As expected, Henderson and Rice inducted into Hall of Fame

[HoustonGM]

On the Trammell subject, here's a blog with two different authors arguing for his induction. Also, FWIW, I used to be on the fence with Trammell, leaning towards no, and if you go back you'll find some posts of mine on here where I express that opinion. I've since been swayed to the "He absolutely belongs" camp.

[dps]

Blyleven will probably go in next year, and maybe Alomar, but I don't think Larkin or any of the candadates will get the nod, and I wouldn't be too shocked if the writers failed to vote in anyone. Raines will get one of the biggest year-to-year jumps ever, but still will be far short of 75%, and will probably be well short of 50%.

[HoustonGM]

I think Dawson has a better chance of going in next year than Blyleven.

[daves]

I think Dawson has a better chance of going in next year than Blyleven.

Dawson should eventually get in like Rice did. Not sure why HOF voting doesn't like the pitchers as much? Is David Cone losing out because of his involvment in the baseball strike?

[HoustonGM]

Dawson should eventually get in like Rice did. Not sure why HOF voting doesn't like the pitchers as much? Is David Cone losing out because of his involvment in the baseball strike?

The standards for non-relief-pitchers have risen, while the standards for hitters have dropped. That is, the standards the BBWAA seems to be using now.

The Hall of Merit has inducted Bret Saberhagen, Dave Stieb, and Nolan Ryan since 2000. The BBWAA, on the other hand, hasn't inducted a starter since Ryan in 1999. Now, Saberhagen is the bottom rung of the HoM pitchers, but that's a better bottom rung than Jesse Haines, Catfish Hunter, and Rube Marquard.

David Cone got little to no consideration from the BBWAA because he didn't reach 200 wins. I wouldn't put him in, but he's better than Jack Morris, who gets 40% of the vote every year, and placed 5th in this year's HoM election, behind Rickey Henderson, John McGraw, Reggie Smith, and Phil Rizzuto.

[oriole^]

There's a difference. I wouldn't use ONE player to justify another player. I wouldn't say "Alan Trammell is better than Rabbit Maranville, so he belongs." There's many shortstops better than Rabbit Maranville that don't belong in the Hall. However, when you're better than half the shortstops in the Hall, that's a different story. You're better than the established HoF standard for a shortstop. To me, that makes you a Hall of Famer.

In other words - being better than the worst Hall of Famer doesn't make you a Hall of Famer, but being better than the average Hall of Famer does.

I don't see a tremendous difference. The point is, you're getting your guy in based on some comparisons, not specific ones. Much like the sportswriters ou cite as a problem saying they don't want you to talk about some numbers, just the specific ones that they pull out.

The impetus for creating the Hall of Merit was to identify the best players in baseball history.

"What is the Baseball Hall of Merit? A pantheon conceived of by our founder and commissioner Joe Dimino as an alternative to the Baseball Hall of Fame located in Cooperstown. Our purpose is to identify the best players in baseball history and thereby identify the omissions and errors that can be found in the other venerable institution. "

Okay, do me a favor and read the two foregoing statements, separated into paragraph form, very carefully. If you don't see the difference between the two, let me know and we can end this topic forever, for good, right now.

The HoM was created to correct "omissions and errors". Not to identify the best ballplayers. This was a very, very clear case of "the roti guys can do it better". It had nothing at all to do with "best ballplayers", except as they personally defined it. Period, end of sentence, thank you for coming, tip your wait staff.

I'm not arguing whether they can or can't actually do this; that's a sermon for another Sunday. I'm arguing the intent, which is extremely, crystal clear...and was a strong part of my original thesis.

I'm not following this point. We can argue over which baseball players are better than others, with a higher level of accuracy because often times it's not a case of personal preference, while using statistics, without denigrating the fact that all the players in the discussion are tremendously talented ballplayers. In order to even be remotely close to the discussion of the Hall of Fame (or the Hall of Merit), you had to have been a very talented player.

You're not following it because that's not the point. The point is that statistics are used presently for the HoF, along with matters that have nothing to do with statistics. Calling up bigger and better and newer and more flashy statistics will not change this basic fact - and, I would argue, it shouldn't.

