Who's deserving? Part four of a four part Hall of Fame series

In parts one, two and three of this series, we told you who has made and who could make the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Today we will look at how the changes in baseball have made that determination seem harder. Batters seem like they are hitting more than ever (that's true and false) and pitching seems like it's worse than ever (true and false also). The question becomes -- how do we measure those who will go into the Hall tomorrow against those who went before them?

Today's batters are chastised for the ease of hitting in today's game: the pitching has been horribly stretched by expansion, the ballparks are smaller, and the mother of all excuses -- the ball is juiced.

The fact is that while the last two seasons are the most prolific in IP/HR, there have been three seasons in which the average runs scored were higher. Those seasons were 1925, 1929, and 1930. Babe Ruth hit 95 HR's with 307 RBI's in two of those two seasons. Batters today have also run into the comparison problem. The problem is they are compared with batters of the 70's and 80's. In those twenty years, runs per game averaged less than four a total of seven times. This was more than any other twenty-year period of the modern era (since 1920).

I was shocked to learn that my heroes suffered through the worst offensive years of the "lively ball" era. In fact, nine out of the 10 worst offensive (Runs/Game) seasons happened in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. Only two of the ten best offensive seasons happened in the past ten years ('99 and 2000). All of this tends to cheapen today's stats, although statistically they may not be that much out of the norm.

The question then becomes, "Why are milestone offensive numbers now becoming routine?" The fact is, by the end of this season, nine out of the 34 people to hit 400 HR's had their significant amount of AB's in the 1990's. But, only two of the top 34 RBI men had their significant number of at-bats in the '90's.

It seems that HR's have increased, but runs scored have lagged behind, still a little higher, but not at near the rate of HR's. What's the cause of this? My guess is that little ball has, effectively, died. The manufactured run is a thing of the past. Today's offense is a walk, a single, a three run homerun or a single and a double play. All or nothing.

So how does all of this effect who we choose for the Hall of Fame? I think it shows us that we need to look at how well each player has done against the players of his era not those of the past.

Take Fred McGriff and Rafael Palmiero. Fred has overall better numbers at this point, but his numbers haven't ranked in the top ten for the last six years. Rafael has just gotten better and is consistently in the top ten of many offensive stats. We also need to remember that HR's are not the only measure of a player. I would look more at RBI's, runs, and OBP. These numbers are still relatively comparable through the ages.

The problem that pitchers have is two fold. Starting pitchers have run into the problem of specialized pitching and relief pitchers suffer from a lack of respect for their position. In 1971, every three-and-a-half games ended in a complete game. In 2000, that number was twenty-and-a-half. The impact on pitchers is the magical 300 win level. All of those late inning rallies now give wins to a relief pitcher instead of the starter. We may well see the last 300 game winners in the next five years. Clemens should get it in the next two years. Maddux will need about three more years. After that, it's Glavine as the only other 200 game winner and he would need to average 15 wins for six more years (until he is 40) to reach 300. The bar should probably be moved to about 230 or 240 wins as the magic level for the Hall of Fame. Fifteen wins for 15 seasons is 225 wins. I think, in today's world, that should put anyone in the Hall of Fame

The save ratio for baseball has been steady for the past twenty years, yet only two of the top 100 save leaders are in the Hall. It's understood that many of these players are not yet eligible, but thought should be given to Bruce Sutter, Goose Gossage, Dan Quisenberry, Sparky Lyle, and Dave Righetti. They were all the best in the game in their era. In the next five years, the BBWA are going to come to a cross road on closers. Lee Smith, Dennis Eckersley, Jeff Reardon, and Randy Myers will come up for induction in the next five years. Every other major stat in baseball has its top five eligible players in the Hall. Will saves be the exception? It remains to be seen.

The one factor that will never change for election to the HOF is longevity. You have to have the numbers and you have to have them for a long period of time. There won't be many Sandy Koufax's in the Hall. I would guess that there will be no elections to the Hall of Fame for anybody with less than 14 years of experience unless they have a great rapport with the press and fans (Kirby Puckett, for example).

In the end, the Hall of Fame means many things to many people. For me, it means being the best of those around you. It means you were one of the best players in the time that you played. That's how I picked the players I did. I think they play on a different level than the rest of the league. As much as we try, we cannot compare eras unless we normalize them for the times. I wouldn't want to put most baseball fans through that. Just enjoy what we have now.

The Major League Baseball Hall of Fame is a special place because of how hard it is to get there and how revered its members are. We can spend hours arguing over who belongs and doesn't. We can talk about which era was better and why our favorite was better than your favorite. That's their true gift to us. They allow us to commune with each other long after their playing days are over. They allow us to learn about other time periods in our country's history. They provide continuity to a place that may seem to be tearing itself apart at times.

The important thing is not who wins the argument, but that there is an argument to have.

Later...