Hall of Famers We Are Watching in 2020

[Handsome Wes]

There is one question that hasn't been asked (or maybe it has - I haven't scrolled through 29 pages worth of comments):

We all take it as a given that there are ~40 HOFers in any given season. This is the historical trend.

The question I raise: is it too many? Too few?

I don't know if there are any math wizards out there, but let's say there are 15 - 20 HOFers that represent every ten year period. I'm sure we can all agree that's fair. Would that - more or less - equate to 40 HOFers in any given season? Is there a formula to calculate that?

[LittleJimmies]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

There is one question that hasn't been asked (or maybe it has - I haven't scrolled through 29 pages worth of comments):

We all take it as a given that there are ~40 HOFers in any given season. This is the historical trend.

The question I raise: is it too many? Too few?

I don't know if there are any math wizards out there, but let's say there are 15 - 20 HOFers that represent every ten year period. I'm sure we can all agree that's fair. Would that - more or less - equate to 40 HOFers in any given season? Is there a formula to calculate that?

Not totally sure what you are asking to calculate with the 10 year period part but I think what you're looking for is:

274 (HOF Players) x 18 (HOF'er avg. career length) / 154 (total MLB seasons) = 32 HOF playing per season on average.

That is much higher than I'd expected.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

There is one question that hasn't been asked (or maybe it has - I haven't scrolled through 29 pages worth of comments):

We all take it as a given that there are ~40 HOFers in any given season. This is the historical trend.

The question I raise: is it too many? Too few?

I don't know if there are any math wizards out there, but let's say there are 15 - 20 HOFers that represent every ten year period. I'm sure we can all agree that's fair. Would that - more or less - equate to 40 HOFers in any given season? Is there a formula to calculate that?

Great question. I studied it years ago and 40 was the average number of HOFers in any given season. And that number is probably low when applying it to today’s baseball because there are more teams and more players. But 40 is close enough and a nice round number.

Originally Posted by LittleJimmies

Not totally sure what you are asking to calculate with the 10 year period part but I think what you're looking for is:

274 (HOF Players) x 18 (HOF'er avg. career length) / 154 (total MLB seasons) = 32 HOF playing per season on average.

That is much higher than I'd expected.

I like the quick calculation. It illustrates it really well. And this doesn’t factor time. Meaning, there are players who get inducted 50, 60, 70 years after playing. If we assume 99% of HOFers have been identified pre-1950 and then scale it downward from there to present, 32 ends up being low. Then add in expansion of player pool and the number goes up even more.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

There is one question that hasn't been asked (or maybe it has - I haven't scrolled through 29 pages worth of comments):

We all take it as a given that there are ~40 HOFers in any given season. This is the historical trend.

The question I raise: is it too many? Too few?

I don't know if there are any math wizards out there, but let's say there are 15 - 20 HOFers that represent every ten year period. I'm sure we can all agree that's fair. Would that - more or less - equate to 40 HOFers in any given season? Is there a formula to calculate that?

I think it used to be a bit lower.....I grew up in the 70's/80's with the assumption that it was around 30 a year....

But both the writers and the veteran's committee's have been going crazy the last ten years electing borderline candidates, so the number is probably rising.

The various veterans committees have elected 12 new members in the past eight years....

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by mfw13

The various veterans committees have elected 12 new members in the past eight years....

They made some changes this year to make it more difficult for candidates with limited initial support from getting in later. Not sure if that would have impacted any of the 12 referenced. On the flip side, they're just making up for the juicers that would otherwise be in.

[Archangel1775]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

They made some changes this year to make it more difficult for candidates with limited initial support from getting in later. Not sure if that would have impacted any of the 12 referenced. On the flip side, they're just making up for the juicers that would otherwise be in.

Yeah, Harold Baines election messed it up for everyone else. I'm sure there are more others could add. Just shocking players like Keith Hernandez, Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly aren't in over him. Again, I'm sure there are more.But that's another thread.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by Archangel1775

Yeah, Harold Baines election messed it up for everyone else. I'm sure there are more others could add. Just shocking players like Keith Hernandez, Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly aren't in over him. Again, I'm sure there are more.But that's another thread.

