Your HOF requirements

[ASTROBURN]

I find it interesting that Biggio gets in first and Bagwell is still waiting, when clearly he was THE GUY on the Astros and Biggio was always in his shadows. i will admit that the whole steroid scandal bored me, so i didn't follow closely. Was Bagwell one of the confirmed users? He was a HOF lock in the same manner as Thomas for a long time...

Nope. No proof, just speculation cuz he hit homers.

I have heard people say that 500 homeruns gets you in. Well, thats BS cuz Bags played half his career in the Astrodome. So if 500 homers gets a player in, then Bags should be in because he would have hit well over 500 if he played his whole career in another park.

I could go on and on about him being shunned from the Hall for another year, and the fact that the writers didnt put both Bags and Biggio in at the same time. The whole Hall of Fame voting system is a flawed one. A system that is complete crap, and frankly I just am sick of it. I'm sick of the writers, and I'm sick of the internet saying Bags shouldnt be considered a HOF. Makes my blood boil. A franchise player that was incredible at the plate and on the field for over a decade strong. Rookie of the year. 94 NL MVP. 4 time All Star. Gold Glove Winner. 3 Silver Slugger Awards. Led the league in Runs 3 times....

Rant over.

 

[Topnotchsy]

I think it has to be a holistic approach.

For example:
A) All-Star Game Appearances - In general I think AS games are a pretty useful metric. It provides a metric that allows you to compare across generations without having to try and adjust things to dramatically (although there have been changes to the process that shouldn't be totally ignored.)

That said, it does not always tell a full story. Brian McCann has made 7 All-Star games, and it would surprise me if he makes a few more before he retires but even if he makes 10 All-Star games, I think it is safe to say that he was playing at a time when there were few good catchers around. (And was in the NL when Mauer was the best catcher, and has jumped over to the AL as Posey, Lucroy and Molina are in the NL. Obviously not saying this is the reason he switched, but he's been competing against a very light field.)

At the same time, McCann provides a rare exception to the rule. If you look at the players with the most All-Star Games, it is usually because they were a pretty legit star, and well deserving of the Hall.

B) Milestone Numbers - Similarly stats like 500 homers and 3000 hits. While these numbers generally meant automatic entrance (leaving the steroids discussion to the side for the moment) there are scenarios where this might not hold true. Had Dave Kingman hit 500 homeruns (he hit 442, and retired at 37 after a season where he hit 35 homers) it would have been laughable to put a guy in the Hall with a lifetime .236 batting average and .302 OBP. Similarly if Juan Pierre somehow got back to the Majors and reached 3000 hits, it would be laughable to consider a guy with a lifetime WAR under 20 for the Hall. He was simply not a very valuable or good player.

C) The "It" Factor - There are definitely some who say that if a player is worthy of the Hall of Fame, you should immediately think of them as such. And while this too has some merit, it's not always the case. And we know that there are certain components of the game that going by your gut ends up overvaluing, while other components that are undervalued. (Think of it as "Predictably Irrational" in the words of Dan Arielly). For example, taking Adam Dunn's offensive side of the game, people often dismiss him because of the K's and low batting average. But a closer look shows that because he walked so much, his OBP and Slugging were always quite high, stats that tell more about real value than batting average. (Of course defensively he was so bad that he basically gave up most of his offensive value on the defensive side according to WAR experts.)

At the end of the day I think one needs to combine the pieces to come up with a conclusion. Using just advanced metrics means that you lose everything that those metrics cannot capture, but ignoring them means relying on tools (like gut) that are limited in other ways. Similarly, there's no one true metric or idea that tells the whole story. Putting it all together offers the best chance at a realistic picture IMO.

 

[WCTYSON]

At the end of the day I think one needs to combine the pieces to come up with a conclusion. Using just advanced metrics means that you lose everything that those metrics cannot capture, but ignoring them means relying on tools (like gut) that are limited in other ways. Similarly, there's no one true metric or idea that tells the whole story. Putting it all together offers the best chance at a realistic picture IMO.

This is exactly what modern metrics have done. Your above examples are well thought out and articulated but truth be told, the metrics bare it out. What exactly is missing from the metrics, when on field production and value are the considerations? And no, WAR does not tell the whole story but thus far it puts it all together better than any other. That includes all of those discussed in this thread, even the eye ball test.

 

[u2me57]

Combination of things but I start with 500, 3,000, .300 and 300. And done the right way. I'm a little leniant on the 300 wins though. Hitting 500 home runs cleanly in the roid era is really impressive to me. Having good character and being a class act are important also. Longevity works both ways. To me it means you took care of your self and had a good work ethic. It can add to some of your stats but usually drops the batting avg. Ozzie Smith is a good example of somebody making it in because of great defense.