From: rlwilliams@gallua.gallaudet.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: criteria for THE HALL
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:21:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: gallua.1992Sep4.162102.1
Organization: Gallaudet University

In article <1992Sep4.171451.11500@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
> In article <1992Sep4.120817.1@gallua.gallaudet.edu> rlwilliams@gallua.gallaudet.edu writes:
>>Hi,
>>	I was thinking about what should qualify a person to be inducted 
>>into Baseball's Hall of Fame. Here is what I came up with:
> 
> Quick question: should an inductee meet *all* of these criteria?
> If so, set up a basic framework and compare it to the current Hall.
> This is the best test of your approach.
======================
yep. should meet them all... if they meet one, they don't belong...
======================
> 
>>1. At some time during his career he should be generally thought of as the 
>>best in the game at his positon. This forexample would eliminate somone 
>>like Don Sutton who basically hung around a loooong time and yet assure 
>>someone like the Wizard of Oz entrance.
> 
> Tough luck, then, if you played RF during Babe Ruth's career, or LF
> while Musial and Williams were around.  No matter how good you were...
> 
=================

Ok, ok this one needs some work... perhaps some modification. I just don't 
like to see mediocre performers arrive in the hall because of simple 
longevity.

=====================
>>2. He should put up some impressive career numbers: 300 wins, 400 - 500 
>>hr, 3,000 hits etc or in the neighborhood.
> 
> How many such numbers?  Also, is Ozzie going to do this?  Everyone can
> come up with one or two nice numbers; which ones should we pick?  And
> should the numbers be the same for shortstops and catchers and first
> basemen?  That doesn't sound right.
> 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure Ozzie ranks up there in defensive statistics... put outs, assists, 
as someone said, 12 straight gold gloves...  This is designed to keep 
people like Don gullett out who had one or two phenomenal years and then 
were never seen again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>3. He should not be compared against previous mistakes ("Well his numbers 
>>are better than so and so's so he should be in the Hall, man.")
> 
> However, the opposite should be considered: "nobody else that good has
> been left out."
> 
>>4. His personal life should not be an issue. Whether hack Wilson was an 
>>alcoholic, Ty Cobb a racist, Rose a gambling fiend... It's what they do on 
>>the field that counts. On the flip side of the coin, charisma doesn't 
>>count.
> 
> And pigs might fly.  Charisma will count as long as there are baseball
> fans and sportswriters, and especially as long as the latter do the 
> voting.  
> 
> As to gambling--remember that the big issue around Rose is whether he
> took his gambling activity to the field.  If he bet on his team -- let
> alone, *against* it -- this IS an on-the-field issue.  Baseball did not
> find that he did, but it's not as though there aren't suspicions.  They
> should be treated as such, but the issue is not entirely unrelated to
> the game as played.
> 
> Roger
-----------
ok, i'll buy your last point... I guess I'm also thinking of Orlando 
Cepeda. I think he might belong in the Hall... 
his problems with drugs shouldn't 
deny him a fair hearing.
skip