What is your take on the Hall Of Fame??

With all the discussions dealing with the HOF and what it means to be a HOF'er as well as what it takes to get in. I'm curious as to what exactly the HOF means to you. What you think it takes to get in and weither statistics alone confirm or deny acceptance.

Personally, I take the name "HOF" literally, which is a dedicated place for the famous players of baseball, period. It just so happens that thoes with outstanding statistics usually are thoes who garner all the fame as well. One or the other does not equate to a rule in my opinion. This is why I agree players like Ozzie Smith deserve to be in as he/they were quite famous despite lacking certin statistics usually accompanied by HOF members. This is also why I think players like Biggio or Thome should not be in. Despite achieving typical statistical and catagorical level(s), he was just not that famous. (This is not to say they should not get in or that they will not get in, just stating my point/opinion).

I believe there should be a balance of Fame and Statistics that grant passage in to the Hall. So, if Steroids were not an issue, players like Big Mac would be locks despite being know as one dimentional. He was also as famous as it gets and the combination of fame and statistical achievment should be what the hall is about. I think the voters of the HOF seem to take both in to account as well..

Again, I'm not here to argue what the Hall and it's requirements actually are, but rather what the Hall means to you and perhaps what it should be. With just a sprinkle of reality dashed around.

Thanks, ron.

The rare triple post
and I choose A

it cant be that all its cracked up to be if the man who had the most hits in the history of baseball is not in there. last time i checked his gambling didnt have anything to do with him getting over 4k hits. but we honor racist owners who didnt want satchell paige and josh gibson, and jackie robinson to ever play. But yea those old racists are honored in cooperstown.

A little of both, but with stats being most important. Keep in mind that stats are relative for each position as well. "Fame" really isn't that important- players become famous because they are good players, play in a big market, or do stuff off the field to bring attention to themselves. On the other hand, going simply on statistical milestones is silly because all that shows is longevity and consistency, not necessarily greatness. Does being above average for 15-20 years equate to greatness? I don't think so. That's why guys like Don Sutton shouldn't be in or why guys like Jim Rice, Jim Thome or Palmeiro (roids aside) shouldn't get in.

A Hall of Famer should be someone who is simply one of the 2 or so best players at his position during his era/10 year period. Biggio should/will definately get in because he was the best second baseman in the league during the last 15-20 years. Ozzie Smith was the best shortstops in the league during his era so your argument that he doesn't have the stats isn't really accurate. Stats for ss and rf aren't comparable. Thome and Palmeiro both hit 500 HRs but are either of them even among the 5 best first basemen since 1990? I doubt it, plus being a DH hurts their case significantly.

Big Mac McGwire said:

it cant be that all its cracked up to be if the man who had the most hits in the history of baseball is not in there. last time i checked his gambling didnt have anything to do with him getting over 4k hits. but we honor racist owners who didnt want satchell paige and josh gibson, and jackie robinson to ever play. But yea those old racists are honored in cooperstown.

Click to expand...

The "racist" argument really isn't relevant. Times change, that's just the way it was back in the day, it's not fair to judge people from another era based on the standards of today. I guess you think that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and all of the other slave owning and enabling forefathers of our country shouldn't be honored as well?

I do agree with you about Pete Rose for sure. Him and Joe Jackson should definately be in the Hall of Fame.

If you guys want to make a HOF for Famous People then so be it.Right now as it stands there should only be people in the HOF who are elite.Being elite has nothing to do with being popular.Sorry.There is nothing wrong with being popular or famous but you could be both without being a good player.And there are some players who are good who should be in but aren't.I hate the term stat compiler or just consistent.All of the players who make it are both.You think Ted Williams accomplished everything over a couple of years?Or even over 10 years?How about Ruth or Gerigh or Mantle or Dimmagio or Rollie Fingers or Gary Carter or any of the others in the HOF?Nope.You know why...it takes a while.Thats why.I just get a little confused as to why people think that unless stuff was done overnight then they don't deserve to be in.


