We often get (like we did in this year’s poll thread) people giving their thoughts on whether this or that player deserves induction. Often unstated however is the size of the Hall for the poster in question, which then leads to argument between people with different ideas of how big the baseball HoF should actually be. Thus I present you this poll.
Me, I would prefer a Hall which is a tad smaller than the current one, but with the obvious mistakes deep-sixed, counterbalanced somewhat by various glaring omissions.
Voted roughly the same… more players balanced by less execs and media types.
I’d also like to see much more historical stuff by players that may not make it to the Hall. Odd one-off feats where memorabilia and stories that have been collected but stored away and not displayed.
More or less the same, but far fewer executives. Possibly none.
The general average over the course of baseball history is about two players per year. That seems like a reasonable number to me, maybe just a tad high so I’d have about 200 Hall of Famers, and would want a system that averaged two new additions a year (but not exactly two every year.) But I sure wouldn’t have a lot of the ones they have now, that’s for sure.
FuriouosGeroge, have you been to the Hall? It does have a heck of a lot of what you’re asking for - one off stuff, artifacts, memorabilia and whatnot related to players who are not Hall of Famers. The great majority of the building is given over to displays concerning the history of baseball. The actual room with the Hall of Fame plaques is a small part of it.
I have been…albeit many, many, many years ago ( I lived in Upstate New York). I guess my gripe, as a baseball card collector/memorabilia/uni/history nut, is in knowing the amount of stuff that **ISN’T **displayed, if that makes sense.
I voted for a HOF that is roughly the same as the existing HOF. There are a handfull of players in the HOF today that are probably undeserving, but I don’t think there are 50 of them and certainly not 100 that I would throw out.
I don’t agree with people in the year 2011 voting based on some thought that the Hall should have a lot less or more players in it. What’s done is done. The standards have been long established. Remove the outliers like Pie Traynor, Tommy McCarthy, Jim Rice, etc and vote with the given standards in mind.
Now if I could start the HOF from scratch, I’d say about 150 MLB players.
I’d also set it up like a pyramid with 4-5 tiers to give special attention to the best of the best. That would also spark debate over obvious HOF’ers.
I voted “other”: I feel there are players that do not truly belong in there. I also feel, however, that what’s done is done, and they should not be stripped of their status, but I would love to see future admission be more stringent.
ETA: I don’t feel that’ll actually happen, though.
I hear ya; but the OP did ask, “What size is your personal baseball Hallf of Fame?”. My personal baseball Hallf of Fame would be… ridiculously, obscenely large*.
*-Make Rochester nothing but the Hall of Fame. It’ll make the city useful, finally. I kid, I kid. They do have garbage plates.
I kind of see the point of putting in other people. The Hall of Fame is first and foremost a museum, after all, and it would be sort of weird to pretend the history of the game doesn’t include owners and commissioners.
But I like what they’ve done with broadcasters, giving them a sort of separate for of enshrinement, the Ford C. Frick Award. It would seem kind of weird to not have some kind of enshrinment available for Ernie Harwell or Vin Scully, but at the same time it would be nice to distinguish them from actual baseball players.
I think this actually is happening on some level. Look at Lee Smith. Yes, his career is more HOF worthy than almost every closer currently in, but his ticket hasn’t been punched yet.
The best way to make this sort of thing happen is just give each guy 3 times on the ballot. That’s it. None of this wait 12+ years and then we’ll vote you in. If you’re a HOFer in your 15th year of eligibility, you’re a HOFer in your 1st. Bert Blyleven’s and Jim Rice’s stats didn’t get any better with age.
Yes, but how the voters view those stats (and associated accomplishments and facts) can change over time. Voting pools 15 years apart can have significantly different standards (which is one reason I think that Blyleven finally got in). Your suggestion only works if you assume that every voter has perfect information on the players and perfect judgement uncolored by any sort of bias, but of course they don’t (and can’t).
