2025 Baseball Hall of Fame

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

I think you are forgetting to account for expansion. We absolutely should be seeing more inductees. All those numbers demonstrate is we are still way behind the pace we should be.



Exactly. And more to the point, we should have more HOFers based on historical norms, not fewer.

Expansion doesn't create more elite players or all time greats. When you add a team, with trickle down, you are creating 25 roster spots for guys who weren't as good as the current players. You aren't adding a top 3 1st baseman, you're adding like the 45th best 1st baseman.

The idea that you need to maintain some type of percentage of players relative to the number of players in the league is ridiculous.

And if it's about celebrating the game and honoring the very good players, then they need to blow up the current election process. Eliminate the 10 votes per voter, lower the percentage needed to get in, and make certain achievements automatic entries.

[Raleigh504]

Originally Posted by whitmm

Expansion doesn't create more elite players or all time greats. When you add a team, with trickle down, you are creating 25 roster spots for guys who weren't as good as the current players. You aren't adding a top 3 1st baseman, you're adding like the 45th best 1st baseman.

The idea that you need to maintain some type of percentage of players relative to the number of players in the league is ridiculous.

And if it's about celebrating the game and honoring the very good players, then they need to blow up the current election process. Eliminate the 10 votes per voter, lower the percentage needed to get in, and make certain achievements automatic entries.

With the addition of an extra team or two, it would mean AAA guys are facing true MLB talent. Meaning that pitchers would get lower ERAs, more strikeouts and wins while elite hitters or borderline elite guys would get more hits or HR and strikeout less. Would just inflate top tier talent facing lesser guys.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by Raleigh504

With the addition of an extra team or two, it would mean AAA guys are facing true MLB talent. Meaning that pitchers would get lower ERAs, more strikeouts and wins while elite hitters or borderline elite guys would get more hits or HR and strikeout less. Would just inflate top tier talent facing lesser guys.

It still doesn't create more elite players. In terms of HOF worthiness, you should be comparing to their generation only.

The borderline elite player is still going to be borderline elite, because the elite players also get to inflate their numbers facing lesser guys.

[redauto5]

Originally Posted by Raleigh504

With the addition of an extra team or two, it would mean AAA guys are facing true MLB talent. Meaning that pitchers would get lower ERAs, more strikeouts and wins while elite hitters or borderline elite guys would get more hits or HR and strikeout less. Would just inflate top tier talent facing lesser guys.

What about all the great international talent that wasn't in the MLB decades or a century ago? Should we not recognize that we are now pulling from a much larger player pool than we did when the only guys playing in the MLB were American white dudes?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by redauto5

What about all the great international talent that wasn't in the MLB decades or a century ago? Should we not recognize that we are now pulling from a much larger player pool than we did when the only guys playing in the MLB were American white dudes?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I think you're right. Guys like Ichiro and Pujols might not have played in MLB if they started their careers 20 years earlier.

[fabiani12333]

MLB has also become less popular with domestic athletes. For example, black Americans make up a much smaller percentage of MLB players than they did in the 70s and 80s.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by redauto5

What about all the great international talent that wasn't in the MLB decades or a century ago? Should we not recognize that we are now pulling from a much larger player pool than we did when the only guys playing in the MLB were American white dudes?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

It evens out. They major leagues were 16 teams from 1901-1960. When baseball was fully integrated, they expanded 4 teams, then 4 more. As more latin players came into baseball, they have kept expanding. Even though African-American participation has dropped, it has been more than replaced by Latins. If we see a large influx of Asian players, they will look to expand again.

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by rats60

It evens out. They major leagues were 16 teams from 1901-1960. When baseball was fully integrated, they expanded 4 teams, then 4 more. As more latin players came into baseball, they have kept expanding. Even though African-American participation has dropped, it has been more than replaced by Latins. If we see a large influx of Asian players, they will look to expand again.

I didn’t expansion is based on the talent pool. I always thought it was about money.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by carlo16

I didn’t expansion is based on the talent pool. I always thought it was about money.

It's always been about money.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by whitmm

Expansion doesn't create more elite players or all time greats. When you add a team, with trickle down, you are creating 25 roster spots for guys who weren't as good as the current players. You aren't adding a top 3 1st baseman, you're adding like the 45th best 1st baseman.

The idea that you need to maintain some type of percentage of players relative to the number of players in the league is ridiculous.

And if it's about celebrating the game and honoring the very good players, then they need to blow up the current election process. Eliminate the 10 votes per voter, lower the percentage needed to get in, and make certain achievements automatic entries.

In the first year of expansion? Sure. But after 50 years? It definitely creates more elite players. Also, you have to compare expansion with the population growth and the reality is, the population has grown at a greater pace than expansion. So, there is a much larger talent pool available.

I will agree however, the 10 vote limit is definitely something that should be abolished.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

In the first year of expansion? Sure. But after 50 years? It definitely creates more elite players. Also, you have to compare expansion with the population growth and the reality is, the population has grown at a greater pace than expansion. So, there is a much larger talent pool available.

