Your HOF requirements

[Kennesawsportscards]

You have to at least somewhat consider WS rings. If its a debate between two players with virtually identical stats yet one has 4 WS wins and one has 1, which one should make it?

I respectfully disagree. I understand what you are trying to say, but it is a team sport. World Series rings are not individual accolades. Being a Hall of Fame member is...Are you looking at it in terms of who is more important to their team or what? Just trying to understand your point; which I don't get. If Ernie Banks was on the same teams as Berra, would he be more or less deserving of the Hall?

 

[maxe0213]

I respectfully disagree. I understand what you are trying to say, but it is a team sport. World Series rings are not individual accolades. Being a Hall of Fame member is...Are you looking at it in terms of who is more important to their team or what? Just trying to understand your point; which I don't get. If Ernie Banks was on the same teams as Berra, would he be more or less deserving of the Hall?

Not sure how you don't understand. Its pretty cut and dry.

Player A and Player B both have IDENTICAL Stats, same position, etc. Virtually the exact same player. And one of them must make it into the hall of fame and the other must not. The only difference is one has 5 WS rings and the other has 1. How do you not vote the guy with more rings if they are identical yet that is the only factor that is different.

I think many of the posters are not reading what I'm saying. Its not hard to understand. Pretty simple actually. If the only difference between two players is 5 ws rings vs 1 ws ring how in the world would you vote in the guy with 1 over the guy with 5?

Its clearly a hypothetical yet some of you continue to bring up players (Berra, Banks etc.). Its a HYPOTHETICAL. You can't use real players as an example as we have never had two players with the exact identical stats but differing WS rings.

 

[maxe0213]

How many times a player made the ASG, won a GG and got a WS ring is laughable barometer in gauging a player's value. Stop the madness.

Why don't you stop the madness? Once again, I would never vote a player just because they won an ASG or have a WS ring. However, TYPICALLY, if a player has 10-15+ ASG nominations they are a very good player (maybe not HOF but very very good). NO average players make the ASG 10-15 or more times, it just doesn't happen. The only way that they get those nominations are popularity. And the only way they get that popularity is by being a very good player.

Really not hard to understand, simple actually.

 

[elmalo]

Now you're just pulling out of you a$$ lol. Did I ever say that Ernie banks or anyone should be kicked out for not having a ring? I said if it came down to it and both players had identical stats but one had 5 ws rings and the other had 1 and say had to vote one in over the other, why would you not take the guy with the rings if everything else is identical.

And yes, your statement was ridiculous.

If 2 players have similar stats I really dont think the number of rings they have should make any difference. You cant fault someone for being a great player on a bad team, just as much as you cant take away from a great player on a great team.

 

[WCTYSON]

Why don't you stop the madness? Once again, I would never vote a player just because they won an ASG or have a WS ring. However, TYPICALLY, if a player has 10-15+ ASG nominations they are a very good player (maybe not HOF but very very good). NO average players make the ASG 10-15 or more times, it just doesn't happen. The only way that they get those nominations are popularity. And the only way they get that popularity is by being a very good player.

Really not hard to understand, simple actually.

I am not the one speaking madly, not in my control to stop it. Baseball has always been a game of numbers. Trying to discredit 'modern stats' is simply not understanding what you see on the field. Will stats show you the whole picture? No, but they will show you more than your eyes can see. I would say for the most part the BBWA has gotten it correct historically with the voting for the HOF. I heard recently, that at one point upwards of 25% of at bats in MLB where from future HOF players and that currently it is projected to be closer to 10%. The HOF is more difficult to enter now than ever before and using stats is an objective view. ASG's are a subjective validation of past performance and half a season performances. GG's have also proven to be a subjective view of defensive values as well. WS rings, have little to do with individual performance. To deny the numbers of baseball is to ignore what the game has been and always will be. There are correlations of the above issues with the stats but giving too much weighted value to them can take away objectivity.

 

[homerun28aa]

Guys, check out this list and this will settle the ASG argument once and for all.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/leaders_most_asgame.shtml

ALL the guys at the top of the list are HOFers, future HOFers, or PED users (plus Pete Rose who is banned). There are NO exceptions at the top of this list ALL are HOFers or guys who are not in because of off the field stuff mainly PEDS.

As a writer should that be the first thing you go by? Absolutely not, but if a guy has 10+ appearances as you can see the odds are heavily, heavily stacked that they're a HOFer basically without fail. Again this is because if you are a great hitter or a great pitcher you will have great stats and therefore many ASG appearances..

 

[WCTYSON]

Guys, check out this list and this will settle the ASG argument once and for all.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/leaders_most_asgame.shtml

Sorry, but no. There is a correlation but ASG's are a largely subjective process. You are discrediting the portion of the HOF inductees that were not often all-stars, which for numerous reasons one of which could be a player that was largely valued for defense. You are also discrediting a portion of current players that are not in an ASG because of previous performance or perhaps a slow start to a season. Both of which have little to do with value of a player's season once completed.

