Rabbit, I don’t think stats should be the only consideration for a player’s candidacy (and I really doubt anyone holds that position).

I took your position to be that a player who was very prominent in their time, embedded in the childhood memories of fans for a period should be honored with induction. But I don’t see any evidence that this has been the criteria. In my lifetime Fernando Valenzuela, Dwight Gooden, Bo Jackson and Orel Hershiser would very easily fit this description (maybe not Doc if you consider the coke thing to be a breach of character).

The integrity/sportsmanship/character considerations seem to be aimed at keeping out the scoundrels (although they’ve been waived for more than a few scoundrels). They don’t appear to open the door for famous, larger-than-life types who weren’t quite as skilled. Record/ability/contributions sounds like the best players which yes, stats should elucidate.

The HOF’s museum section has enumerable rotating exhibits highlighting the periods of baseball. You might see McGwire’s record setting home run ball or Jack Morris’s glove from that game. Then there’s the rooms of player plaques. To me they’ve always meant, “Son, these are the best players (who also did things the right way).”

Really? From the list you cited, it seems clear that integrity, sportsmanship and character are supposed to be considered by the voters just as much as a player’s record, playing ability and contributions to his team. They’re all mentioned, and none is highlighted over any others. Despite what many people wish, it doesn’t say that a player’s stats should be considered first and foremost, and that his character and integrity should be lesser considerations. They’re all in there together.

The statistical record is clearly not the only thing that voters are supposed to consider.

The whole point of the fame comment was to point out that it isn’t supposed to be just about the statistical record. Thanks for posting the actual voting criteria, as it makes that crystal clear.

If just some modicum of fame is the standard, then since just about every major league player who has made a roster once in his life is more famous than 99% of the population, so they belong in the hall of “fame”.

Criminy, it’s just a name. That argument is akin to saying only kickers and punters can be in the *FOOT*ball hall of fame.

Also, although I don’t consider the day “pitchers and catchers report” quite the high holiday that many seem to, I propose the following to Joe: once that day arrives, all discussion of the Hall of Fame must immediately cease until November.

And also, not one man has been elected with a unanimous vote. Yes, there are folks who thought that Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, etc. weren’t Hall of Famers.

You need numbers AND anecdotal evidence to make a case. They should go hand-in-hand. I’ve never understood why there has to be two opposed sides to this debate.

For example, Bert Blylven had one of the best curve balls that I’ve ever seen (anecdotal) and has some pretty strong numbers too. One side works with the other.