I will agree however, the 10 vote limit is definitely something that should be abolished.

It only creates more elite players when your comparing to previous eras.

Expansion does not create better players. The elite players were going to be in the pros anyway. Whether there's 20 teams or there's 30 teams. The 10-15 best players of an era are going to be there.

If expansion and talent pool growth equalled more elite players, you wouldn't see the same all stars every year. And you wouldn't see the same guys in the MVP contention every year.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by whitmm

It only creates more elite players when your comparing to previous eras.

Expansion does not create better players. The elite players were going to be in the pros anyway. Whether there's 20 teams or there's 30 teams. The 10-15 best players of an era are going to be there.

If expansion and talent pool growth equalled more elite players, you wouldn't see the same all stars every year. And you wouldn't see the same guys in the MVP contention every year.

That’s just incorrect. If one percent of one percent of a population can do something better than everyone else, the number of capable people increases as the population grows.

Of course, just having a larger population isn’t enough. You also need more opportunities to cultivate and develop the talent. That’s what expansion does. Over time, there are absolutely more better players with these circumstances.

You want proof? Look at the number of elite foreign born players. Look at Olympic basketball. Look at a calculator.

[fabiani12333]

I think the increase in international baseball talent in MLB is somewhat offset by the drop in participation from domestic athletes, specifically black American players. A lot of the best position players in MLB between the 1960s and 1990s were black. Now it's only a handful -- Judge and Betts.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

That’s just incorrect. If one percent of one percent of a population can do something better than everyone else, the number of capable people increases as the population grows.

Of course, just having a larger population isn’t enough. You also need more opportunities to cultivate and develop the talent. That’s what expansion does. Over time, there are absolutely more better players with these circumstances.

You want proof? Look at the number of elite foreign born players. Look at Olympic basketball. Look at a calculator.

Expansion has always been, and always will be, about money. End of story. It has nothing to do with a larger population. You think they care about more opportunities to cultivate talent? They just eliminated how many minor league teams? Yeah, gtfoh with that nonsense.

Top 10 players is top 10 players, I don't give a damn about your percentages. I don't care about your "more better players." We are talking about the best of the best.

Sorry you think expansion creates better players. All it does it takes the best talent and spread it out over more teams.

[fabiani12333]

Using 50 fWAR as the cut-off, here is the racial and national breakdown of the top players for the time periods of 1960-1999 and 2000-2024:

1960-1999 (68 MLB position players with at least 50 fWAR):
Non-black American: 33 (49%)
Black American: 30 (44%)
Foreign born: 5 (7%)

2000-2024 (34 MLB position players with at least 50 fWAR):
Non-black American: 16 (47%)
Black American: 5 (15%)
Foreign born: 13 (38%)

So as you can see, the increase in foreign talent in MLB since the start of the new century has been offset by the decrease in black domestic talent.

Edit: Whoops -- I forgot Russell Martin was Canadian.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by whitmm

Expansion has always been, and always will be, about money. End of story. It has nothing to do with a larger population. You think they care about more opportunities to cultivate talent? They just eliminated how many minor league teams? Yeah, gtfoh with that nonsense.

Top 10 players is top 10 players, I don't give a damn about your percentages. I don't care about your "more better players." We are talking about the best of the best.

Sorry you think expansion creates better players. All it does it takes the best talent and spread it out over more teams.

This will be my last response to you, since you clearly have no intention of having a civil discussion.

The reason for expansion is irrelevant. The reality is they expand. With more players comes more players achieving high levels of performance. PEDs aside, if a player gets 3,000 hits, they are going to get in the Hall. If a player gets 500 HRs, they are going to get in the Hall of Fame.

Prior to expansion:
# of players with 500+ HRs: Four
# of players with 3,000 Hits: Eight

After expansion:
# of players with 500+ HRs: 11 (17 if you want to include PED users)
# of players with 3,000 Hits: 19 (21 if you want to include PED users)

And there are a lot fewer years post expansion than pre-expansion.

Last time I checked, 11>4 and 19>8.

Good day, sir.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

This will be my last response to you, since you clearly have no intention of having a civil discussion.

The reason for expansion is irrelevant. The reality is they expand. With more players comes more players achieving high levels of performance. PEDs aside, if a player gets 3,000 hits, they are going to get in the Hall. If a player gets 500 HRs, they are going to get in the Hall of Fame.

Prior to expansion:
# of players with 500+ HRs: Four
# of players with 3,000 Hits: Eight

After expansion:
# of players with 500+ HRs: 11 (17 if you want to include PED users)
# of players with 3,000 Hits: 19 (21 if you want to include PED users)

And there are a lot fewer years post expansion than pre-expansion.

Last time I checked, 11>4 and 19>8.

Good day, sir.

