The Living Hall of Fame - Just Floating a Concept

greco827 · #1 11-28-2017, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason.1969

If I were rebuilding from scratch, I would organize the plaques by era and have two levels of enshrinement.

Example: For dead ball era, the Immortals would include Cobb, Wagner, Mathewson, etc. Then the Stars of the Era would include Baker, Tinker, etc.

This would create a place for the Cooperstown fence-sitters (Garvey, Whitaker, Murphy as Stars of the 70s and 80s), a way to demote some bad HOF selections (Slaughter, Grimes, Selig) without throwing away the plaque, and I suppose even create a path for Rose, Clemens, Shoeless Joe, and other scandal-tainted players.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I definitely think there should be tiers of enshrinement in the HOF. Tier 1 would be your legends or immortals as you put it, Tier 2 would be all other players, and Tier 3 would be contributors .... managers, front office, etc.

Ty Cobb and Ozzie Smith being equals is a joke. Writers should vote on enshrinement, and if inducted, a separate vote cast for tier (where applicable), which some set in stone criteria that would be required for eligibility to Tier 1. WAR, black ink, awards, etc.

As far as Pete Rose goes, the HOF has no obligation not to put him on a ballot. They choose not to. The HOF is not under the control of MLB. His ban from baseball actually has no direct implication on his HOF enshrinement.

Mark70Z · #2 11-28-2017, 01:56 PM

My idea would be that I, and I alone, would decide who should be and will be enshrined in the Hall. You guys can have it from there once I�m outa here (Disguarded my body if you�re a Sientologist). There would be a few less in the Hall right now if I did the pickin� (not that they weren�t �very good�).

I�m not crazy about the first idea from the OP. As many have commented it wouldn�t be good to be booted once in (unless I was doing the reduction). I wouldn�t be altogether opposed to the Tier concept though. My problem is that we now have these advanced metrics that now tell us how good, or important, a player used to be. Like a human can�t tell who was a more valuable player on a specific team. Not that stats aren�t important, but they are not the be all end all when it comes to players. Love how some players keep getting better, or some worse, over the years. I even learned, from this very thread, that Walter Johnson �would most likely get crushed in today�s game�. Learn new stuff all the time...

clydepepper · #3 11-28-2017, 02:12 PM

Let's take it easy on Walter. After all, he just turned 130 this month.

MVSNYC · #4 11-28-2017, 04:58 PM

Jason, Re: Rose, you�re actually not correct.

One of the rules for election consideration on the Hall of Fame�s website is this:

�Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.�

Bigdaddy · #5 11-28-2017, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Jason, Re: Rose, you�re actually not correct.

One of the rules for election consideration on the Hall of Fame�s website is this:

�Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.�

Those two things are only tied together because of a rule set by the BBHOF. If they wanted, they could eliminate that rule and put Pete on the ballot. So the BBHOF is in control.

greco827 · #6 11-29-2017, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Jason, Re: Rose, you�re actually not correct.

One of the rules for election consideration on the Hall of Fame�s website is this:

�Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.�

This doesn't change the fact that the HOF makes their own rules. They are not controlled by MLB. Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe, etc., could all be made eligible by the Hall by removing this statute, regardless of whether or nt their ban from baseball is upheld. Conversely, MLB could reinstate Rose, and the Hall still decide not to put him on the ballot. They are a totally separate entity.

insidethewrapper · #7 11-28-2017, 06:51 PM

Walter was timed at 122 feet/ second or 83mph on his fastest pitch according to one source. Another source sites his fastest at 134 feet /sec or 91 mph.

btcarfagno · #8 11-28-2017, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Walter was timed at 122 feet/ second or 83mph on his fastest pitch according to one source. Another source sites his fastest at 134 feet /sec or 91 mph.

I believe that the 91 was calculated at the point where the ball crossed the plate. Which is after they had already lost speed. And I doubt the accuracy of the 83. The 91 at end distance is tantamount to about 96 the way it is measured today.

Tom C

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hall of Fame	bobfreedman	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	6	05-13-2015 04:37 PM
If there was no Hall of Fame.....	alanu	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	11	12-06-2011 12:56 AM
Who needs the Hall of Fame anyway?!	53Browns	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	52	06-13-2011 11:41 PM
Hall of Fame	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	03-07-2007 05:02 PM
Hall of Fame	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	28	09-21-2001 08:17 PM