The Hall tried a lower tier, back in the early days, the Honor Rolls of Baseball. It was a flop, unceremoniously discontinued, and unlamented. Having "minor league" Hall levels would do more to demean than it would to honor.
But. if really interested, one could petition the Hall to revisit and revive the Honor Rolls.
The only thing a tiered Hall of Fame would do is increase the arguments tenfold. Probably more than that actually. Maybe there would be more people in. Not only would people be arguing about whether some would be in, everyone would argue about whatever level everyone was on.
There already is a place for the great players that aren’t Hall of Famers: Their teams’ Hall of Fame--or a retired number from their team(s) etc. Newly announced examples: Darryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden. No one disputes that their time with the Mets was extraordinary. No one disputes that drugs disrupted both of their careers, leaving them well short of Cooperstown. Voila! Problem solved with the Mets retiring their numbers. They will be remembered where they should be. (Jack Whalen posted similar thoughts regarding the Giants. Jack: Pls forgive me for pointing out that the Giants also have a Willie Mac award for each year’s most inspirational player.) The teams know what they’re doing. I don’t need a tiered system for players to sort out something that has worked for decades.
Thurman died. He’s been punished for it. Had he lived, he would have accumulated more counting numbers and gets in easily. He didn’t live long and the modern analytics nevertheless show that he always was better than Fisk. I saw it then, and if you’re didn’t - and you love analytics, those numbers should clear things up.
If the powers that be leave this wrong uncorrected, the Yankees retired his number in real time and preserved his locker - as it had been - at the first Yankee Stadium until it was torn down. His locker was rebuilt into the Yankee Museum. A 1970 vintage jersey (yes, they’re all mostly the same) hangs there. As it should. Yankee fans won’t forget him. My overall argument holds.
Yes, I enjoy various teams' "Wall of Fame" or whatever they call it and wish visiting teams' broadcasts would occasionally cover them like they do at home for their own team.
I find it odd that the publication date is supposed to be September 5th but several of us already have our copies. My preorder arrived at the store on Wednesday and I picked it up yesterday.
what can i say about L.A. & Atlanta, and Ronald & Mookie, that hasn't already been said? epic battle Thursday, can't wait to see what unfolds in the rest of the series; that said, i wonder which one S.F. will have to beat in the playoffs to get to the W.S.? yes, hope reigns supreme, i feel one of the 2 teams will choke in first round, probably the Dodgers- which will make my Giants' task tougher! although we've spanked the Blue Boys pretty badly and often this year, we've had big issues w/Braves!
Well if the stated goal is to reduce the number of arguments, then the 10 point system is a total failure. There will be an argument at Every single level- dare I say an argument for every single player. Level 1. A lot - perhaps most, would say Babe Ruth. And it cascades up from there. Level 2. Someone we all know recently said Barry Bonds was number 3!
I mean if you want to have thousands of arguments, go for it. I think binary is he way to go. Maybe you could argue for tripart breakdown. But ten levels? It just becomes ridiculous.
“we love them and want those people honored SOMEHOW. And there’s only one honor out there for them.”
Let me say IT AIN’T SO, JOE!
Every team retires numbers. Every team has its own Wall of Fame or Ring of Honor or team museum. Ever hear of Monument Park? And even if they’re not in The Baseball 100, there are more than 1,000 guys enshrined in the Bill James Historical Abstract.
There are a lot of great players who didn't make a significant enough dent for one single team over a long enough time period to earn a retired number or Wall of Fame honor.
At the end of the day, any HOF, almost HOF, Neither but still very good Hall is essentially a subjective determination. Perfect comparability is just not possible. There are a number of factors that make that so but the two biggest are the size of the player pool (but not the way you’re thinking) and the fundamental change in the way the game is played.
Consider that in 1900 we might of thought of a player as a once in a life time player. One hundred years later, there are nearly four times the population in the U.S. alone. Baseball has also grown significantly in other countries as well, so it is entirely possible that there are 4-5 similarly gifted players just based on the increased pool of available players.
As for the way the game is played there are some records likely safer than DiMaggio’s 56 game hitting streak. One of those is the strikeouts in a season by a pitcher. Pitchers in the 1880s frequently threw 500+ innings. The modern records top three are more than 100 SO for innings totals of 326, 335.2 and 249.2. The last 300 inning plus season by a pitcher was 1979 by Phil Niekro.