[HoustonGM]

I don't see a tremendous difference. The point is, you're getting your guy in based on some comparisons, not specific ones. Much like the sportswriters ou cite as a problem saying they don't want you to talk about some numbers, just the specific ones that they pull out.

I've never been against comparisons. I'm just against using the lowest-rung to justify inductions, because that will lead to a huge boatload of players being deemed qualified.

I'm comparing him to the standard of shortstops already inducted into the Hall of Fame. For deciding whether or not somebody belongs in the Hall of Fame, I don't see that at all similar to cherry-picking numbers.

Okay, do me a favor and read the two foregoing statements, separated into paragraph form, very carefully. If you don't see the difference between the two, let me know and we can end this topic forever, for good, right now.

The HoM was created to correct "omissions and errors". Not to identify the best ballplayers. This was a very, very clear case of "the roti guys can do it better". It had nothing at all to do with "best ballplayers", except as they personally defined it. Period, end of sentence, thank you for coming, tip your wait staff.

I'm not arguing whether they can or can't actually do this; that's a sermon for another Sunday. I'm arguing the intent, which is extremely, crystal clear...and was a strong part of my original thesis.

The Hall of Fame pretty clearly was established to honor the game's best players. Correcting it's omissions and errors is, therefore, identifying the best players.

Of course, I suppose there's the argument that the Hall of Fame isn't meant to just honor the best players, and that it's meant to honor the "fame" and the "story of the game", but I don't agree with that in the least bit for this reason. Cooperstown has two sections - the Hall of Fame, consisting of the players, managers, umpires, etc. that have been inducted, and the Museum. The latter is meant to honor the fame, stories, moments, etc. The plaque room was clearly established to honor the game's greatest players. Along the way, these inductees got corrupted, most notably and egregiously in the 1970's with the Frankie Frisch-led Veteran's Committee. It's those sorts of mistakes that the HoM is intended to correct.

So, I suppose, I don't see the difference between the two statements. The impetus behind the HoM was to identify the game's best players, something that many feel the HoF has failed to do, for a variety of reasons.

But, at any rate, honestly, I'm not really following what you're trying to say here. I don't really know if we're saying the exact thing in different ways, or if there's a fundamental disagreement here. I don't think Joe Dimino, their founder, just decided one day, "Huh, I can get some guys together that can do this better than the writers because stats own all." In fact, if you read the article I linked to (which is rather long so I understand not reading it), that's pretty clearly NOT why he began this endeavor.

[oriole^]

I've never been against comparisons. I'm just against using the lowest-rung to justify inductions, because that will lead to a huge boatload of players being deemed qualified.

I'm comparing him to the standard of shortstops already inducted into the Hall of Fame. For deciding whether or not somebody belongs in the Hall of Fame, I don't see that at all similar to cherry-picking numbers.

Your earlier quote identifies you as pretty much being against comparisons. If that's not the case, then there's no issue, I suppose.

The Hall of Fame pretty clearly was established to honor the game's best players. Correcting it's omissions and errors is, therefore, identifying the best players.

...

So, I suppose, I don't see the difference between the two statements. The impetus behind the HoM was to identify the game's best players, something that many feel the HoF has failed to do, for a variety of reasons.

I really have a great deal of difficulty believing that you can't see the difference. You might dismiss the difference, but that is very much not the same thing.

But, at any rate, honestly, I'm not really following what you're trying to say here. I don't really know if we're saying the exact thing in different ways, or if there's a fundamental disagreement here. I don't think Joe Dimino, their founder, just decided one day, "Huh, I can get some guys together that can do this better than the writers because stats own all." In fact, if you read the article I linked to (which is rather long so I understand not reading it), that's pretty clearly NOT why he began this endeavor.

Perhaps that's what this guy - whomever he is - says, but I do dismiss that difference.

What we're engaging in, whatever particular veneer we wish to put on it, is revisionism, and there are two contexts to that term. Wikipedia, for once, has a good treatment of the subject:

In its legitimate form, it is the reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards updating historical narratives with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information, acknowledging that history of an event, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate.

