As the Hall of Fame Expands, Should the Hall of wWAR?

by adarowski on Dec 7, 2011 9:53 AM EST

Ron Santo is in the Hall of Fame, and that's awesome. I was updating the Hall of wWAR to reflect this awesome change and it led to something a bit weird. One of my goals for the Hall of wWAR was to have it be the same size as the current Hall of Fame. Why? So if somebody questions the inclusion of someone like Stan Hack in the Hall of Fame, I can just say "Look, there are 206 players in the Hall of Fame. Stan Hack is one of the 206 best players ever."

I don't necessarily think Stan Hack should be in the Hall of Fame. But if the Hall of Fame is already has 206 members and he's one of the 206 best, I'll put him in. The "real" Hall of Fame can't do this, however, because I have the ability to kick people out. If the "real" Hall of Fame added everyone in the Hall of wWAR, suddenly you have 270 players in the Hall rather than 206.

The "problem" is that Santo was already in the Hall of wWAR, but wasn't in the Hall of Fame. So simply changing Santo's status to being a Hall of Famer creates a discrepancy. The Hall of wWAR now has 206 players while the Hall of Fame has 207.

It seems as though I have two options:

I could let each hall differ in size. I'm not a huge fan of doing this.
I could even things out by inducting a new member. As the real Hall of Fame welcomes Ron Santo, the Hall of wWAR would induct Frank Tanana, the 207th best player by wWAR.

There's a bit of a problem with Option #2, though. Next year, the Hall of wWAR is going to welcome seven new members: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling, Craig Biggio, Kenny Lofton, and Sammy Sosa. Each of these players meets the Hall of wWAR requirements.

When these players are inducted, I'll have two options again:

I could still let the two halls differ in size.
I could actually remove players from the Hall of Fame to keep the size in sync with the "real" Hall of Fame.

Here's how that would play out. For now, Tanana would go in because Santo is in. Then both are at 207. I think Barry Larkin (and only Barry Larkin) will be inducted by the writers this year. Since he's already in the Hall of wWAR, that would welcome Frank Chance as the 208th member of the Hall of wWAR.

Then, when we welcome seven new members the next season, things get interesting. I honestly have no idea who will actually get in. If we trust my recent poll of BtB readers, it will only be Mike Piazza (at 80.5%). That means the Hall of wWAR would have 215 players while the Hall of Fame had 209. That means the Hall of wWAR would lose six players. That means we wave goodbye to recent inductees Chance and Tanana, but also Hoyt Wilhelm, Stan Hack, Red Faber, and Zack Wheat. The only one I feel bad about is Wilhelm. But this may be the way to go if I plan to keep both Halls the same size.

If I had my call, my "ideal Hall of Fame" would probably include the top 160-190 players (somewhere between 80-85 wWAR as a cutoff). The top end of that group includes Don Sutton, Harmon Killebrew, and Reggie Smith while the bottom includes Dave Winfield, Andre Dawson, and Dave Stieb.

I guess what it comes down to is that the Hall of wWAR can be one of two things:

An way of showing what the Hall of Fame would look like if it was populated by a metric rather than… whatever they use now. In this case it would be fluid, adding and removing players to match the "real" Hall of Fame.
It could be a separate entity that actually inducts players reaching a certain level. Nobody would be booted. This would make it less of a comparison to the current Hall and move of its own thing.

What do you think?

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Endangered Ape

I vote for option 1. If the idea is to repopulate the HOF using wWAR, then that seems like the way to go.

Besides, as a Royals fan it’s amusing to think of Kevin Appier being allowed to stay for only a few years—he’s a borderline candidate, after all. (BTW, like you, I’d trim some fat from the actual Hall if I had my druthers. My cutoff would be somewhere between Saberhagen and Appier, to use a Royals-centric example.)

by 3rdPeriodPoints on Dec 7, 2011 11:35 AM EST reply actions

The HOF has been inducting less players per year on average over the last couple decades

The scenario you laid out with kicking six players out next year, will happen again the following year with Maddux, Thomas, Mussina, Glavine, and Kent – two will probably get voted on, three more kicked off (Cedeno, Stovey, Wood). In the end, it will even out eventually, but keep it the same number if you want, it does separate your project from others (ie Hall of Merit, which does three candidates per year, based on historical per year inductions average). You could add them to the no section of your HOF, or to a new separate section of former members.

by cookiedabookie on Dec 7, 2011 12:12 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

I do like the idea of documenting that type of movement.

Kind of a like a software change log. I like it. Guess I’d better prepare a Frank Tanana induction piece. :) (As temporary as it may be.)

Creator of the Hall of wWAR • @baseballtwit on Twitter

by adarowski on Dec 7, 2011 12:43 PM EST up reply actions

The point I was trying to make

Is that the Hall of wWAR is going to have to keep on kicking people out since the current Hall is electing much fewer new members than in the past. So I think it would be a good idea to have a section of past inductees.

Also, have you thought of picking players that are close to balance positions, rather than go by the hard number that may be only a few decimal points away? For example, next year, if you have to kick people out, I would think you should keep Cedeno over Appier, given that they are 0.1 apart, and the hall of wWAR has few center fielders as it is.

by cookiedabookie on Dec 8, 2011 7:39 PM EST up reply actions

Or putting Hugh Duffy in at the expense of Harry Stovey?

by cookiedabookie on Dec 8, 2011 7:41 PM EST up reply actions

I actually did do that the first time around.

I got a lot of feedback that I really shouldn’t provide a SECOND postion adjustment (since it is already factored into WAR). I like the current approach, where I make it as objective as possible.

Creator of the Hall of wWAR • @baseballtwit on Twitter

by adarowski on Dec 9, 2011 11:49 PM EST up reply actions

Its not really a second positional adjustment

Its more looking at players who are within a margin of error of each other (which 0.1-0.2 wWAR I am sure is), and seeing who is more deserving based on their rank within a position (i.e. thirteenth best in CF vs. 21st best at 1B).

by cookiedabookie on Dec 10, 2011 11:29 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah, but then it gets subjective (which I'm desperately trying to avoid).

Creator of the Hall of wWAR • @baseballtwit on Twitter

by adarowski on Dec 12, 2011 7:59 AM EST up reply actions

Keep Hall of wWAR same size of actual HOF please

I (and probably a majority of your readers) am interested in who should be in the Hall of Fame using the de facto standard used by the actual Hall of Fame. I am not interested in who should be in the Hall of Fame according to your arbitrary preference for a cut off which likely differs from my arbitrary preference for how exclusive an imaginary baseball hall of fame should be.

by Detroit Michael on Dec 7, 2011 12:21 PM EST reply actions