What’s Your bWAR Cutoff for Inner Circle and Small Hall HOF?

[CardBoredom]

Originally Posted by Silent George

...For example, from a bref standpoint - you'd REALLY have 18 inductions in all of history? would you include Bonds, Clemens, and ARod, or are we down to 15? and if not, you'd have Aaron in 1980, and then not another one for 50+ years?...

...That just sounds incredibly boring to me, entire decades of baseball greats forgotten to the dustbins, and I don't believe it when I hear it. Like, under this scenario, I don't even people would care much about the Hall of Fame. We'd know what it is, but it would have so little impact on our life and the game, it would only be a discussion on the rare occasion someone actually gets close. Like going from Hall to Halley's Comet.

Yes, I really wouldn't mind this kind of Hall. I imagine it would play out like this: 18 inductees would have permanent exhibits with plaques and tons of displays. The rest of the museum would be dedicated to the history of the game. The non-HOF/history portion would include rotating exhibits that highlight interesting players, great moments of the sport, and would essentially serve as a "Hall of Pretty Good." There would be enough information for each era's top players to satisfy a fan wanting to revisit memories of bygone times, but the dead space currently attributed to baseball's demigods would be split between the sport's deities and an expanded area for appreciating the past. Those that just miss the cutoff would understandably take up more space than lesser known players in this rotating part of the museum.

Steroids are an admittedly tricky part. I give a little bit of leeway given how MLB has addressed the matter and would be okay with admitting the three mentioned. I am also okay with the HOF making those players squirm for an extended period before inducting them.

You ask if this would be boring. Baseball has acquitted itself fairly well against 100+ years of being called boring and I think fans of the game would still want to learn about it. I just think this reflects a tendency of guests to skip past the plaques of less popular players and head straight for the Ruth/Cobb/Aaron sections. The HOF could still have the old-timers' game and an annual party, but would truly go all out out to celebrate a multigenerational talent.

[Silent George]

to each their own

- and for the record I would consider the hall of fame discussion to be boring, not baseball as a sport.

But I think that the annual festivities where players are highlighted - often from different eras - brings a lot of excitement to the learning about history. It also brings 50K+ people in to a town that needs it every year. Yeah the museum is the cool part because you're seeing gloves and bats and pictures, etc. The plaques themselves are the boring part of any hall of fame. I mean you can look up those suckers online.

What the hall DOES is it gives a chance on Goose Gossage induction day for a father to wax poetic about player's from his generation to his kids and instill a sense of awe and wonder in the history of baseball that I think would be severely limited in this scenario.

Imagine the reputation of Jeter going from "FIRST BALLOT FALL OF FAMER" to "well, he was good, but fell welllll short of the standard of greatness we have here."

To me the NBA does it right. They induct a ton of everything every year. Their standard is basically "This is worth remembering and celebrating this year" and for their fans the annual party is just as important. All the inner circle legends still show up. No one gets upset and writes off the hall because Yao Ming really doesn't belong there.

(for the record I think the NBA actually overdoes it, but I think baseball is so far behind, they could emulate the NBA for a very long time just to get to the real level they should be at.)

Very few agree with me. I think the small hall is the popular choice. I'd have also said a smaller hall back in the day, until I started realizing how many players I loved having in the Hall would be kicked out. I want more of my favorite players IN not OUT. I just honestly feel it's a be careful what you wish for scenario, and telling people that the Hall has too high of standards for Cal Ripken Jr, Jeter, Trout, etc. would suddenly cause people to scream BIGGER HALL! BIGGER HALL!

[Randallk34]

Originally Posted by Silent George

to each their own

- and for the record I would consider the hall of fame discussion to be boring, not baseball as a sport.

But I think that the annual festivities where players are highlighted - often from different eras - brings a lot of excitement to the learning about history. It also brings 50K+ people in to a town that needs it every year. Yeah the museum is the cool part because you're seeing gloves and bats and pictures, etc. The plaques themselves are the boring part of any hall of fame. I mean you can look up those suckers online.

What the hall DOES is it gives a chance on Goose Gossage induction day for a father to wax poetic about player's from his generation to his kids and instill a sense of awe and wonder in the history of baseball that I think would be severely limited in this scenario.

Imagine the reputation of Jeter going from "FIRST BALLOT FALL OF FAMER" to "well, he was good, but fell welllll short of the standard of greatness we have here."

To me the NBA does it right. They induct a ton of everything every year. Their standard is basically "This is worth remembering and celebrating this year" and for their fans the annual party is just as important. All the inner circle legends still show up. No one gets upset and writes off the hall because Yao Ming really doesn't belong there.

(for the record I think the NBA actually overdoes it, but I think baseball is so far behind, they could emulate the NBA for a very long time just to get to the real level they should be at.)

Very few agree with me. I think the small hall is the popular choice. I'd have also said a smaller hall back in the day, until I started realizing how many players I loved having in the Hall would be kicked out. I want more of my favorite players IN not OUT. I just honestly feel it's a be careful what you wish for scenario, and telling people that the Hall has too high of standards for Cal Ripken Jr, Jeter, Trout, etc. would suddenly cause people to scream BIGGER HALL! BIGGER HALL!

The basketball hall of fame is based on all basketball. Where a college legend who played an ok nba career will get in. That's not how baseball works and should not work that way. Also how high are these standards that Jeter and Trout wouldn't get it? They are all time greats

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by Randallk34

The basketball hall of fame is based on all basketball. Where a college legend who played an ok nba career will get in. That's not how baseball works and should not work that way. Also how high are these standards that Jeter and Trout wouldn't get it? They are all time greats

I don't mean every element of basketball.

but as you say that remember that Monte Irvin and Satchel Paige aren't in there for AL/NL reasons, and they were inducted FAR before the negro leagues were declared major leagues.

before Ichiro's MLB career made the topic superfluous plenty argued his combined Japanese stats should also count towards his HOF case.