"Historical revisionism" (also but less often in English "negationism"), [also] describes the process that attempts to rewrite history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts. Perpetrators of such attempts to distort the historical record often use the term because it allows them to cloak their illegitimate activities with a phrase which has a legitimate meaning. Illegitimate historical revisionists rely on a number of illegitimate techniques to advance their views such as presenting as genuine documents which they know to be forged, inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents, attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources that say the opposite, manipulating statistical series to support their views, and deliberately mistranslate foreign languages sources to support their views.

Fairly dramatic, and I'm not saying that all this is happening, even the parts I specifically highlighted...but we should be aware of it.

The HoM was created because a small number of people disagreed with the established mechanism for identifying good ballplayers - in other words, they were engaging in revisionism. That can be good and necessary, or it can be a symptom of an attempt at self-aggrandizement or whatever...it could be people following an agenda. "I wish to prove myself smarter than those who are famous" is an obvious agenda; the new statistics which were, in some cases, tailor-made for the purpose, are an obvious mechanism.

All I am saying is, please evaluate the situation with the same squinty eye that one gives to the existing HoF. If the Frankie Frisch-led board was "corrupt", then we should not assume differently from the Joe Dimino-led board until it is proven otherwise.

[HoustonGM]

Your earlier quote identifies you as pretty much being against comparisons. If that's not the case, then there's no issue, I suppose.

Against comparisons of the worst players in the Hall, because the worst players in the Hall are pretty average ballplayers, so comparing guys to those sorts of players would allow for a flood of guys to be in.

As an extreme example, if you're a better first basemen than Jimmie Foxx, you belong in the Hall of Fame.

I really have a great deal of difficulty believing that you can't see the difference. You might dismiss the difference, but that is very much not the same thing.

I can't see the difference, sorry. Along the way, the HoF has made mistakes, both of omission and inclusion. "Honoring" the best players would be correcting the mistakes of the Hall (such as the aforementioned Frisch VC which inducted a bunch of his teammates for no reason besides that he was friends with them).

What we're engaging in, whatever particular veneer we wish to put on it, is revisionism, and there are two contexts to that term. Wikipedia, for once, has a good treatment of the subject:

Fairly dramatic, and I'm not saying that all this is happening, even the parts I specifically highlighted...but we should be aware of it.

I suppose I wouldn't disagree that it's "revisionism", although I don't think it's extreme to the point you seem to be making it out to be.

"I wish to prove myself smarter than those who are famous" is an obvious agenda; the new statistics which were, in some cases, tailor-made for the purpose, are an obvious mechanism.

I don't know which statistics were tailor-made to "prove oneself smarter than those who are famous." That's often a complaint I hear about stats - that they're made just to denigrate others in some way, but that's never true, at least not with the "famous" stats. The stats are simply created to further evaluation of baseball. Sometimes they wind up disagreeing with the conventional wisdom, but that doesn't mean they were created for that purpose.

All I am saying is, please evaluate the situation with the same squinty eye that one gives to the existing HoF. If the Frankie Frisch-led board was "corrupt", then we should not assume differently from the Joe Dimino-led board until it is proven otherwise.

Having read a large amount of their threads, I can say with certainty that there's no croneyism going on, playing favorites just based off liking guys, etc. I could go into huge detail here, but I don't have the time right now, but I'll just say that the structure of the voting basically prevents that from occurring.

[filihok]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01142009...y_n_150123.htm

Still ready to play

[metsguy234]

I hope Rickey comes back?

[justanewguy]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01142009...y_n_150123.htm

Still ready to play

God... this is what I LOVE about Rickey. And one of many reasons why I had to put him in my Inner Circle HOF list (aka, best 25-man roster possible).

If I were Ned Colletti, I'd pay for his flight to Arizona, room and board for spring training, and maybe give him a free CBill bobblehead or a Manny dreadlocks doo rag. Assuming they resign the guy.

[oriole^]

HGM: ...okay, I'm not getting my point across, and to be honest, I can't come up with another way to make it, so I'm done. I would ask that you please consider what's been said. Thanks.

justanewguy: Heck yes. It's so great to see someone who loves the sport that much.

[dps]

I hope Rickey comes back?

Shoot, if I were a GM and my team needed a LF, I'd be willing to take a shot with him. His bat speed was gone for a few years before he retired, so you'd have to live with a sub-.250 average, but he would still take a walk, and there's a lot of pitchers who'll give you a walk if you'll take it.