And that's precisely the problem......once you start letting one or two "Hall of the Very Good" level players in like Tony Oliva, Harold Baines, Dave Parker, Jim Kaat, etc., then it becomes all the easier to make arguments for other "Hall of the Very Good" level players.

There are probably 20-25 modern era position players better than Harold Baines & Dave Parker who aren't in the HOF, if not more.

[Zauron]

Originally Posted by mfw13

And that's precisely the problem......once you start letting one or two "Hall of the Very Good" level players in like Tony Oliva, Harold Baines, Dave Parker, Jim Kaat, etc., then it becomes all the easier to make arguments for other "Hall of the Very Good" level players.

There are probably 20-25 modern era position players better than Harold Baines & Dave Parker who aren't in the HOF, if not more.

Seriously, letting Baines in and then other guys recently just killed the HOF in baseball.

I feel like they put Baines in and are keeping the legends out in the steroid era to prove a point in some way, which is ridiculous.

If Baines, Oliva, Parker are in, why not Lofton? Why not Graid Nettles? Willie Randolph? Keith Hernandez, Bobby Abreu, Kevin Brown, etc.

[awz50]

Originally Posted by mfw13

I think it used to be a bit lower.....I grew up in the 70's/80's with the assumption that it was around 30 a year....

But both the writers and the veteran's committee's have been going crazy the last ten years electing borderline candidates, so the number is probably rising.

The various veterans committees have elected 12 new members in the past eight years....

Going crazy? Have you looked at the 40s, 50s and 70s? They are all much more then recent years. All in all the hall of fame has been pretty good about keeping consistent through the decades. People love to throw their personal biases in just because they hate the Baines nomination

[Archangel1775]

Originally Posted by awz50

Going crazy? Have you looked at the 40s, 50s and 70s? They are all much more then recent years. All in all the hall of fame has been pretty good about keeping consistent through the decades. People love to throw their personal biases in just because they hate the Baines nomination

That's why today's pitchers (those that debuted after 2010) are going to be interesting to gauge when their generation begins to retire.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by Archangel1775

That's why today's pitchers (those that debuted after 2010) are going to be interesting to gauge when their generation begins to retire.

This is spot on. The BBWAA doesn’t tend to adjust rapidly.

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

There is one question that hasn't been asked (or maybe it has - I haven't scrolled through 29 pages worth of comments):

We all take it as a given that there are ~40 HOFers in any given season. This is the historical trend.

The question I raise: is it too many? Too few?

I don't know if there are any math wizards out there, but let's say there are 15 - 20 HOFers that represent every ten year period. I'm sure we can all agree that's fair. Would that - more or less - equate to 40 HOFers in any given season? Is there a formula to calculate that?

Originally Posted by LittleJimmies

Not totally sure what you are asking to calculate with the 10 year period part but I think what you're looking for is:

274 (HOF Players) x 18 (HOF'er avg. career length) / 154 (total MLB seasons) = 32 HOF playing per season on average.

That is much higher than I'd expected.

It's even easier than that. The BBWAA elects roughly 2 players per year. If the average HOF career lenth is 18 years, then 2*18=36.

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by rwperu34

It's even easier than that. The BBWAA elects roughly 2 players per year. If the average HOF career lenth is 18 years, then 2*18=36.

I think we would all be cool with the BBWAA elects two a year and the Vet Committee elects one a year

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

I think we would all be cool with the BBWAA elects two a year and the Vet Committee elects one a year

So because I have nothing better to do at work, I ran the numbers to see what would have happened if the Hall of Fame said that two have to be - but only two - players can be inducted in a given year (not counting Vet Committee inductions).

By my calculations, I can say that... pretty much nothing changes. A few people who were Vet Committee inductees (such as Ron Santo, Orlando Cepeda, Jack Morris, Alan Trammell, etc. get elected by the BBWAA). Billy Wagner and Larry Walker fall of the ballot, unfortunately. We do have three new HOFers - Tommy John, Steve Garvey, and Barry Bonds (but not Roger Clemens).