I don't see college baseball going this way - but it is a point in the big hall's favor that the Hall of Fame is far more than the numbers on the back of your baseball card. His Hall wouldn't include Jackie Robinson, Roberto Clemente, or Sandy Koufax all absolute heroes to more than just fans of their teams.

I think this is where small hall begins to crumble as an idea. Because to induct a Satchel Paige means you have to go well beyond the numbers themselves. He barely had a MLB career, and we barely have any of his negro league stats compared to how often he was rumored to have pitched. But in a Hall of FAME for baseball? As in whose names should we keep on our tongues? Whose legacies should go on? I cannot even imagine a hall not having Satchel.

And that's where for me, the line is so far beneath him. Who should a baseball loving student of history know about? Tommy Gregg? Nah. Bobby Abreau? Yeah, I think so. Guy was a hitting machine monster who was special to watch for a long time, even if he wasn't Mickey Mantle.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz1982

There's some truth to that though Blyleven had a 4 fWAR, two 5 fWAR, and a 7 fWAR season in the last 11 years of his career so almost half his seasons the second half of his career were excellent to elite. One of the 5 WAR seasons was his last full season in 1989.

I think it has a whole lot more to do with him playing on obscure teams than anything. Nobody cared about the Twins and Angels when he was putting up monster seasons and he was overshadowed by guys like Parker and Stargell on the Pirates.



Still one of the top 5 commercials ever made

No doubt he had a lot working against him. The stats at the time that they valued pitchers were basically w-L and era. He played for crappy teams and he did so in the AL with the DH.

But man, more than half his WAR was accomplished before his age 26 season. The other, lesser half, went until age 40. Of his Oft stated WAR7 seasons, 6 were age 25 and before, and the 7th was his 4th best season at age 34. We aren't used to pitchers like that. He was in an era of Nolan Ryan whom he was pretty equal to in value, but Nolan aged like a fine wine in the great tradition of Cy Young. And those Ks...and those no hitters....

By the way, the answer to today's Blyleven, as in "Who is this fantastic pitcher that nobody is aware is a real live stud"

German Marquez. He's the answer to "What if an ace pitched at Coors?" Coors and a terrible Rockies team has him hidden better than Sadaam in a hole in the ground.

[pip]

Originally Posted by MiamiMarlinsFan

While Harold Baines in the HOF is a bit ridiculous. I’m glad I don’t have to live in a world where you decide who gets into the Hall.

At least there would no longer be any controversy with Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson. Rose in. Jackson out.

[WizardofOz1982]

Originally Posted by Silent George

No doubt he had a lot working against him. The stats at the time that they valued pitchers were basically w-L and era. He played for crappy teams and he did so in the AL with the DH.

But man, more than half his WAR was accomplished before his age 26 season. The other, lesser half, went until age 40. Of his Oft stated WAR7 seasons, 6 were age 25 and before, and the 7th was his 4th best season at age 34. We aren't used to pitchers like that. He was in an era of Nolan Ryan whom he was pretty equal to in value, but Nolan aged like a fine wine in the great tradition of Cy Young. And those Ks...and those no hitters....

He is kind of the reverse of a normal pitcher career for sure. He was a monster for 8 years on terrible teams then just settled in as a 4 WAR guy with an occasional 5 or 7 WAR season for the next 12 years.

[IgnatiusJReilly]

I like using JAWS for this kind of question, which computes the average of a players 7 year peak bWAR with their career bWAR. I generally prefer fWAR over bWAR, but there isn't an fWAR JAWS summary that I can find. Even by the JAWS metric, the average for an HOFer depends on position:

C - 44.3
1B - 54.8
2B - 57.2
3B - 55.9
SS - 55.5
LF - 53.7
CF - 58.3
RF - 57.3
SP - 61.7
RP - 32.6

C, SP, and RP are the outliers but every other position is like 56. If I answer the question only for those positions, I would draw my line for inner circle vs HOF at a JAWS of 80. That would give the following players in the inner circle and next nearest in parentheses:

1B - Gehrig, Pujols, (Foxx at 75.1)
2B - Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie, (Morgan at 79.8)
3B - Schmidt, (Mathews at 75)
SS - Wagner, Rodriguez (Ripken at 76.1)
LF - Bonds, Williams, Henderson (Yastrzemski at 76)
CF - Mays, Cobb, Speaker, Mantle (Trout at 75.9)
RF - Ruth, Aaron, Musial, Ott, F. Robinson (Clemente at 74.6)

If I just apply the rule to SP, I get:

SP - W. Johnson, Young, Clemens, Nichols, Alexander, Mathewson, Grove, Seaver, Maddux, R. Johnson, (J. Clarkson 78.9)

There's definitely an argument to be made for lowering to 75 but that's what it looks like from my vantage. That's a pretty damn good list.

[kykid4uk]

Originally Posted by no10pin

It would be really tough to say x amount of bWAR gets you into the small HOF or the inner circle.

Bobby Grich and Carlos Beltran have a higher bWAR that Tony Gwynn, Miguel Cabrera & Ernie Banks.

That alone should be enough to never take bWAR seriously again.

[NYBBFAN]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

Any list that doesn't have Zack Wheat in the top 100 is worthless in my opinion.

This is twice I’ve seen his name this week.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1473461

[fabiani12333]

If you think about it, even though professional baseball has existed for well over a century, several of the very best players to ever play the game are still alive. You could make the case for these players being the best ever at their position:

Johnny Bench at catcher
Mike Schmidt at 3B
Willie Mays in center
Barry Bonds in left
Albert Pujols at 1B