Consider:
Pre 1900 best single season strikeout totals
Matt Kilroy 1886 513 SO 583 IP. 7.82 per 9 IP
Toad Ramsey 1886 499 SO 588.2 6IP 7.64 per 9 IP
Hugh Daily 1884 483 SO 500.2IP 8.69 per 9 IP
Thomas “Toad” Ramsey got his nickname because of his “portly” body per MLB.com. He is also credited by MLB.com as the father of the knuckle ball. As they reported “Ramsey only came to "discover" the pitch because of an unfortunate accident. Working as a bricklayer, Ramsey sliced the tendon of his index finger, forcing him to hold the ball by his fingertips. This produced two different "curves" or drop-balls.
Sure, it wasn't quite a knuckleball -- and the 19th century sportswriters couldn't possibly comprehend the glory of what the pitch could become -- but it was a kind of knuckler. A proto-knuckleball, if you will, with movement similar to that of a modern-day knuckle-curve.”
For those that care, Toad was a left hander.
1900 to present best single season strikeouts totals
Nolan Ryan 1973 383 SO 326 IP 10.57 per 9 IP
Sandy Koufax 1965 382 SO 335.2 IP 10.26 per 9 IP
Randy Johnson 2001 372 SO 249.2 IP 13.43 per 9 IP
Just because:
Pre 1900. Best SO per 9 IP of the SO leaders
Hugh Daily 1884 8.69 per 9 IP ranks 22nd in average all years
Matt Kilroy 1886 7.92 per 9 IP ranks 26th in average all years
Toad Ramsey 1886 7.64 per 9 IP ranks 27th in average all years
1900 to present best SO per 9 IP of the SO leaders
Gerritt Cole 2019 13.83 ranked 35th in total SO for all years
Randy Johnson 2011 13.43 ranked 11th in total SO for all years
Pedro Martinez 1999 13.22 ranked 45th in total SO for all years
Absolutely correct. Missed that somehow. Still, it has been over 40 years since a 300 inning season. To break the single season record a 300 inning pitcher would have to average 15.42 SO/9 IP. That is nearly 2 SO per 9 better than the best season ever (Gerrit Cole's). A 250 inning pitcher (roughly the maximum most of the last 20 years) would have average about 18.5 SO/9 IP which seems like a pipe dream. Thanks for the correction.
I’d say that 98% of what I read about the baseball Hall of Fame is negative -- complaints about who’s in, who isn’t, what it’s supposed to be, etc. Endless whining. Harold Baines. Lou Whitaker. Dick Allen. Bill Mazeroski. Pete Rose. It’s like complaining about the Catholic Church. If you don’t like the rules, there’s the door. Start your own church like Martin Luther did. If you think the HOF is so screwed up, stop paying attention to it. Start your own museum or whatever else will satisfy you. Just stop whining.
You’re right about the 98% thing, but I don’t consider it to be a negative. Arguing about the HOF, who should be MVP, whatever, is just fandom. It’s why I would love a tiered HOF. Now, when a player gets in, there’s not much to discuss anymore. That’s why we have the seemingly endless Lou Whitaker/Murph/Mattingly talk.
But we could keep arguing about enshrined players if we had a tiered HOF. Brett vs. Brooks! Feller vs. Gibson! Rickey vs. Mickey!
One thing that just occurred to me is that you couldn't update midseason, that would be just madness. So at the end of each year, you tally all the new players. Do 1/3 of them deserve to move up, or does the best player who started the year in Level 1 get pushed up from below? That's one of the fun ways that this whole process keeps guys' careers alive: you add 6 guys to Level 5 after 2023, which means 2 move up. Are any of them rookies, or does Dave Parker finally get the call?
I guess, more logically, you add guys as they retire, but the discussion is the same. Although adding rookies would be kind of fun, watching players like Trout move up season to season. It would also radically alter peak vs compiler discussions. To bring up Harper again, I have his Hall case as Not Yet, but a good shot with another great season (or a couple excellent ones). But if he's just above average every year until the end of his career, his final tallies might look great, but it wouldn't feel like he'd cross the threshold in real time.
Got the email my book has been shipped (by Rainy Day Books, of course) and I'm very excited
Another topic to ponder: who would be in the Fame of Hall? i.e. who's the best Hall of 'em all? Mel Hall?
Anything that honors Mel Hall probably shouldn't be a thing that exists
Just FYI, Amazon currently has a really good price for the kindle edition of The Baseball 100.
The Hall tried a lower tier, back in the early days, the Honor Rolls of Baseball. It was a flop, unceremoniously discontinued, and unlamented. Having "minor league" Hall levels would do more to demean than it would to honor.