What expansion? There's been multiple expansions of the league.

Show me where in the HOF requirements does it say that reaching a certain number in one stat gets you in to the hall automatically.

Here's what you're missing. With expansion, it means you aren't facing the best pitchers as often. Stats increase throughout the league because the average talent level decreases, because expansion doesn't add top end elite talent, it adds low end talent that wasn't good enough to be on a current roster.

Again, hall of fame discussion should be based on comparing a player against those that played in the same era. What Hank Aaron did should have no impact on Mike Trout's hall chances.

If 500 homers becomes more and more common, then eventually it's not going to "automatically" get players in. In the NFL, 3,000 yards passing in a season used to mean something. Now it doesn't nearly as much as it did 30 years ago.

Throwing out crazy numbers. If 20 guys during one generation of players hit 500 homers, then, sorry, I don't believe all 20 guys should get in.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by whitmm

What expansion? There's been multiple expansions of the league.

Show me where in the HOF requirements does it say that reaching a certain number in one stat gets you in to the hall automatically.

Here's what you're missing. With expansion, it means you aren't facing the best pitchers as often. Stats increase throughout the league because the average talent level decreases, because expansion doesn't add top end elite talent, it adds low end talent that wasn't good enough to be on a current roster.

Again, hall of fame discussion should be based on comparing a player against those that played in the same era. What Hank Aaron did should have no impact on Mike Trout's hall chances.

If 500 homers becomes more and more common, then eventually it's not going to "automatically" get players in. In the NFL, 3,000 yards passing in a season used to mean something. Now it doesn't nearly as much as it did 30 years ago.

Throwing out crazy numbers. If 20 guys during one generation of players hit 500 homers, then, sorry, I don't believe all 20 guys should get in.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

Which expansion? You kept saying since expansion. 1961? 1977? Maybe 1998? Or is it maybe the expansion to 162 games? I mean Dave Winfield played 22 seasons. That equates to a full season of potential extra games from those that played in the 154 game schedule.

[PuddleMonkey]

3,000 yards passing, 3,000 hits, 3,000 goals, the real accomplishment is PuddleMonkey closing in on 3,000 posts. I expect a parade and balloons.

[fulltritty]

Good read

Why I voted for Andy Pettitte for the Baseball Hall of Fame for the first time

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/604...-of-fame-vote/

[jduds]

Utley is doing very well in the 2025 ballots made public (52.9%). I thought it doubtful he'd make it and now think he has a good shot in a year or two. I'm not sure why his case is better than Kenny Lofton's, but it seems the voters are convinced,

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Originally Posted by PuddleMonkey

3,000 yards passing, 3,000 hits, 3,000 goals, the real accomplishment is PuddleMonkey closing in on 3,000 posts. I expect a parade and balloons.

TBP makes 3,000 “Thanks Topps” posts each morning before you finish slurping the milk from your cereal bowl, son. Post harder!

[Scottish Punk]

Originally Posted by jduds

Utley is doing very well in the 2025 ballots made public (52.9%). I thought it doubtful he'd make it and now think he has a good shot in a year or two. I'm not sure why his case is better than Kenny Lofton's, but it seems the voters are convinced,

Or that Jimmy Rollins is much further down. I also equated Utley and Rollins as fairly equal. Utley has a few more home runs and World Series MVP, Rollins as many more hits and stolen bases and regular MVP. Utley has a career WAR of almost 20 points higher buoyed by some early 30 HR seasons. Rollins only has one 30 HR season. I am not saying either really deserve to bin or not, just that the difference in voting and narrative between the two is interesting. Utley seems to get a boost for being a more power hitting 2nd basemen while Rollins gets punished for not being a more power hitting SS.

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by jduds

Utley is doing very well in the 2025 ballots made public (52.9%). I thought it doubtful he'd make it and now think he has a good shot in a year or two. I'm not sure why his case is better than Kenny Lofton's, but it seems the voters are convinced,

Kenny Lofton was the unfortunate victim of a stacked ballot. It featured ten players who have been inducted into Cooperstown (although, oddly enough, none that year), not counting Schilling / Bonds / Clemens (and Dale Murphy, Mark McGwire, Don Mattingly, Sammy Sosa, and Rafael Palmeiro).

Lofton put up solid numbers by the end of his career but hadn't made an All-Star appearance in many years. Utley at least made an All-Star game at 35 and retired after his age 39 season. For Lofton, it was age 32 at last ASG and 40 for retirement. Voters were too far removed from seeing him at his best.

And not just that, but even late career Utley still was in the news - as the guy whose dirty slide broke Ruben Tejada's leg. That kept him fresh in the mind of voters, especially the salty ones who thought that Utley was a tough player who played the game the way it used to be played.

Lofton also bounced around towards the end of his career, which (to me at least) gave "latching on with a team willing to give him a shot" vibes. And again, he put up great numbers during those years.

We didn't really have a good concept of WAR back in 2013.