The HOF is about being an elite ball player.End of story.When that changes...I may just quit watching this sport.It has nothing to do with being popular.

andyduke86 said:

Big Mac McGwire said:

it cant be that all its cracked up to be if the man who had the most hits in the history of baseball is not in there. last time i checked his gambling didnt have anything to do with him getting over 4k hits. but we honor racist owners who didnt want satchell paige and josh gibson, and jackie robinson to ever play. But yea those old racists are honored in cooperstown.

Click to expand...

The "racist" argument really isn't relevant. Times change, that's just the way it was back in the day, it's not fair to judge people from another era based on the standards of today. I guess you think that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and all of the other slave owning and enabling forefathers of our country shouldn't be honored as well?

I do agree with you about Pete Rose for sure. Him and Joe Jackson should definately be in the Hall of Fame.

Click to expand...

Thanked!

I selected the third option.

It isn't just one or the other. If it were only a popularity contest; Ron Santo, Don Mattingly, ect would already be in. If it were all about stats; Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Big Mac would already be in.

Players that reach a certain milestone; 3000 hits, 500 HR (probably soon to be 600 HR), 300 wins, ect should be in the HOF. If they lasted long enough in the league to reach those milestones, they must have been liked enough. Players like Biggio do a lot for the community and different charities.

andyduke86 said:

Big Mac McGwire said:

it cant be that all its cracked up to be if the man who had the most hits in the history of baseball is not in there. last time i checked his gambling didnt have anything to do with him getting over 4k hits. but we honor racist owners who didnt want satchell paige and josh gibson, and jackie robinson to ever play. But yea those old racists are honored in cooperstown.

Click to expand...

The "racist" argument really isn't relevant. Times change, that's just the way it was back in the day, it's not fair to judge people from another era based on the standards of today. I guess you think that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and all of the other slave owning and enabling forefathers of our country shouldn't be honored as well?

I do agree with you about Pete Rose for sure. Him and Joe Jackson should definately be in the Hall of Fame.

Click to expand...

So, why are we judging Bonds or McGwire for using performance-enhancing substances? Clearly, the 90 and early 00's was a period of intense steroid use judging by the size of Senator Mitchell's list. Let's all buy into moral relativism and hold no one responsible for their actions.

It is "The Hall of Fame", not the hall of stats. Thats just the way it's named and the way I see it. I believe a player should also have a certin level of fame as well as the stats that usually attribute fame. Thats why I would not cry if Biggio or Thome did not make the hall, because although they were great at what they did well, they never really garnered the Fame one would attribute to Hall worthyness(just my opinion)..

Ossie Smith is a perfect example. His defence alone did not get him in, and his fame alone did not. It was the fame he gathered while being incredibly flamboyant as a defensive player that got him in. Without the flash or fame that came along with it, hes not even a consideration...

I'm just tired of hearing HOF discussions take place like an accounting meeting crunching numbers.

But make no mistake, I'm fully aware that stats, preferably great ones, usually usher in fame. I understand that, but also realise it's not a rule but an attribute of greatness. something that can be void of an otherwise statworthy fellow..

i43770 said:

I selected the third option.

It isn't just one or the other. If it were only a popularity contest; Ron Santo, Don Mattingly, ect would already be in. If it were all about stats; Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Big Mac would already be in.

Players that reach a certain milestone; 3000 hits, 500 HR (probably soon to be 600 HR), 300 wins, ect should be in the HOF. If they lasted long enough in the league to reach those milestones, they must have been liked enough. Players like Biggio do a lot for the community and different charities.

Click to expand...

The three names you mentioned are not in the HOF because of transgressions against the game or its rules or policies.Or just plain straight out for cheating

matfanofold said:

It is "The Hall of Fame", not the hall of stats. Thats just the way it's named and the way I see it. I believe a player should also have a certin level of fame as well as the stats that usually attribute fame. Thats why I would not cry if Biggio or Thome did not make the hall, because although they were great at what they did well, they never really garnered the Fame one would attribute to Hall worthyness(just my opinion)..

