The feud, for lack of a better term, between old-school and new-school baseball fans when it comes to evaluating players makes no sense to me. I understand that it's driven by the importance of statistics to baseball's historical fabric - far moreso than any other sport - and the inherent generational bout that pervades other aspects of life as well. But I genuinely believe both schools of thought have their place. 

​

As the Hall of Fame is designed to celebrate the entirety of the sport’s history, it seems silly to judge players for enshrinement based on a singular approach. Rather, as both philosophies hold a significant place in the game’s legacy, it would seem that the best way to consider a player’s Hall worthiness is to do so utilizing both schools of thought.

 

So that’s what I’ll attempt to do here. 

​

AFB's Hall of Fame monitor utilizes four components:

​

ERA: Statistics vs contemporaries at his position

PEAK: Peak seasons relative to all players in history at his position

HISTORY: Based on major category rankings among those at his position

BONUS: Based on awards (MVP/Cy Young, Rookie of the Year, All-Star and Gold Glove)

​

This approach allows for a combination of sabermetrics (WAR weighted heavily in ERA and WAR7 - a player's 7-year peak WAR - in PEAK scores), standard stats such as home runs and RBIs, ERA and Wins  (used in ERA and HISTORY), and how a player was "viewed" in their era through the bonus (it's the Hall of Fame, remember, not the Hall of Stats - perception matters). 

​

A score of at least 100 means a player belongs in the Hall. A score between 90 and 110 would be considered borderline. More than 110 means a player SHOULD be a lock. Legendary players will blow this figure away (Willie Mays, for example, scores a 333; Tom Seaver a 243).

 

Everyone rates players differently, so I'm fully aware there will never be 100 percent agreement. We all have our biases, after all. For me, I am most interested in how a player performed in his era and compared with those at his position. I don't much care for comparing a second baseman to a right fielder. The game has changed - whether is has evolved or not is up to the beholder - so comparing too far across eras, becomes problematic (David Ortiz's 541 homers don't really compare with Jimmie Foxx's 534).

​

I'm also much more in favor of a player's peak than I support "compilers." That said, my original formulation of this was too severe in its punishment of guys with long, steady careers but whose peak years may not compare as favorably. I get into this a bit regarding new Hall of Fame inductee Ted Simmons here.

 

Lastly, the evaluation of players before the 1930s and Negro League players require some adjusting. In both cases, the bonus category needs to be assumed to a degree because the awards used in the bonus category didn't exist. In those cases, their bonus points are based on the average of how their points in the other three categories rate against others at their position. So if a player averages 5% above average in the other three categories, their bonus points will be 5% above the average bonus points for their position. Imperfect, but the only way I believe to not shortchange them. And, while incomplete, the incredible Seamheads Negro League Database has amassed enough records to allow me to incorporate Negro League players here as well, an essential to making the Hall of Fame Monitor complete.

So, with all of that said, I hope you enjoy reading my Hall of Fame musings as I continue to evaluate players through the monitor, and I look forward to discussing another component of America's pastime!