 

[maxe0213]

Guys, check out this list and this will settle the ASG argument once and for all.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/leaders_most_asgame.shtml

ALL the guys at the top of the list are HOFers, future HOFers, or PED users (plus Pete Rose who is banned). There are NO exceptions at the top of this list ALL are HOFers or guys who are not in because of off the field stuff mainly PEDS.

As a writer should that be the first thing you go by? Absolutely not, but if a guy has 10+ appearances as you can see the odds are heavily, heavily stacked that they're a HOFer basically without fail. Again this is because if you are a great hitter or a great pitcher you will have great stats and therefore many ASG appearances..

Didn't know this site/list. Thank you for posting it. Some posters just don't see to get it. Nobody is saying that ASG's or Rings are what should be the deciding factor. But 10-15+ ASG's almost always means the player is very very good.

Sorry, but no. There is a correlation but ASG's are a largely subjective process. You are discrediting the portion of the HOF inductees that were not often all-stars, which for numerous reasons one of which could be a player that was largely valued for defense. You are also discrediting a portion of current players that are not in an ASG because of previous performance or perhaps a slow start to a season. Both of which have little to do with value of a player's season once completed.

Are you this dense? Nobody is discrediting any of that. There is a correlation between ASG's (once you reach a level of 10-15+) and getting into the HOF. You CAN NOT debate that. Its a fact. Smh

 

[homerun28aa]

Sorry, but no. There is a correlation but ASG's are a largely subjective process. You are discrediting the portion of the HOF inductees that were not often all-stars, which for numerous reasons one of which could be a player that was largely valued for defense. You are also discrediting a portion of current players that are not in an ASG because of previous performance or perhaps a slow start to a season. Both of which have little to do with value of a player's season once completed.

Wait you're joking right? When did I ever say that you HAVE to play in a lot of all star games to make it to the HOF? If you play in a lot of ASG's, as the statistics show in black and white no area of shaded grey, you will be a HOFer. Are there other ways to make the HOF? ABSOLUTELY! If you have 3 ASG appearances should you not be considered for the HOF? Absolutely not. But this is a good "smell test" if you will. If you have 10+ ASG appearances you have about a 95% shot or more to get in. If you don't, then that doesn't mean you're a HOFer - then we simply need to examine the other evidence.

 

[WCTYSON]

Sorry, but no. There is a correlation but ASG's are a largely subjective process. You are discrediting the portion of the HOF inductees that were not often all-stars, which for numerous reasons one of which could be a player that was largely valued for defense. You are also discrediting a portion of current players that are not in an ASG because of previous performance or perhaps a slow start to a season. Both of which have little to do with value of a player's season once completed.

Are you this dense? Nobody is discrediting any of that. There is a correlation between ASG's (once you reach a level of 10-15+) and getting into the HOF. You CAN NOT debate that. Its a fact. Smh

Your reading comprehension needs work.

 

[WCTYSON]

Wait you're joking right? When did I ever say that you HAVE to play in a lot of all star games to make it to the HOF? If you play in a lot of ASG's, as the statistics show in black and white no area of shaded grey, you will be a HOFer. Are there other ways to make the HOF? ABSOLUTELY! If you have 3 ASG appearances should you not be considered for the HOF? Absolutely not. But this is a good "smell test" if you will. If you have 10+ ASG appearances you have about a 95% shot or more to get in. If you don't, then that doesn't mean you're a HOFer - then we simply need to examine the other evidence.

Joking about what? I never said that you were solely gauging a HOF inductee only on ASG appearances, just showing that there is no need to even use it as a factor being you can just start with examining the evidence.

 

[maxe0213]

Wait you're joking right? When did I ever say that you HAVE to play in a lot of all star games to make it to the HOF? If you play in a lot of ASG's, as the statistics show in black and white no area of shaded grey, you will be a HOFer. Are there other ways to make the HOF? ABSOLUTELY! If you have 3 ASG appearances should you not be considered for the HOF? Absolutely not. But this is a good "smell test" if you will. If you have 10+ ASG appearances you have about a 95% shot or more to get in. If you don't, then that doesn't mean you're a HOFer - then we simply need to examine the other evidence.

x100. This is exactly what I was saying, yet Tyson still doesn't get it

Your reading comprehension needs work.

As does yours. You should have finished reading the rest of the post. It is a DIRECT Correlation. High number of ASG's usually means HOF'er. You are trying to argue that 10-15 plus ASG's doesn't mean your a HOF. Actually, IT DOES (almost 100% of the time as showed on the link above).

 

[michaelstepper]

Think everyone needs to take a step back here before this goes further. Love the debate and conversation but starting to see some personal jabs.