It was too difficult to track the Vet Committee votes because so many executives are lumped in with the players during so many years. I think you might also induct Dave Concepcion and Dwight Evans but not 100 percent sure.


(for what it's worth


1990 - Jim Palmer, Joe Morgan
1991 - Rod Carew, Gaylord Perry (F. Jenkins out)
1992 - Tom Seaver, Fergie Jenkins (R. Fingers out)
1993 - Reggie Jackson, Rollie Fingers
1994 - Steve Carlton, Orlando Cepeda*
1995 - Mike Schmidt, Phil Niekro
1996 - Tony Perez, Don Sutton
1997 - Ron Santo*, Jim Rice
1998 - Gary Carter, Steve Garvey#
1999 - Nolan Ryan, George Brett (R. Yount out)
2000 - Robin Yount, Carlton Fisk
2001 - Dave Winfield, Kirby Puckett
2002 - Ozzie Smith, Bruce Sutter
2003 - Eddie Murray, Andre Dawson
2004 - Paul Molitor, Dennis Eckersley
2005 - Wade Boggs, Ryne Sandberg
2006 - Goose Gossage, Bert Blyleven
2007 - Cal Ripken Jr., Tony Gwynn
2008 - Lee Smith*, Jack Morris
2009 - Rickey Henderson, Tommy John#
2010 - Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin
2011 - Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines
2012 - Alan Trammell*, Edgar Martinez
2013 - Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza
2014 - Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine (Frank Thomas out)
2015 - Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez (John Smoltz out)
2016 - Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas
2017 - John Smoltz, Ivan Rodriguez
2018 - Chipper Jones, Vladimir Guerrero (J. Thome & T. Hoffman out)
2019 - Mariano Rivera, Jim Thome (R. Halladay & M. Mussina out)
2020 - Derek Jeter, Trevor Hoffman (Larry Walker out on 10th ballot)
2021 - Roy Halladay, Mike Mussina
2022 - David Ortiz, Barry Bonds#
2023 - Scott Rolen, Todd Helton
2024 - Adrian Beltre, Joe Mauer
2025 - CC Sabathia, Ichiro Suzuki (Billy Wagner out on 10th ballot)


* Previously a Veteran's Committee selection
# Not currently a HOFer

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

I think we would all be cool with the BBWAA elects two a year and the Vet Committee elects one a year

Up until the last decade, the BBWAA averaged about 17-18 electees per decade, so just under two per year.

The issue I have with the Vet committees is that there is no real screening process to eliminate unworthy candidate like Baines, Parker, Kaat, Oliva, etc.

There needs to be some sort of standard that reduces the number of players eligible for the Vets committees (for example a minimum amount of WAR, or having reached certain vote percentages when on the BBWAA ballot).

For example, maybe have a minimum requirement of 50 WAR....or ten years with 25% or more of the BBWAA vote....or five years of 50% or more of the BBWAA vote.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by mfw13

Up until the last decade, the BBWAA averaged about 17-18 electees per decade, so just under two per year.

The issue I have with the Vet committees is that there is no real screening process to eliminate unworthy candidate like Baines, Parker, Kaat, Oliva, etc.

There needs to be some sort of standard that reduces the number of players eligible for the Vets committees (for example a minimum amount of WAR, or having reached certain vote percentages when on the BBWAA ballot).

For example, maybe have a minimum requirement of 50 WAR....or ten years with 25% or more of the BBWAA vote....or five years of 50% or more of the BBWAA vote.

I disagree.

Up until the last decade, the BBWAA averaged 13.5 inductees per decade. The only decade they elected 17 or 18 were the 2000s and the 1980s. But you would expect an increase due to expansion.

The Vet committees have a screening process. Baines, Parker, Kaat, and especially Oliva are all worthy candidates.

There is a standard that exists making someone eligible or ineligible for the Vet Committees as it relates to length of career and length of time since career ended. I am definitely against any statistical minimum, particularly WAR. And I'm against any voting percentage minimum since the BBWAA does miss a lot of worthy candidates.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

The Vet committees have a screening process. Baines, Parker, Kaat, and especially Oliva are all worthy candidates.

