This Hall of Fame season marks the first that I have an official vote. It’s already been mailed and received by the vote counters. I’ve written extensively this year, as usual, on the current ballot. Still, I wondered if maybe it was possible that I wasn’t covering everything that might interest fans. That’s when I turned to you, dear reader, for questions, and you came back with some excellent ones. They exceeded my lofty expectations, so I’ll start with a sincere message of gratitude to those who took part: You’re awesome and I hope my answers satisfy.
Padre Fan Dan ask: What percentage of your vote would you estimate is stats vs reputation? The Lofton/Ichiro comp is a great example of how HOF is definitely not a mere stats based vote.
Unfortunately, I don’t have a way to quantify this — so I’m sorry, but I can’t give a percentage — but I firmly believe that there’s a “fame” component that should matter when we evaluate individual Hall of Fame cases. I most extensively got into this with Sammy Sosa back in 2021. Basically, there were people who were OK with Sosa’s ties to PEDs, but still said “no” to him as a Hall of Fame candidate due to falling short in WAR and JAWS. And my suggestion is that, in addition to the 600+ home runs, Sosa’s status as a veritable rock star in baseball for six years absolutely should be a Hall of Fame case enhancer.
I’ve mentioned it for Gary Sheffield’s bat waggle before, too. Sure, it’s a tiny portion of the case, but it kind of matters a little, you know? Kids growing up in the ’90s and early 2000s imitating the bat waggle seems like it matters, to me.
And here is where I think Ichiro Suzuki has to be given major bonus points with his case. There’s a “feel” factor to him. He was a worldwide sensation when he came over in 2001. He had a batting stance kids loved to imitate. He was the first position player to come from Japan and be an immediate superstar. We didn’t need to say his full name. We still don’t! Just say “Ichiro” and even non-baseball fans know who you mean.
That matters. It’s the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of the Most Elite Players of Hall of Stats.
Ichiro’s case (3,000+ hits here in America after only joining the league when he was 27 in addition to a .311 batting average and 509 stolen bases) is a strong one for old-school voters. The WAR and JAWS figures show him below the average Hall of Fame right fielder. The fame factor pushes him above the standard.
As for Lofton, I think he was a big enough deal to be a Hall of Famer while his JAWS and WAR are closer to the average Hall of Fame center fielder than Ichiro is in right field. I think Ichiro is a more obvious Hall of Famer due to everything discussed above, but Lofton remains one of the biggest Hall snubs there is, in my opinion. I also think the timing for him was awful. He was on the ballot for the 2013 Hall of Fame class. That ballot had 10 current Hall of Famers on it in addition to Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, Mark McGwire, Sosa, Dale Murphy, Rafael Palmeiro and Bernie Williams.
Hopefully the Era Committees in the future get a chance to discuss Lofton and I’d do my best to persuade them. I do, however, understand why Ichiro feels like a much more obvious Hall of Famer than Lofton for many people.
From Lev on Bluesky: Given that the BBWAA says that election should be based on certain intangibles (character, contributions to team, sportsmanship) in addition to the stats, do you think we should be giving more thought to players who were famous across the sport (Felix, Wright) but whose stats might be borderline?
As noted above, I certainly believe there’s a fame factor that can be an enhancer to a case. It’s just a question of whether or not the enhancer is enough to get the player to the subjective, hazy, imaginary “line” in the heads of individual voters. It’s difficult to determine exactly how close a player is to the line and how much enhancer is needed to get across the line.
Félix Hernández was such a huge deal he was called King Félix throughout his amazing prime. He won a Cy Young and finished second in voting twice. The rule of thumb say that a player is All-Star caliber if he reaches 5+ WAR and MVP-caliber if he gets to 8+. Hernández had five seasons with at least 5.0 WAR and only one over 6.5, which was 7.2 in 2010. He didn’t hit traditional benchmarks (only 165 wins, didn’t get to 3,000 strikeouts, etc.) and sits well below average in JAWS among starting pitchers.
I think he’s pretty clearly below the Hall of Fame line, basically, but I’ve been having second thoughts now about not voting for him. Why? Because I remember just how big a deal he was through his prime. He felt like a Hall of Famer when I was watching him. A lot of people agree with that. It’s not his fault he was relegated to non-playoff teams throughout his career, but I do wonder what a deep playoff run or two would’ve done to even more greatly enhance his case. Then again, he did fall apart basically once he hit 30.