But. if really interested, one could petition the Hall to revisit and revive the Honor Rolls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_Rolls_of_Baseball
The only thing a tiered Hall of Fame would do is increase the arguments tenfold. Probably more than that actually. Maybe there would be more people in. Not only would people be arguing about whether some would be in, everyone would argue about whatever level everyone was on.
I t would help nothing,
Joe, I don’t know what book AARP recommended, but I recommend “The Book of Charlie” by David Von Drehle. Almost all of it takes place in KC.
There already is a place for the great players that aren’t Hall of Famers: Their teams’ Hall of Fame--or a retired number from their team(s) etc. Newly announced examples: Darryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden. No one disputes that their time with the Mets was extraordinary. No one disputes that drugs disrupted both of their careers, leaving them well short of Cooperstown. Voila! Problem solved with the Mets retiring their numbers. They will be remembered where they should be. (Jack Whalen posted similar thoughts regarding the Giants. Jack: Pls forgive me for pointing out that the Giants also have a Willie Mac award for each year’s most inspirational player.) The teams know what they’re doing. I don’t need a tiered system for players to sort out something that has worked for decades.
As for Munson v. Fisk: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1188985-thurman-munson-v-carlton-fisk-using-modern-statistics-reveals-the-better-player
Thurman died. He’s been punished for it. Had he lived, he would have accumulated more counting numbers and gets in easily. He didn’t live long and the modern analytics nevertheless show that he always was better than Fisk. I saw it then, and if you’re didn’t - and you love analytics, those numbers should clear things up.
If the powers that be leave this wrong uncorrected, the Yankees retired his number in real time and preserved his locker - as it had been - at the first Yankee Stadium until it was torn down. His locker was rebuilt into the Yankee Museum. A 1970 vintage jersey (yes, they’re all mostly the same) hangs there. As it should. Yankee fans won’t forget him. My overall argument holds.
Yes, I enjoy various teams' "Wall of Fame" or whatever they call it and wish visiting teams' broadcasts would occasionally cover them like they do at home for their own team.
Barnes & Noble is now saying my signed copy won't arrive until September 13!
I find it odd that the publication date is supposed to be September 5th but several of us already have our copies. My preorder arrived at the store on Wednesday and I picked it up yesterday.
what can i say about L.A. & Atlanta, and Ronald & Mookie, that hasn't already been said? epic battle Thursday, can't wait to see what unfolds in the rest of the series; that said, i wonder which one S.F. will have to beat in the playoffs to get to the W.S.? yes, hope reigns supreme, i feel one of the 2 teams will choke in first round, probably the Dodgers- which will make my Giants' task tougher! although we've spanked the Blue Boys pretty badly and often this year, we've had big issues w/Braves!
Can't wait to get my copy of the book!
And Rickey Henderson has to be Level 7 at a minimum right? Strange that Barry Bonds, at #3 in the Baseball 100, would sit in Joe's Level 7....
Yes - is there a character component in this ranking system?
Well if the stated goal is to reduce the number of arguments, then the 10 point system is a total failure. There will be an argument at Every single level- dare I say an argument for every single player. Level 1. A lot - perhaps most, would say Babe Ruth. And it cascades up from there. Level 2. Someone we all know recently said Barry Bonds was number 3!
I mean if you want to have thousands of arguments, go for it. I think binary is he way to go. Maybe you could argue for tripart breakdown. But ten levels? It just becomes ridiculous.
MY SIGNED COPIES OF ‘WHY WE LOVE BASEBALL’ ARRIVED!!!! I AM SO HAPPY!!!
How are all these people getting early copies? I want mine!
“we love them and want those people honored SOMEHOW. And there’s only one honor out there for them.”
Let me say IT AIN’T SO, JOE!
Every team retires numbers. Every team has its own Wall of Fame or Ring of Honor or team museum. Ever hear of Monument Park? And even if they’re not in The Baseball 100, there are more than 1,000 guys enshrined in the Bill James Historical Abstract.
There are a lot of great players who didn't make a significant enough dent for one single team over a long enough time period to earn a retired number or Wall of Fame honor.
At the end of the day, any HOF, almost HOF, Neither but still very good Hall is essentially a subjective determination. Perfect comparability is just not possible. There are a number of factors that make that so but the two biggest are the size of the player pool (but not the way you’re thinking) and the fundamental change in the way the game is played.
Consider that in 1900 we might of thought of a player as a once in a life time player. One hundred years later, there are nearly four times the population in the U.S. alone. Baseball has also grown significantly in other countries as well, so it is entirely possible that there are 4-5 similarly gifted players just based on the increased pool of available players.
