With all of the HOF arguments being smacked around right now, to me the more interesting question is not who should go into the Hall of Fame, but how many?
My initial slapdash observation would be about two per birth year, but there’s so many other factors to consider (population growth, addition of players from other countries growing the pool, additional teams, etc.) that I’m at a loss to try and nail down just how many there ought to be. If I could get that number right, I’d like my chances in sorting through the rest. But I’m having a lot of trouble nailing down just how many there ought to be.
Any help?
7 responses so far ↓
1 David Pinto // Dec 29, 2007 at 7:31 pm
I’m thinking 15 per decade.
2 Danil // Dec 29, 2007 at 8:57 pm
When I’m trying to answer that question, I cast around to look at the numbers people are already using….
If you choose 1 per year, you get a number that’s reasonably close to the BBWAA inductions.
VHOF used 1 per 1500 games, which is in the same neighborhood, but climbing faster at this point. I’m partial to this approach, salting that 1500 to taste.
Hall of Merit went for roughly 2 per year up through 1975, and 3-4 per year since.
You could also reasonably decide that the right size is about that necessary to field one hall of fame team per generation.
Given the general nature of the talent distribution, as the pool gets larger the boundary gets bigger/fuzzier. Is more arguments a good thing or a bad thing?
3 Kiley // Dec 29, 2007 at 9:22 pm
I think it would be a little shortsighted to use a birth year as a cutoff, just so many of the factors (many you listed) would make 1 suitable for some years, maybe up to 5 in others, that you either allow (and tacitly encourage) more in lean birth years and less in strong birth years.
Although on the average, birth year would probably be an effective approximation/quota, one bad instance of someone not making it due to a quota already being met is enough to make that approach not worth it to me..
I’d just hate to see someone left out because a quota had been met. Or see Blyleven left out. 6 of one, really…
To be honest, I still like the pretty simplistic suggestion of Bill Simmons of ESPN.com to put every HOFer into a tier (I think he advocated for 5, pyramid style) so we knew where everyone stood, and in that case the total amount wouldn’t matter so much.
It would also make a killer pyramid-shaped building with the few best ever at the top. Great father-son trip up the stairs.
4 Flycarrion.Com » Hall of Fame Population // Dec 29, 2007 at 10:14 pm
[…] wrote an interesting post today on Hall of Fame PopulationHere’s a quick […]
5 Voros // Dec 29, 2007 at 10:43 pm
The per birth year would obviously just be an average. But I could see expanding it to say 12 years and then picking a set number of players within that span.
My personal belief is that if a pitcher doesn’t emerge over that period of time as comparatively exceptional, then it’s probably as much environmental as anything else. Obviously that can be taken too far, but I’m always of the mind that the best over an extended period of time should be given deference over the fourth best over a different period, numbers be damned.
6 Danil // Dec 30, 2007 at 10:28 am
Reflecting on this last night, I persuaded myself that team-seasons would be a better denominator than games.
7 tangotiger // Dec 31, 2007 at 8:52 am
I also use the birth year approach:
1. you are eligible for the HOF at age 45
2. you remain on the ballot for a period of time (say at least 5 years, or were in the top 10 in voting in the previous year)
3. you select the two best candidates every year
It is ridiculous to have a situation where you elect no one. What’s the point of that? It’s like saying no one deserved the MVP in the NL last year, or no one deserved an Oscar.
So, the HoM approach about the “elect 2” is perfect for me. List candidates from 1 to 10 or 1 to 15, weight it similar to MVP. Just like HoM.
I prefer the birthyear=45, so that guys are compared to their peers. It’s silly to consider Kirby before Gwynn, Raines, and Rickey, considering he’s younger than all of them.
Leave a Comment