Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

"Baseball HOF Needs to Change 5 Percent Rule" Article

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

Aug 13, 2008
983
3
I'm sorry, but compairing Bobby Grich and Rod Carew? Saying Rod Carew just hit for average?

Let's see:

Grich: 7 time all-star, 5 top-20's for MVP (2 top-10's), 1 Silver Slugger and 4 gold gloves.

Carew: 18 time all-star, 9 top-20's for MVP (5 top-10's), 1977 MVP, 1967 ROY, he was in the race for .400 in 1977 (finished with .388).

I know the author would like to put Grich in based on defensive statistics, but if you want to put defensive players in the HOF, they better dominate their position (Brook Robinson - 16 straight GG, Ozzie Smith - 13 straight GG), for a long time.
 

nyc3

Active member
Aug 20, 2008
5,305
0
Another article trying to justify sub par players into the hof. Its the hall of fame not the hall of ok, they open that can of worms and a ton of players that shouldn't be in will be in.
 

wildcat4

New member
Aug 7, 2008
652
0
Southern Illinois
I agree with the article. There are plenty of players that should get more consideration.
Take a guy like Ted Simmons. He was my favorite player when I was growing up and played on those awful Cardinal teams of the 70s.

Simmons has a better career batting average than Johnny Bench and Carlton Fisk. He has more hits, RBI and doubles than Bench and Fisk. He drew more walks than Fisk, and when it comes to striking out he only did it 694 times over a 20-year career, that's almost half as less as Bench and Fisk fanned in their careers.

Simmons couldn't be compared defensively with Bench, and he never won a Gold Glove. But Fisk only won one.



-Steve
 
G

Guest

Guest
wildcat4 said:
I agree with the article. There are plenty of players that should get more consideration.
Take a guy like Ted Simmons. He was my favorite player when I was growing up and played on those awful Cardinal teams of the 70s.

Simmons has a better career batting average than Johnny Bench and Carlton Fish. He has more hits, RBI and doubles than Bench and Fisk. He drew more walks than Fisk, and when it comes to striking out he only did it 694 times over a 20-year career, that's almost half as less as Bench and Fisk fanned in their careers.

Simmons couldn't be compared defensively with Bench, and he never won a Gold Glove. But Fisk only won one.



-Steve


Could Ted Simmons be our Ron Santo??

Lets start a petition!
 

theplasticman

Well-known member
Nov 21, 2008
4,131
243
Call me a homer here but... I don't think Will Clark should have dropped off after only one year. Compare his career numbers to Don Mattingly.
 
G

Guest

Guest
theplasticman said:
Call me a homer here but... I don't think Will Clark should have dropped off after only one year. Compare his career numbers to Don Mattingly.

Who isn't in the HOF either.

And shouldn't be, even though I love him. If you aren't worthy first ballot, you aren't worthy at all in my opinion. It's a Hall of ELITE baseball players. Not borderline.
 

theplasticman

Well-known member
Nov 21, 2008
4,131
243
Sam Banks said:
theplasticman said:
Call me a homer here but... I don't think Will Clark should have dropped off after only one year. Compare his career numbers to Don Mattingly.

Who isn't in the HOF either.

And shouldn't be, even though I love him. If you aren't worthy first ballot, you aren't worthy at all in my opinion. It's a Hall of ELITE baseball players. Not borderline.

Oh I agree... I just think they are a lot closer than Clark getting less than 5 and Mattingly 20ish ;)
 

MaineMule

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
5,454
0
Maine of course......
I'm not sure that any of the names mentioned are Hall worthy, but the author is just stating that some decent names are now completely off the ballot. The only way they ever get reconsideration is now the Veterans ballot.
 

Therion

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2008
5,779
387
Looooooosiana!
My only suggested change would be to tell writers that they don't have to vote someone in every year. If nobody is worthy, just don't vote. A lot (ok, so not a LOT, but a few) of medium caliber players make it in because it seems necessary to put people in every year.
 

ostrander111

New member
Aug 7, 2008
2,691
0
PA
nyc3 said:
Another article trying to justify sub par players into the hof. Its the hall of fame not the hall of ok, they open that can of worms and a ton of players that shouldn't be in will be in.