Ossie Smith is a perfect example. His defence alone did not get him in, and his fame alone did not. It was the fame he gathered while being incredibly flamboyant as a defensive player that got him in. Without the flash or fame that came along with it, hes not even a consideration...

I'm just tired of hearing HOF discussions take place like an accounting meeting crunching numbers.

But make no mistake, I'm fully aware that stats, preferably great ones, usually usher in fame. I understand that, but also realise it's not a rule but an attribute of greatness. something that can be void of an otherwise statworthy fellow..

Click to expand...

And you feel comfortable punishing a guy who chooses to play his entire career in Kansas City or Oakland? Under your Hall of Popularity, what's to prevent players from flocking to the Yankees (even more than they already do) in order to boost their HOP resumes?

matfanofold said:

Thats why I would not cry if Biggio or Thome did not make the hall, because although they were great at what they did well, they never really garnered the Fame one would attribute to Hall worthyness(just my opinion)..

Ossie Smith is a perfect example. His defence alone did not get him in, and his fame alone did not. It was the fame he gathered while being incredibly flamboyant as a defensive player that got him in. Without the flash or fame that came along with it, hes not even a consideration...
.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to hate, but your argument is completely untrue and shows that you really have no idea about the careers the players you mention had relative to others playing their position.

Biggio will get in because along with Sandberg, he was the best second baseman in the league since Carew retired in 1985. Carew had his best years after he was done playing 2b primarily also. Joe Morgan was the last true second baseman to get in and he retired in 84.

What you say about Ozzie could not be farther from the truth. Simply, Ozzie and Ripken had the two best careers for a shortstop in the last 40 years. Comparing the numbers Smith put up to an outfielder is irrelevant as positions are judged on different standards. In fact, good fielding is the most important attribute a shortstop can have, more so than even hitting. There are very, very few few shortstops who are in the Hall from the last 50 years and most of them only played short in the first part of their career. Yount last played short when he was 28, Banks lasted till age 30. Ripken, who eventually changed positions, and Aparicio (very comparable to Smith) are the only other shorstops to be enshrined that have played since 1960. That's really only 3 guys who played most of their career at shotstops that have been enshrined who played after 1960. And you're saying that Smith wasn't one of the best shortstops, and thus not Hall of Fame worthy from the last half century?

matfanofold said:

It is "The Hall of Fame", not the hall of stats. Thats just the way it's named and the way I see it. I believe a player should also have a certin level of fame as well as the stats that usually attribute fame. Thats why I would not cry if Biggio or Thome did not make the hall, because although they were great at what they did well, they never really garnered the Fame one would attribute to Hall worthyness(just my opinion)..

Ossie Smith is a perfect example. His defence alone did not get him in, and his fame alone did not. It was the fame he gathered while being incredibly flamboyant as a defensive player that got him in. Without the flash or fame that came along with it, hes not even a consideration...

I'm just tired of hearing HOF discussions take place like an accounting meeting crunching numbers.

But make no mistake, I'm fully aware that stats, preferably great ones, usually usher in fame. I understand that, but also realise it's not a rule but an attribute of greatness. something that can be void of an otherwise statworthy fellow..

Click to expand...

Uh...the fame part is something that comes afterward.Its still about stats.I am glad your not voting or there would be a lot of people in the hall based just on popularity it seems.

If you don't have the stats to get in then you don't get in.Biggio will get in because of his stats.He was famous and popular too.Just not in New York and other places.That doesn't mean he isn't popular though.But its not a popularity contest.Its about good players.The name may say fame but its really about elite players.Not popular players.

Big Mac McGwire said:

it cant be that all its cracked up to be if the man who had the most hits in the history of baseball is not in there. last time i checked his gambling didnt have anything to do with him getting over 4k hits. but we honor racist owners who didnt want satchell paige and josh gibson, and jackie robinson to ever play. But yea those old racists are honored in cooperstown.

