Should Bill James be in the Baseball Hall of Fame?

[Pringle]

The Hall of Fame is one of James' favorite subjects - and one he's best at writing about ("The Politics of Glory"/"Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?" is a masterpiece).

I guess James has been stigmatized through the years because of all the unyielding numbers geeks his work has spawned - but he constantly argues for what he calls a "democratic" evaluation of players and statistics, not a toletarian one.

Anyway, with the BBWAA having the firm grip it does on the selection process, it would be difficult to imagine a non-BBWAA guy, a guy who's never covered a daily beat or worked a clubhouse, getting in. But I guess I would make an exception - James ushered in the objective measuring of player performance, rather than the schmaltzy, romanticized evaluation that had been going on for a century.

 

[Starman]

Yes.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Yes.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

These people say hell no:

 

[busuncle]

Yes.

 

[Pringle]

OK, but do you think he ever will be? Why or why not? (And I'm no "sabermetrician").

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

James should be inducted in the pioneer category. While most pioneers are either team or league executives/owners, there is a good comparison to be made between James and Henry Chadwick (although James would probably blanch being compared to a guy who thought that a walk didn't reflect on the hitter). Chadwick was a writer who invented stats like ERA and batting average and created the modern boxscore. He had no official involvement with any team and wrote several books about the game. Whether or not you agree with sabermetrics, it would be myopic to deny its influence on the game. James is the logical descendant of Chadwick.

 

[novelist_wannabe]

You can argue that in some ways he changed the game, but it's open for much debate whether it's been positive. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say he should be in the HOF.

 

[buckweaver]

Hell, on semantics alone, Bill James himself would tell you that he could never be "in" the Hall of Fame. Writers (and broadcasters, for that matter) cannot be inducted into the Hall of Fame, and cannot be enshrined as Hall of Famers -- only players, managers, umpires and executives can be Hall of Famers and James is none of those (his Red Sox "advisor's" stint notwithstanding.) ... (EDIT: I failed to mention that "pioneers" are eligible as well, and one could argue that James is eligible for that. While his impact on the game as a sabermetric pioneer cannot be understated, I'd still be hesitant to induct him as a Hall of Fame Pioneer. That would set a strange precedent, based on who else is in as a pioneer)

James could be eligible to be honored with the Spink Award, as Tracy Ringolsby was this year. Talking heads can refer to Peter Gammons and his ilk by some such designation as ESPN's own Hall of Famer Peter Gammons ... but that doesn't make him a Hall of Famer. He's a Spink Award honoree, nothing more. Not to say that's any less of an honor -- but there is a difference (as, IMO, there should be.)

So my answer, based on that, is: No. Bill James should not "be in the Baseball Hall of Fame." He's not eligible.

Should he get the Spink Award? Perhaps.

I would rather propose some kind of Commissioner's Lifetime Achievement/Ambassador's Award, for those unfortunate souls who don't really meet the qualifications to "be" Hall of Famers, but who have served the game with such tremendous passion and devotion that they deserve to be honored somehow.

The list starts and ends with Buck O'Neil -- who, contrary to popular opinion, does not deserve to "be" a Hall of Famer, either. But he damn sure does deserve something, and that's what a Lifetime Achievement is for. Bill James would absolutely qualify for an honor like this, as well. And that's more fitting for a man of his particular career achievement, not the Spink Award, IMO.

 

[suburbanite]

Not before the great NEYER gets in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Hell, on semantics alone, Bill James himself would tell you that he could never be "in" the Hall of Fame. Writers (and broadcasters, for that matter) cannot be inducted into the Hall of Fame, and cannot be enshrined as Hall of Famers -- only players, managers, umpires and executives can be Hall of Famers and James is none of those (his Red Sox "advisor's" stint notwithstanding.)

James could be eligible to be honored with the Spink Award, as Tracy Ringolsby was this year. Talking heads can refer to Peter Gammons and his ilk by some such designation as ESPN's own Hall of Famer Peter Gammons ... but that doesn't make him a Hall of Famer. He's a Spink Award honoree, nothing more. Not to say that's any less of an honor -- but there is a difference (as, IMO, there should be.)

So my answer, based on that, is: No. Bill James should not "be in the Baseball Hall of Fame." He's not eligible.

Should he get the Spink Award? Perhaps.

I would rather propose some kind of Commissioner's Lifetime Achievement/Ambassador's Award, for those unfortunate souls who don't really meet the qualifications to "be" Hall of Famers, but who have served the game with such tremendous passion and devotion that they deserve to be honored somehow.

The list starts and ends with Buck O'Neil -- who, contrary to popular opinion, does not deserve to "be" a Hall of Famer, either. But he damn sure does deserve something, and that's what a Lifetime Achievement is for. Bill James would absolutely qualify for an honor like this, as well. And that's more fitting for a man of his particular career achievement, not the Spink Award, IMO.