If you get a 70% vote, i don't think you're a "sub-par" player....
 

markakis8

Active member
Oct 31, 2008
12,081
2
It has already happened and that is why we will continue to see articles like this. There are dozens of players in already that don't deserve to be in. It's only going to get worse

nyc3 said:
Another article trying to justify sub par players into the hof. Its the hall of fame not the hall of ok, they open that can of worms and a ton of players that shouldn't be in will be in.
 

smapdi

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
4,397
221
As long as there is a Hall, there will be arguments and articles like this. The fact that there has never been anyone elected with 100% of the vote (and the procedure for balloting has changed drastically over the years) demonstrates this perfectly. This type of article always brings out the "purists" of both sides. One side is those that favor a Hall of Elite, which, in the view of some, would include only about 30 or 40 players, and anyone with credentials less shiny than Bob Gibson need not apply. The other is those who favor a larger, more inclusive Hall, based on standards established through the first 73 years of balloting, so that if candidate X is comparable or markedly better than enshrinee Y, no matter how tenuous that comparison is, candidate X cannot fail to be elected. While we'll never have the former situation, barring some sort of movement for a new, upper echelon Hall (I nominate myself to be curator of those exhibits), it doesn't always seem fair for the latter situation to hold sway. If you elect Brooks Robinson, it seems logical to have his NL counterpart Ron Santo in there, too. But if you have Ron Santo, why not Ken Boyer? And if Ken Boyer, is Scott Rolen going to be part of the discussion in a few years? Or Troy Glaus? The "why not" is because you have to draw a line somewhere, and there are always going to be people on both sides of any line. And just as obviously, the actual results show reality is in between, but probably a lot closer to the the inclusionist side than the elitist side.

Anyway, I have no problem with the 5% rule. If a player's record doesn't get as few as 25 or 30 guys, whatever 5% equates to this year, to believe in his greatness, then I feel comfortable thinking that guy wasn't great. There are cases where vote totals do build from almost-cut-off to election over time, but they really are few. Most of the time, they dwindle from year one if they do make the cut, and are excised after 2 or 3 years. The writer's point that everyone should be given this chance to build a groundswell is also misguided in application, as every year there would be more 'favorite son' candidates, and the ground can only swell so far, unless you also allow writers to vote for as many players as they want, which is a bad idea. If anything, the bar for election should be raised to 85% in tandem with lowering the cut-off, if you want to be sure only those truly deserving are elected while giving them time to get there.

I think Rice is benefiting now from anti-roid backlash, and people are seeing him for his positives and not so much the negatives. The idea of him being elected now, a "clean" slugger in the wake of McGwire, Palmeiro, et al, gives writers, who have to write something every day or week, something to write about, while patting themselves on the back.

Personally, I am ambivalent on Rice's candidacy, but I guess I'd favor his election only in that it would tie the 1975 Topps set with the 1965 Topps set as the only ones with four HOF RCs (Brett, Yount & Carter vs. Carlton, Morgan, Perez, and Hunter), and I love the 1975 set.

As an aside, who knew that Greg Vaughn actually had more homers than Mo Vaughn? Or that both had been retired for so long already? Or Robb Nen? That time flies so quickly is something about the ballot that always amazes me.
 

predatorkj

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
11,871
2
Look...I gotta say I love baseball a lot and I think its cool to see players I watched growing up get in but I do think that if they do start allowing borderline guys in...it really kinda waters the whole thing down.

I mean if you say some of these guys don't deserve to be in...just think of how special and elite you have to be to get in.Thats what makes the HOF the HOF.But take that away and now the HOF is not as magical and elite as it used to be.And you simply cannot start letting people in just because they had a good career.There needs to be something outstanding they did.Major accomplishments.Major milestones.Without those...do you deserve to be in the HOF?

I would equate it to being at work.Say you have two employees working for you and they are both good and hardworking.But say one of them does something really good and saves you a lot of money while the other is still a good hardworking employee but has done nothing that truly stands out.Who do you promote.The guy who works hard and does a good job or the guy who works hard, does a good job, and did something that stands out?
 

Members online

Top