 

[WCTYSON]

x100. This is exactly what I was saying, yet Tyson still doesn't get it

As does yours. You should have finished reading the rest of the post. It is a DIRECT Correlation. High number of ASG's usually means HOF'er. You are trying to argue that 10-15 plus ASG's doesn't mean your a HOF. Actually, IT DOES (almost 100% of the time as showed on the link above).

Time for your meds., Francis.

 

[homerun28aa]

Just another fun fact about ASG appearances, not trying to add more fuel to the fire. Below is a list (by decade starting with the 1940s) of how many players were selected to the HOF and how many of them played in at least one ASG. This list contains players who have played in the majors. Even if they played a single game in the MLB, but were considered managers or ***** leaguers, they will still be in this list:

1940s - 25/26 selected played in at least one ASG. The exception is Willard Brown, who was selected to the HOF because of his accomplishments in the ***** leagues
1950s - 18/20 selected played in at least one ASG. The exceptions are Lasorda and Sparky Anderson who were selected to the HOF because of their managerial accomplishments
1960s - 16/18. Exceptions are Whitey Herzog and Dick Williams, both of whom made the HOF based on managerial accomplishments
1970s - 18/18
1980s - 19/19
1990s - 15/15
2000s - 3/3

This data was compiled in 2010, so five years ago.

 

[WCTYSON]

Just another fun fact about ASG appearances, not trying to add more fuel to the fire. Below is a list (by decade starting with the 1940s) of how many players were selected to the HOF and how many of them played in at least one ASG. This list contains players who have played in the majors. Even if they played a single game in the MLB, but were considered managers or ***** leaguers, they will still be in this list:

1940s - 25/26 selected played in at least one ASG. The exception is Willard Brown, who was selected to the HOF because of his accomplishments in the ***** leagues
1950s - 18/20 selected played in at least one ASG. The exceptions are Lasorda and Sparky Anderson who were selected to the HOF because of their managerial accomplishments
1960s - 16/18. Exceptions are Whitey Herzog and Dick Williams, both of whom made the HOF based on managerial accomplishments
1970s - 18/18
1980s - 19/19
1990s - 15/15
2000s - 3/3

This data was compiled in 2010, so five years ago.

So now the criteria is just one AS game, on a subjective process? What is with the number from the 2000's?

 

[homerun28aa]

So now the criteria is just one AS game, on a subjective process? What is with the number from the 2000's?

There's no criteria around this, but there is some correlation between # of ASG's and your chances of being in the HOF. I'd argue that the more ASG appearances you have, the higher your chances. This is because another premise is that the better player you are the more ASG's you will be in. If you accept this, then the logic is:

the better player you are = the more ASG's you are in = the better your chances are of being in the HOF

I see nothing wrong with this logic, do you? I think the statistic is players who are in the HOF who retired in the 2000s and the data was compiled in 2009 or 2010. Could be wrong

 

[WCTYSON]

There's no criteria around this, but there is some correlation between # of ASG's and your chances of being in the HOF. I'd argue that the more ASG appearances you have, the higher your chances. This is because another premise is that the better player you are the more ASG's you will be in. If you accept this, then the logic is:

the better player you are = the more ASG's you are in = the better your chances are of being in the HOF

I see nothing wrong with this logic, do you? I think the statistic is players who are in the HOF who retired in the 2000s and the data was compiled in 2009 or 2010. Could be wrong

There is a correlation, no doubt. It is just a silly way of placing value on a player, when you can just use the numbers to do so without any weighted value for ASG appearances. If you can think of a single player that did not have the numbers to make the HOF but yet was elected because he played in numerous ASG's, feel free to bring him up in this conversation. I do not have a problem with the logic, the likelihood of induction increases but ASG's played is an arbitrary number that does not determine any value. So the number for the 2000's is for players that retired in the 2000's and were also inducted in the 2000's. It just seemed odd because the number of HOF inductees in the 2000's that were also AS's is a much greater number.

 

[homerun28aa]

There is a correlation, no doubt. It is just a silly way of placing value on a player, when you can just use the numbers to do so without any weighted value for ASG appearances. If you can think of a single player that did not have the numbers to make the HOF but yet was elected because he played in numerous ASG's, feel free to bring him up in this conversation. I do not have a problem with the logic, the likelihood of induction increases but ASG's played is an arbitrary number that does not determine any value. So the number for the 2000's is for players that retired in the 2000's and were also inducted in the 2000's. It just seemed odd because the number of HOF inductees in the 2000's that were also AS's is a much greater number.

Correct, I think at the time the data was taken the number of players elected to the HOF in the 2000s who also retired in the 2000s was only 3 people. The 3 people that were listed were: Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken, and Rickey Henderson.

 

[Kennesawsportscards]

OK Guys... Obviously a Hall of Famer is going to have plenty of AS Game appearances.. He better, I would not want to have a Hall of Famer who wasn't an all star. However, using the all star game appearances as a barometer of Hall of Fame worthiness just doesn't compute. That is putting the cart(allstar appearances) before the horse( HOF).