As for the way the game is played there are some records likely safer than DiMaggio’s 56 game hitting streak. One of those is the strikeouts in a season by a pitcher. Pitchers in the 1880s frequently threw 500+ innings. The modern records top three are more than 100 SO for innings totals of 326, 335.2 and 249.2. The last 300 inning plus season by a pitcher was 1979 by Phil Niekro.
Consider:
Pre 1900 best single season strikeout totals
Matt Kilroy 1886 513 SO 583 IP. 7.82 per 9 IP
Toad Ramsey 1886 499 SO 588.2 6IP 7.64 per 9 IP
Hugh Daily 1884 483 SO 500.2IP 8.69 per 9 IP
Thomas “Toad” Ramsey got his nickname because of his “portly” body per MLB.com. He is also credited by MLB.com as the father of the knuckle ball. As they reported “Ramsey only came to "discover" the pitch because of an unfortunate accident. Working as a bricklayer, Ramsey sliced the tendon of his index finger, forcing him to hold the ball by his fingertips. This produced two different "curves" or drop-balls.
Sure, it wasn't quite a knuckleball -- and the 19th century sportswriters couldn't possibly comprehend the glory of what the pitch could become -- but it was a kind of knuckler. A proto-knuckleball, if you will, with movement similar to that of a modern-day knuckle-curve.”
For those that care, Toad was a left hander.
1900 to present best single season strikeouts totals
Nolan Ryan 1973 383 SO 326 IP 10.57 per 9 IP
Sandy Koufax 1965 382 SO 335.2 IP 10.26 per 9 IP
Randy Johnson 2001 372 SO 249.2 IP 13.43 per 9 IP
Just because:
Pre 1900. Best SO per 9 IP of the SO leaders
Hugh Daily 1884 8.69 per 9 IP ranks 22nd in average all years
Matt Kilroy 1886 7.92 per 9 IP ranks 26th in average all years
Toad Ramsey 1886 7.64 per 9 IP ranks 27th in average all years
1900 to present best SO per 9 IP of the SO leaders
Gerritt Cole 2019 13.83 ranked 35th in total SO for all years
Randy Johnson 2011 13.43 ranked 11th in total SO for all years
Pedro Martinez 1999 13.22 ranked 45th in total SO for all years
One small correction: Steve Carlton pitched 304 innings in 1980.
Absolutely correct. Missed that somehow. Still, it has been over 40 years since a 300 inning season. To break the single season record a 300 inning pitcher would have to average 15.42 SO/9 IP. That is nearly 2 SO per 9 better than the best season ever (Gerrit Cole's). A 250 inning pitcher (roughly the maximum most of the last 20 years) would have average about 18.5 SO/9 IP which seems like a pipe dream. Thanks for the correction.
I’d say that 98% of what I read about the baseball Hall of Fame is negative -- complaints about who’s in, who isn’t, what it’s supposed to be, etc. Endless whining. Harold Baines. Lou Whitaker. Dick Allen. Bill Mazeroski. Pete Rose. It’s like complaining about the Catholic Church. If you don’t like the rules, there’s the door. Start your own church like Martin Luther did. If you think the HOF is so screwed up, stop paying attention to it. Start your own museum or whatever else will satisfy you. Just stop whining.
You’re right about the 98% thing, but I don’t consider it to be a negative. Arguing about the HOF, who should be MVP, whatever, is just fandom. It’s why I would love a tiered HOF. Now, when a player gets in, there’s not much to discuss anymore. That’s why we have the seemingly endless Lou Whitaker/Murph/Mattingly talk.
But we could keep arguing about enshrined players if we had a tiered HOF. Brett vs. Brooks! Feller vs. Gibson! Rickey vs. Mickey!
How fun would that be?
The complaints re the Catholic Church are far more serious than anything having to do with how good someone played baseball.
One thing that just occurred to me is that you couldn't update midseason, that would be just madness. So at the end of each year, you tally all the new players. Do 1/3 of them deserve to move up, or does the best player who started the year in Level 1 get pushed up from below? That's one of the fun ways that this whole process keeps guys' careers alive: you add 6 guys to Level 5 after 2023, which means 2 move up. Are any of them rookies, or does Dave Parker finally get the call?
I guess, more logically, you add guys as they retire, but the discussion is the same. Although adding rookies would be kind of fun, watching players like Trout move up season to season. It would also radically alter peak vs compiler discussions. To bring up Harper again, I have his Hall case as Not Yet, but a good shot with another great season (or a couple excellent ones). But if he's just above average every year until the end of his career, his final tallies might look great, but it wouldn't feel like he'd cross the threshold in real time.