Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipscards
Since the beginning of the Hall of Fame, standards have changed constantly. Just look at the first HOF class:
Cobb, Ruth, Mathewson, Wagner, and Johnson
And compare it to the class just 10 years later:
Burkett, Tinker, Evers, Chance, Chesbro, Griffith, McCarthy, McGinnity, Plank, Waddell, and Walsh
The issue with a magic number is, every era is different. You have a low run environment like the 1960s and compare it to a high run environment like the 1990s and you realize 500 homeruns doesn't mean the same thing when Harmon Killebrew does it vs when Mark McGwire does it.
We also have an ever changing BBWAA as members pass on and are replaced with younger writers.
|
It's almost impossible to draw any conclusions about the calibre required of a HOF player from the first two decades of votes – there was a massive backlog of players to attend to and the voting system was quite different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrith
Even the WAR standard for pitchers is likely going to have to come down some. They just don't last as long as they used to. Outside of the big 4 (Verlander, Greinke, Kershaw, and Scherzer) no other active pitchers are north of 46.
|
Some of this lack of longevity isn't even the fault of the players though. Inning control and increased utilization of bullpens has massively changed how SPs are used. We can't deduct from a pitcher's stock because of decisions which are completely outside of their control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fabiani12333
Votto will be a very interesting case having one of very best OBP in history.
It'll be interesting to see how Scott Rolen does -- a very good all-around player. Someone like Arenado fits that mold.
|
Votto strikes me as the perfect candidate for an eventual Vet Committee vote.