Whenever you want to complain about the PFHOF...

[Bryan]

....just remember that this year's Baseball HOF class will consist of Scott Rolen and Fred McGriff. I think both players are 'borderline' at best, but that is kind of beside the overall point, which is that McGriff backdoored/Harold Bainesed his way into the HOF through some bogus committee in which McGriff received twice as many votes as Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds COMBINED. I find Rolen's case to be even more incomprehensible....his first year on the ballot, Rolen received only 10.2% of the vote. Five years later, Rolen is getting 76.3% of the vote and being enshrined.

I think its painfully obvious that MLB is in dire need of HOF players who didn't disgrace themselves or the sport in some way, so now they are putting in anyone who was pretty good but doesn't have any 'baggage' (sorry, Jeff Kent). But the Rolen case has another element of 'geek' factor. Someone spouts some stats and the thought is "if you are smarter than everyone else in the room, you'll think that Scott Rolen is a HOFer." This catches on, and the same 9 out of 10 people who saw Scott Rolen play for his entire career and did not view him as a HOFer eventually change their memories of Rolen and 5 years later they think "I got to see a HOFer play in Scott Rolen."

I think Rolen was a great player, and his defense was consistently excellent. He was a winner. I would consider putting him in the HOF. It was ridiculous that he only received 10% of the vote when he became eligible....but what happened? How did that same voting entity so overwhelmingly consider Rolen a HOFer merely 5 years later?

[Brian wolf]

I dont keep up with the MLB HOF but did Maris ever make it? People look at his numbers but he was a contributor for divisions, pennants and championships, which fortunately, the PFHOF takes more seriously.

[JohnTurney]

But the Rolen case has another element of 'geek' factor.

No dog in fight---and will do some looking into that, but the analytics angle is interesting because of the football angle. It's been discussed before...but has to do with the
"valuable" in MVP. PFF and other metrics people get hung up on that word and because of that to them, only a QB can win that award.

Of course, 9 times out of ten it is a QB who wins it anyway but in their view no other position is qualified base on the metrics orthe "value" or "position value"

It does not matter now because none of them vote. But as you mention there is creep--in time that way of thinking may prevail...and the metrics do take over so that
if there is perhaps a down year for QBs, relatively speaking and a super year for a defender, like a LT 1986 or even a JJ Watt, 2014, or a RB or even a WR--whatever, that has
a rare year, one that should at least get a discussion will be precluded based on "position value".

Buddy Parker, in his 1956 book (and likely many coaches before him) said QB is most important postion, they just didn't put a numerical value on it. But over the years
MVP voters also used their judgement on what "value" means. To the metrics people "value" means what they say it means and not what AP voters may mean, or what some voters DO mean . . .. What I mean is voters are not told what "value" means. They define it themselves. Often it involves playing on a winning team, for example.

Anyway, the "geek factor" comment caused me to rant...

[SixtiesFan]

I dont keep up with the MLB HOF but did Maris ever make it? People look at his numbers but he was a contributor for divisions, pennants and championships, which fortunately, the PFHOF takes more seriously.

Roger Maris didn't make the baseball HOF. His overall career stats were not good enough.

A pro football player who had done a football equivalent of what Maris did--Break the season rushing record, play on several championship teams, win two MVP awards--would make the PFHOF.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Not my sport, but what I heard is that 3B is historically kind of weak, so he played the right position to be in the argument for top 10-12 or so. I don't really know, just wanted to bring up position may be relevant.

[Zero26]

Not my sport, but what I heard is that 3B is historically kind of weak, so he played the right position to be in the argument for top 10-12 or so. I don't really know, just wanted to bring up position may be relevant.

IMO Rolen has a case on the sporting merits. The issue with the Hall of Fame is the randomness and politics of it all. There are much better players that don't make the Hall(this year it was Kent who is the all time 2B Home Run leader) or comparable players that fall off the ballot. And that's not even getting into them them using PEDs as an excuse to punish players they do not like. I don't think the anger about Rolen's election is really about Rolen people are generally angry at the writers for insert reason here and hes getting caught in the middle.


Baseball is not my sport either I stopped watching closely as a kid but their HOF is a mess. I will say I like the recent reform of them dividing their senior committee into different eras and think the PFHOF would benefit greatly from this.

Another thought is that when I stopped watching baseball I had never heard anyone mention WAR. I peep my head back in a few years later and it's the most prestigious stat in the whole sport. How on earth does that happen?

[rewing84]

Zero 26 I agree with this statement from you 100% I will say I like the recent reform of them dividing their senior committee into different eras and think the PFHOF would benefit greatly from this.