I didn’t vote for him this year, but I still remain undecided.
David Wright, much like Don Mattingly, was a beloved player in New York City and was seen as a team leader. Despite having a strong start to his Hall of Fame career, injuries derailed him before he could compile enough stats to solidify his case. While he may not have the same undeniable Hall of Fame aura as Félix, his peak performance was impressive with seasons of 8.3, 7.1, and 6.9 WAR.
When it comes to evaluating potential Hall of Famers, I consider factors beyond just the stat line. Players like Jimmy Rollins and Dustin Pedroia, MVPs who were essential to their teams, also deserve consideration. I will continue to assess their cases, taking into account factors like the “Fame Factor” and overall impact on the game.
The debate over the importance of defense in Hall of Fame cases is ongoing. Elite defenders like Andruw Jones should not be overlooked, especially when considering their impact on the game. Framing numbers, like those of Russell Martin and Brian McCann, add another layer to the discussion. When Yadier Molina becomes eligible, his framing skills will likely be a major point of contention.
As for the standards of the Hall of Fame, I believe in respecting precedent while also acknowledging room for improvement. While I understand the desire for a “Small Hall,” the existing standards provide a framework for evaluating current players. I will continue to uphold these standards while recognizing the evolving nature of the game.
When it comes to the percentage of big leaguers in the Hall of Fame, historical trends show a wide range. While some decades have higher induction rates than others, each era has produced its share of deserving Hall of Famers. Ultimately, the appropriate percentage is subjective and should reflect the changing landscape of the game. Let’s analyze whether a 20% Hall of Fame induction rate seems appropriate. It’s important to consider the difficulty of achieving playing time benchmarks. This doesn’t mean that 20% of all MLB players should be in the Hall of Fame, which would be unreasonable. Currently, there have been 1,053 players who have reached 5,000 plate appearances. If we suggest that roughly 20% of those should be Hall of Famers, we’re looking at around 211 Hall of Fame position players. Dividing that number equally among the 11 decades listed above would result in approximately 19 Hall of Famers per decade. Assuming there are 19 position players and 11 pitchers per decade who are Hall of Fame worthy, that equates to about one player per team per decade, which seems reasonable.
It’s worth noting that players must have 10 years of service time to be eligible for the Hall of Fame. Less than 10% of all players in MLB history reach this milestone. If we simplify this further, fewer than 10% of players make it to 10 years, and of those, roughly 20% are Hall of Famers. This means that only around 1-2% of all players, or less than 2%, make it to the Hall of Fame.
Given these considerations, the structure seems appropriate. This means I will leave space for flexibility when considering these players. Hopefully, this approach is clear to readers. As an emphatic yes, I believe that managers should be eligible to be voted into the Hall of Fame by a certain age, even if they are still active. Currently, managers must be retired for at least five years or, if over the age of 65, for six months before they can be considered for induction.
Take, for example, Dusty Baker, who is 75 years old and retired from managing just one year ago. He is undoubtedly a Hall of Famer and will likely be inducted soon, but he could have been honored several years ago. Similarly, Bruce Bochy is 69 and still actively managing, while Terry Francona, at 65, has just taken on a new managerial role.
Do we really need to wait for these seasoned managers to retire before acknowledging their contributions to the sport? All three are clear-cut choices for the Hall of Fame. Perhaps once a managerial candidate reaches the age of 65, they should be eligible for induction without a waiting period, even if they are still actively managing. This way, deserving candidates can be honored promptly, allowing them to continue their managerial careers.
It’s worth noting that we have seen Hall of Famers return to the dugout in the past, like Tony La Russa, who managed the White Sox several years after being inducted into the Hall of Fame. Considering the advancing age of these managerial legends, it is vital to recognize their achievements while they are still alive. Posthumous accolades, like the recent induction of Dick Allen, should be minimized in favor of honoring Hall of Famers during their lifetime.
In conclusion, expediting the Hall of Fame induction process for managers over 65 years old would ensure that deserving candidates receive their well-earned recognition in a timely manner. This approach would not only celebrate their accomplishments but also allow them to continue making valuable contributions to the sport they love.