There is a standard that exists making someone eligible or ineligible for the Vet Committees as it relates to length of career and length of time since career ended. I am definitely against any statistical minimum, particularly WAR. And I'm against any voting percentage minimum since the BBWAA does miss a lot of worthy candidates.

They may be worthy candidates, but they're NOT worthy inductees unless you think the HOF should now be the Hall of the Pretty Good, with everyone and their grandma getting enshrined.

I can think of at least 15-20 players who are more deserving than any of those four guys.....

[mfw13]

Just for comparison.....two players who were on the same Vet's Committee ballot (twice, no less)....

Player A: 56.5 WAR, 137 OPS+, .384/.497/.880
Player B: 38.7 WAR, 121 OPS+, .356/.465/.820

Player B is Harold Baines......player A is.......Will Clark.

I'm the biggest Will Clark fan there is.....and even I don't think he belongs anywhere near the HOF!

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

The Vet committees have a screening process.

Given that Keith Hernandez has yet to appear on a single Veteran's Committee ballot while Dave Parker appeared on FOUR, the screening process can't be a very good one!

And I'm really curious how Dwight Evans (8 votes, 50%) and Lou Whitaker (6 votes, 37.5%) were on the ballot with Parker in 2020, but were not on the ballot with him in 2025! Why did Parker get a fourth ballot before they even got a second ballot???

[timber63401]

Baines shouldn't be a standard to go by. He was a mistake and an outlier nothing more nothing less.

[blackvodka]

The Hall of Fame discussion has become so strange for me. It's impossible to figure out excluding a player who is a no-brainer.

My personal favorite though is how Buster Posey is considered a future Hall of Famer without any real pushback from anyone, yet Thurman Munson wasn't even remotely considered and still to this day hardly ever gets mentioned. Their careers are nearly identical.

Sent from my motorola razr 2024 using Tapatalk

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by timber63401

Baines shouldn't be a standard to go by. He was a mistake and an outlier nothing more nothing less.

Yep.

And I hate to be that guy but I have to think that there are ulterior motives with the constant Baines bashing.

He's hardly the worst candidate ever inducted by the Veteran's Committee. And to say that it all went downhill with his election is completely ignorant of HOF history and Frankie Frisch's influence on it.

For (hopefully) the last time, Baines had the most career hits of anyone not enshrined, and he likely would have eclipsed 3,000 had his playing days not been interrupted by two labor disputes. He was extremely well liked, had his number retired - while he was still playing - by one franchise and was inducted into another's HOF. It's why he was inducted - at a time when character clauses are used to keep people out, former teammates / coaches of his advocated for his inclusion.

[ThoseBackPages]

i think the baines hate is because a lot of us saw him play and never thought

"Yea, thats one of the best to ever play MLB"

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

Yep.

And I hate to be that guy but I have to think that there are ulterior motives with the constant Baines bashing.

He's hardly the worst candidate ever inducted by the Veteran's Committee. And to say that it all went downhill with his election is completely ignorant of HOF history and Frankie Frisch's influence on it.

For (hopefully) the last time, Baines had the most career hits of anyone not enshrined, and he likely would have eclipsed 3,000 had his playing days not been interrupted by two labor disputes. He was extremely well liked, had his number retired - while he was still playing - by one franchise and was inducted into another's HOF. It's why he was inducted - at a time when character clauses are used to keep people out, former teammates / coaches of his advocated for his inclusion.

Well said.

At the time of his retirement, every eligible player with 2,800 hits was inducted.

Also, his 1,628 RBIs were good for 21st All-Time when he retired in 2001. The 20 players above him are all Hall of Famers. In fact, the 19 players below him are all Hall of Famers except for Barry Bonds. As Bonds (and Ripken) was not yet HOF eligible at the time of Baines’ retirement, every eligible player in the top 40 of RBIs at the time was enshrined.

[Absknicks]

What "ulterior motives" would someone possibly have for believing Harold Baines doesn't belong in the HOF? Lmao

Baines is what Mike Francesa used to refer to as a "compiler." He was never a top-10 player in the sport in any given season but he stuck around forever and compiled enough stats to make a case.

I don't think he belongs in the HOF but he's hardly the only one.