Click to expand...

I love entering these threads to see your remarks...and maybe someone is just a little jealous a certain juiced loser is not making it to the HALL...

One other thing I can say...just for reference ...there are a lot of players in the hall that were not super popular.Sure everybody has heard of Ted Williams and Babe Ruth and people like that.But There are people who were not popular the world over who are in.

KOBEARODLT said:

Big Mac McGwire said:

it cant be that all its cracked up to be if the man who had the most hits in the history of baseball is not in there. last time i checked his gambling didnt have anything to do with him getting over 4k hits. but we honor racist owners who didnt want satchell paige and josh gibson, and jackie robinson to ever play. But yea those old racists are honored in cooperstown.

Click to expand...

I love entering these threads to see your remarks...and maybe someone is just a little jealous a certain juiced loser is not making it to the HALL...

Click to expand...

Yikes! lol

KOBEARODLT said:

Big Mac McGwire said:

it cant be that all its cracked up to be if the man who had the most hits in the history of baseball is not in there. last time i checked his gambling didnt have anything to do with him getting over 4k hits. but we honor racist owners who didnt want satchell paige and josh gibson, and jackie robinson to ever play. But yea those old racists are honored in cooperstown.

Click to expand...

I love entering these threads to see your remarks...and maybe someone is just a little jealous a certain juiced loser is not making it to the HALL...

Click to expand...

See the deal with that is...racist or not...it has nothing to do with baseball.Rose gambled on baseball.Its a rule he broke.We can slice and dice this any way we want but facts are facts no matter what kinda tint is on your glasses.

I think Rose should be in but like has been said before...its strictly up to the commisioner.Not the voters.

Its also why I said that I think the hall is/should be totally based on stats because a lot of these people can get big heads or are just plain a-holes.But it does not take away from their ability on the field.

predatorkj said:

i43770 said:

I selected the third option.

It isn't just one or the other. If it were only a popularity contest; Ron Santo, Don Mattingly, ect would already be in. If it were all about stats; Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Big Mac would already be in.

Players that reach a certain milestone; 3000 hits, 500 HR (probably soon to be 600 HR), 300 wins, ect should be in the HOF. If they lasted long enough in the league to reach those milestones, they must have been liked enough. Players like Biggio do a lot for the community and different charities.

Click to expand...

The three names you mentioned are not in the HOF because of transgressions against the game or its rules or policies.Or just plain straight out for cheating

Click to expand...

Joe Jackson didn't bet on baseball. Pete Rose bet (admitted to and assume to) after he stopped playing. Mark McGwire never failed a drug test. So how can you say these players cheated?

On another note, Rose and Jackson were both eligible for the HOF before the Commissioner or MLB could say a player wasn't eligible.

i43770 said:

predatorkj said:

i43770 said:

I selected the third option.

It isn't just one or the other. If it were only a popularity contest; Ron Santo, Don Mattingly, ect would already be in. If it were all about stats; Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Big Mac would already be in.

Players that reach a certain milestone; 3000 hits, 500 HR (probably soon to be 600 HR), 300 wins, ect should be in the HOF. If they lasted long enough in the league to reach those milestones, they must have been liked enough. Players like Biggio do a lot for the community and different charities.

Click to expand...

The three names you mentioned are not in the HOF because of transgressions against the game or its rules or policies.Or just plain straight out for cheating

Click to expand...

Joe Jackson didn't bet on baseball. Pete Rose bet (admitted to and assume to) after he stopped playing. Mark McGwire never failed a drug test. So how can you say these players cheated?

On another note, Rose and Jackson were both eligible for the HOF before the Commissioner or MLB could say a player wasn't eligible.

Click to expand...

Jackson and McGwire never broke any rules of baseball. Jackson didn't snitch on his teammates (maybe), he certainly wasn't in on the scheme, and McGwire did something that was entirely within the rules when he did it.