THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book is Finally Written!
An in-depth analysis of: The sacrifice bunt, batter/pitcher matchups, the intentional base on balls, optimizing a batting lineup, hot and cold streaks, clutch performance, platooning strategies, and much more.
Read Excerpts & Customer Reviews

Buy The Book from Amazon


SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
MOST RECENT ARTICLES
MAIL : You ask | We say

Advanced


THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

<< Back to main

Monday, June 13, 2011

The Coming Hall of Fame Apocalypse

By Tangotiger, 04:36 PM

The first column is the number of Hall of Famers born in a particular decade.  The second column is the number of players with at least 50 Wins Above Replacement (WAR) born in that decade.

We can see that through players born in 1941, we had 167 Hall of Famers, with 138 players with at least 50 WAR.  That would imply that 50 WAR is kind of a strict standard.  Of players born from 1942 to 1961, we have only 33 Hall of Famers (and counting), while 54 players had at least 50 WAR.  This would imply that the voters have been pretty strict with their selection of players, really raising the standard.

Of players born in the single decade of 1962 to 1971, already 38 players have exceeded the 50 WAR threshhold.  Given that the voters have only selected 33 of 54 “qualified-ish” players, and they might select a couple more, that would imply a rate of about 65% selected players.  With 38 players in the “qualified-ish” camp, that would mean we might get 25 players in the Hall of Fame from players born 1962-1971.  While that number is not unprecedented as we can see in the below chart, the current Hall of Fame balloting process is going to make it very difficult to elect anything close to that number.  Even though the standards have been raised, as we can see by 1942-1961 players, it seems the standards are going to be raised yet again. 

Basically, we’re at the point where there’s so many qualified players to choose from, the voters risk not voting in enough players because of the constraining process.

HOF    WAR50    Birth Decade    
14    14    1852    1861
9    14    1862    1871
12    15    1872    1881
19    16    1882    1891
27    10    1892    1901
27    18    1902    1911
20    15    1912    1921
18    14    1922    1931
21    22    1932    1941
17    32    1942    1951
16    22    1952    1961
--    38    1962    1971


#1    Guy      (see all posts) 2011/06/13 (Mon) @ 17:11

Great point.  I had a vague sense of a coming bottleneck, but had never thought about quantifying it.  And of course this will get wrapped up with the PED nonsense, which will become a rationalization for saying “no” to some players.  Eventually, it will become clear that the de facto standard was raised to 60 WAR or more (if it hasn’t already), but that will be obscured by the PED battle for a while. 

It’s unfortunate that the standards got raised at the same time the pool of great players became much more racially diverse.  I don’t think that’s why the bar got raised, but the reality will be a Hall with a bunch of not-so-great white guys, while some very talented blacks and Latinos end up on the outside.


#2    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2011/06/13 (Mon) @ 17:53

We see they kinda select 20-25 players each decade.  And it’s easier to stick out when you have little competition.  So easy that sometimes you select undeserving players.

But, now you get “vote splitting”, and expansion exacerbates that.


#3    Greg Rybarczyk      (see all posts) 2011/06/13 (Mon) @ 18:14

What’s the support for the premise that 1 dead-ball-era WAR = 1 modern era WAR?  There are quite a few differences between those eras, I wouldn’t want to accept that as an axiom without some support…

Also, since we’re talking about an accumulation stat, are there any differences in average career length between the various eras?  If the average HoF selectee in the 21st century plays a few more years (plus 8 extra games per year) than the average old-timer, then shouldn’t they have to amass more WAR to be equivalent on a WAR/season basis?


#4    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2011/06/13 (Mon) @ 19:19

Greg, the idea is that a win is a win.  Indeed, it’s easier to argue that a win in the old days is easier to get that one in the current era.  So, 50 WAR for a 1900 born player might be 40 or 30 WAR if born 1960.  (But, then, you get into the whole timeline adjustment thing, and there’s really no right answer there.)

As for players possibly lasting longer these days, it sounds like you are suggesting that too should be baselined so that if you only last 10 years for 1900 born players but 13 years for 1960 born players, then both need to be lined-up.

All to say: well, it depends on your various requirements.  You can easily justify it either way.

You can also justify it that you simply want the 20 best players of any 10-year time period, and leave it at that.

ALL justifiable.  But, the person has to be pretty explicit in his thought process.  I get the feeling most people simple don’t think too much about it.


#5          (see all posts) 2011/06/13 (Mon) @ 21:01

Tango, I assume this is BBWAA plus Veterans Committee plus Negro Leagues committee.  Is that correct?


#6    Kung Pao      (see all posts) 2011/06/13 (Mon) @ 23:41

Does the refusal of some writers to vote in alleged PED users “help” solve this problem?


Page 1 of 1 pages


Name (required)
E-Mail (optional; WILL be published)
Website (optional)

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

May 25 14:44
What sabermetrics is NOT

May 25 14:14
Pete Palmer’s new book: Basic Ball

May 25 13:18
Do pitcher’s reach back for velocity when needed?

May 25 13:04
“Why Kickstarter works”

May 25 12:51
Chad Curtis

May 25 12:40
Largest demonstration in Canadian history?

May 25 11:32
Howard Stern

May 25 11:26
Lack of hustle during a game

May 25 10:58
Rooting for laundry

May 25 02:38
NFLPA lawsuit against collusion