[lex24]

Like humans shouldn't be calling balls and strikes anymore, baseball writers shouldn't be voting on who is in the Hall of Fame anymore. 



The numbers are what matters. The personalities don't.

Uh, that's not what the written criteria for the hall of fame says:

https://bbwaa.com/hof-elec-req/

Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

I get that in practice, as with the college football award that shall not be named, in practice, "...integrity, sportsmanship, character..." are mere buzzwords, but just because you think that there is some platonic ideal objective way to identify who is hall of fame worthy and who isn't (which, by the way, there is not, because different people value different aspects of a players contributions; for example, would you prioritize a player who is brilliant for a few years but their career was cut short due to injury, or a player who has tremendous career numbers due to longevity, but even at their peak paled compared to other players).

Anyway, I very much disagree with your premise that a) personalities don't (or shouldn't) matter with regards to the HoF and b) that numbers, per se, are what count.  Numbers are meaningless without context, so even if you want to emphasize playing ability and contribution to the team (even if you can measure them objectively with something like WAR), the HoF should never be and has never been, about a checklist of items.

BC

The Hall of Fame has lost so much credibility that its criteria mean nothing to me.  I only care about the best players and what they did on the field. It matters not an iota to me what they do off the field. I've already reconciled the fact that drugs were being used in baseball for decades before the steroid era, but nobody who did them before the steroid era was held out of the Hall to my knowledge because of it.

The three best players I saw with my own eyes - Pete Rose, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemons - are all not in the HoF.  That makes the rules a joke to me and leads me to conclude the writers have no business using arbitrary criteria like "character" and "sportsmanship" to decide who gets recognized.

Please contemplate the absurdity of having Harold Baines and Fred McGriff in the Hall of Fame, but Pete Rose and Barry Bonds out.  

One more thing on Bonds. His dad was an MLB player and he saw how the media treated him. Barry never trusted reporters and he in fact resented them. Whiny, vindictive men who never played the game are deciding who will be recognized as the best players ever.

In 50 years when nobody alive will have seen Barry Bonds play, imagine how young baseball fans will feel about his generation's best player not being in the Hall of Fame. It will be like learning in college that American Armed forces brutally slaughtered Native Americans, when in K-12 you were taught the U.S. "settled the West" with no mention of how violent and brutal the United States were to native people.

You simply lose trust in institutions when they don't tell you the truth.  Barry Bonds is #4 in All-Time WAR, behind only Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson, and Cy Young. Roger Clemens is #8.  Pete Rose is the all-time hits leader.  NOBODY is going to give a scintilla of a shit about what these guys did off the field when they are gone, and more importantly, when the holier than thou "Star Trek geeks" that are the baseball writers denying them entry, are gone.

At least if you just run the numbers you don't get writers with agendas keeping players deserving of enshrinement out of the Hall of Fame that tells the story of the game's best players.

Just create a formula for selection and run it every year to get the new entrants. The idea of lobbying writers for votes is just anachronistic in today's baseball that is so comprehensively driven by numbers.

In 50 yearsI I

I don’t want computers deciding. And your analogy relating to The US and Native Americans is both incredibly absurd and bizarre.

[lex24]

Like humans shouldn't be calling balls and strikes anymore, baseball writers shouldn't be voting on who is in the Hall of Fame anymore. 



The numbers are what matters. The personalities don't.

Uh, that's not what the written criteria for the hall of fame says:

https://bbwaa.com/hof-elec-req/

Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

I get that in practice, as with the college football award that shall not be named, in practice, "...integrity, sportsmanship, character..." are mere buzzwords, but just because you think that there is some platonic ideal objective way to identify who is hall of fame worthy and who isn't (which, by the way, there is not, because different people value different aspects of a players contributions; for example, would you prioritize a player who is brilliant for a few years but their career was cut short due to injury, or a player who has tremendous career numbers due to longevity, but even at their peak paled compared to other players).

Anyway, I very much disagree with your premise that a) personalities don't (or shouldn't) matter with regards to the HoF and b) that numbers, per se, are what count.  Numbers are meaningless without context, so even if you want to emphasize playing ability and contribution to the team (even if you can measure them objectively with something like WAR), the HoF should never be and has never been, about a checklist of items.

BC

The Hall of Fame has lost so much credibility that its criteria mean nothing to me.  I only care about the best players and what they did on the field. It matters not an iota to me what they do off the field. I've already reconciled the fact that drugs were being used in baseball for decades before the steroid era, but nobody who did them before the steroid era was held out of the Hall to my knowledge because of it.

The three best players I saw with my own eyes - Pete Rose, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemons - are all not in the HoF.  That makes the rules a joke to me and leads me to conclude the writers have no business using arbitrary criteria like "character" and "sportsmanship" to decide who gets recognized.

Please contemplate the absurdity of having Harold Baines and Fred McGriff in the Hall of Fame, but Pete Rose and Barry Bonds out.  

One more thing on Bonds. His dad was an MLB player and he saw how the media treated him. Barry never trusted reporters and he in fact resented them. Whiny, vindictive men who never played the game are deciding who will be recognized as the best players ever.

In 50 years when nobody alive will have seen Barry Bonds play, imagine how young baseball fans will feel about his generation's best player not being in the Hall of Fame. It will be like learning in college that American Armed forces brutally slaughtered Native Americans, when in K-12 you were taught the U.S. "settled the West" with no mention of how violent and brutal the United States were to native people.

You simply lose trust in institutions when they don't tell you the truth.  Barry Bonds is #4 in All-Time WAR, behind only Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson, and Cy Young. Roger Clemens is #8.  Pete Rose is the all-time hits leader.  NOBODY is going to give a scintilla of a shit about what these guys did off the field when they are gone, and more importantly, when the holier than thou "Star Trek geeks" that are the baseball writers denying them entry, are gone.

At least if you just run the numbers you don't get writers with agendas keeping players deserving of enshrinement out of the Hall of Fame that tells the story of the game's best players.

Just create a formula for selection and run it every year to get the new entrants. The idea of lobbying writers for votes is just anachronistic in today's baseball that is so comprehensively driven by numbers.

In 50 yearsI I

I don’t want computers deciding. And your analogy relating to The US and Native Americans is both incredibly absurd and bizarre.