Part one was filed oddly, so you may have missed it.
There's a singularly important question that should be asked when discussing a players candidancy: how big should your hall be?
There are, according to my count, 210 players currently enshrined in the Hall. 99 of these were inducted by the BBWAA, the rest by the various committees that have formed at one time or another. [Note: the Lahman 5.1 database gives a different total here. A bug report has been submitted.]
99 players is one a year since the modern era began, which seems about right to me. There are twice as many teams now as there were in earlier days, perhaps that means there are twice as many players to enshrine. It probably wouldn't be a calamity if the players were to go in two at a time from here on out.
The Virtual Hall of Fame will have 104 members by the time the 2001 results have been tabulated - but includes a number of players who appeared before the modern era.
If you are inducting one player every year, that equates to somewhere between 15 and 20 hall of famers playing at any given time. Two a year takes you up to 40. Maybe a quarter of those will be at their peak.
If those numbers feel about right, then 100 members is probably right for your hall. So when you address the question "Does Rice merit enshrinement?", it is much the same as evaluating "Is Rice one of the top 100 players of the modern era?"
The breakdown of the BBWAA voting is 33 pitchers, 66 hitters. The VHOF has 31 pitchers, 64 hitters. Accepting that as a guideline, Rice's case boils down to establishing him as somewhere in the top 70 players.
That's going to be pretty hard - the BBWAA has some slack in their list, but the VHOF is pretty tight. Are you going to push someone off to make room for Rice? Or are you going to make the hall bigger?
March 21, 2004 1:31 PM
| TrackBack