Thomas has--9 to 5. Both men have had other all-star type seasons.

13 Yes for both.

14 Minimal if any for both.

15 Thomas, yeah, pretty much, AFAIK. Sheffield's kind of a jerk, and says a lot of stupid things.

I would conclude from this exercise that Thomas is pretty much a lock (nothing new there), but Sheffield's a strong candidate as well (which isn't exactly a surprise, either, but he looks stronger by this method than I thought).

[HoustonGM]

I use a mix of peak value and career value, while taking into account many of the things that justanewguy listed.

I don't put much weight on character, as the Hall of Fame as, historically, NOT.

Sheffield and Thomas are both HOFers in my book.

[RedsoxRockies]

On the Keltner list it asks if the player was the best on his team. Many teams over the years have had several HOFers, so obviously that is nt the best way to evaluate.

[HoustonGM]

On the Keltner list it asks if the player was the best on his team. Many teams over the years have had several HOFers, so obviously that is nt the best way to evaluate.

The Keltner list is a list of questions, each of which must be taken in conjunction with one another, so focusing on just one of the questions seems pretty silly. Also, in order to properly use the Keltner list, you must give thorough answers WITH CONTEXT to the questions, and also evaluate the answers in context. If you run a Keltner on Lou Gehrig, yeah, he won't have a "yes" to the "Was he the best player on his team?" question, thanks to Babe Ruth, but that's why you must take into account that the best player on his team was also the best player to ever play the game, so the "No" answer to that question isn't really a negative.

[RedsoxRockies]

The Keltner list is a list of questions, each of which must be taken in conjunction with one another, so focusing on just one of the questions seems pretty silly. Also, in order to properly use the Keltner list, you must give thorough answers WITH CONTEXT to the questions, and also evaluate the answers in context. If you run a Keltner on Lou Gehrig, yeah, he won't have a "yes" to the "Was he the best player on his team?" question, thanks to Babe Ruth, but that's why you must take into account that the best player on his team was also the best player to ever play the game, so the "No" answer to that question isn't really a negative.

Yes, I know that focusing on one question gets you no where. BUT what I was saying was that that one question is not really great at evaluating players. It should be slightly altered

[HoustonGM]

Yes, I know that focusing on one question gets you no where. BUT what I was saying was that that one question is not really great at evaluating players. It should be slightly altered

How, exactly, should it be altered? I don't see what the problem with that question is, so long as you answer it and evaluate it in context.

[RedsoxRockies]

How, exactly, should it be altered? I don't see what the problem with that question is, so long as you answer it and evaluate it in context.

It should be changed to something along the lines of "Was he one of the better players on his team" not "the best". But yes, I know what you are saying as well.

[HoustonGM]

It should be changed to something along the lines of "Was he one of the better players on his team" not "the best". But yes, I know what you are saying as well.

If you answer the question with context, it's a moot point.