If Chadwick, who never held an executive position, can be inducted as a pioneer, why can't James?

 

[buckweaver]

If Chadwick, who never held an executive position, can be inducted as a pioneer, why can't James?

Unfortunately, that's like asking "If Chick Hafey can be inducted as a player, why can't Steve Finley?" Hell, Finley's a better player than Hafey, no doubt. But arguing for one man's induction based on who else is already in is a flawed argument, because the standards have changed so much over the years.

Chadwick -- who you can make a case for -- and Candy Cummings -- who you absolutely cannot -- are two 19th-century "pioneers" who would never get in now, and probably shouldn't be in at all.

 

[Almost_Famous]

Hell, if a joker like Gary Carter is in there, why the **** not?

Just like the NFL and the NBA Halls, the baseball hall of fame is sa joke.

 

[Starman]

These people say hell no:

And, of course, such a book could never have been written without many of the statistical tools popularized and brought to wider attention by, uhmmm, Bill James.

And certainly not if the "conventional-wisdom-is-always-right" attitude which James helped to dispel were still in complete control of the world of baseball. Because the "conventional wisdom," now, is that there probably is some valuable information which can be gained from sabremetrics.

 

[kingcreole]

Yes but not before Buck O'Neil.

 

[micropolitan guy]

Yes.

Every once in a while I go back and read his abstracts from the mid-to-late 1980s. The writing is entertaining and the analysis is correct far more times than it isn't.
As a fan, his work appeals to me, and is far more understandable, than almost any baseball material I've read.

 

[spnited]

Marvin Miller should be in the baseball Hall of Fame..
Bill James? No Way!

 

[Lugnuts]

If you believe Moneyball, Bill James is one of the "founders"-- basically -- of fantasy baseball. Which led to fantasy football, fantasy golf, etc. etc.

If true-- based on that alone-- how can you leave him out of the Hall?

 

[spnited]

If you believe Moneyball, Bill James is one of the "founders"-- basically -- of fantasy baseball.  Which led to fantasy football, fantasy golf, etc. etc.

If true-- based on that alone-- how can you leave him out of the Hall?

Sorry, Lugs, James had nothing to do with starting fantasy baseball. In fact, most fantasy leagues use traditional stats that James and his sort abhor.

from Wikipedia:

The landmark development in fantasy baseball came with the development of Rotisserie League Baseball in 1980. Magazine writer/editor Daniel Okrent is credited with inventing it, the name coming from the New York City restaurant La Rotisserie Francaise where he and some friends used to meet and play. The game's innovation was that "owners" in a Rotisserie league would draft teams from the list of active Major League Baseball players and would follow their statistics during the ongoing season to compile their scores. In other words, rather than using statistics for seasons whose outcomes were already known, the owners would have to make similar predictions about players' playing time, health, and expected performance that real baseball managers must make.

Because Okrent was a member of the media, other journalists, especially sports journalists, were introduced to the game. Many early players were introduced to the game by these sports journalists, especially during the 1981 baseball strike; with little else to write about, many baseball writers wrote columns about Rotisserie league.

Rotisserie league baseball proved to be hugely popular, even in the 1980s when full statistics and accurate reporting were often hard to come by. The traditional statistics used in early Rotisserie leagues were often chosen because they were easy to compile from newspaper box scores and then from weekly information published in USA Today. Okrent, based on discussions with colleagues at USA Today, credits Rotisserie league baseball with much of USA Today's early success, since the paper provided much more detailed box scores than most competitors. Local papers soon caught up with USA Today's expanded coverage.

The use of statistics like pitchers' wins and RBI are often scoffed at today by members and followers of the Society for American Baseball Research who prefer to use objective evidence, especially detailed baseball statistics to measure player's performance. Sabermetric thinkers argue wins and RBI often misrepresent the performance of players, since they are largely influenced by "outside" factors like run support and bullpen support (for wins) and runners on base (for RBIs).

 

[buckweaver]

To add to what spnited said:

"Fantasy" baseball has been around since the early 20th century. Only then they were called baseball "pools." But it was largely the same concept as today: one person on your block, shift, circle of friends, etc., would serve as the "commissioner" and take the bets -- while each person would choose his MLB players for that week, a la his "fantasy team," and whoever's "team" got the most hits, or most runs, or whatever category you were wagering on at that time, would win the "fantasy league." Obviously, the terms are different now -- and there's a helluva lot more statistical categories to choose from, to say the least (to tie this back into Bill James.)

But this type of activity has been around for a long, long time, in various forms. 1980, of course, was the watershed moment -- and rightfully so -- for the "modern" era, if you will, of fantasy sports. But Bill James isn't the forebearer of this, and fantasy sports is barely relevant to this particular discussion.