The Astros' Hall of Fame & Retired Numbers are drunk

Astros aren't the only ones that have overdone the retired number thing.

https://baseballhall.org/discover/retired-numbers-date-back-to-lou-gehrig-day

The retired-number craze didn’t kick in big-time until the 1970s. From 1939 through 1970, 31 years, only 19 MLB numbers were retired. There are now more than 200 retired numbers, not counting executives, broadcasters and “The Fans” (Cleveland Indians).​

 

So even if an era includes multiple baseball HOFers, MVPs, and titles... just one from the "Golden Era"... that's ridiculous.

 

Deion Sanders was talking about different levels of HOF players and how the NFL HOF is not exclusive enough.

I think players/people who were pivotal (Bob Aspromonte) and those deserving of remembrance ( Jim Umbricht) in Astros history deserve a place but it needs to he separate from those that had HOF calibur careers with the Astros.

Maybe 3 levels?

A "hall of remembrance" would be players and contributors who were very special and fan favorites but don't quite meet HOF level performance or longevity. This can be very large with many different types of contributions. Maybe Bob Asprominte, Judge Hofheinz, and Jim Umbricht belong here. Maybe even Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens belong here.

The Hall of Fame is for players who had several seasons as Astros and performed at an exceptional level.

Retired numbers should be for Mt. Rushmore level.

 

How about these ground rules moving forward? (I do think we tarnished this from the get go with Shane Reynolds being an inaugural member.)

• Minimum of 5 years with the team.
• One regular season MVP or postseason MVP.
• Minimum of a combination of 3 silver slugger or gold glove awards.
• Minimum of 3 all-star appearances or 2 all-star starter selections.
• Led the team in at least two triple crown categories (AVG/HR/RBI for hitters or W/ERA/K for pitchers)
• Led the team in WAR at least one season.

 

We are considering letting cheaters in?

https://www.nbcsports.com/mlb/news/...ather-mike-scott-admits-to-scuffing-baseballs

Yeah, people were all taken at the time with the notion that the splitter was some vexing form of sorcery, but it strained credulity that Scott -- after an exceedingly pedestrian career to that point -- suddenly figured out all of the secrets to pitching in 1986, doubling his strikeout rate on the back of some newfound hyper-command of his split-fingered fastball. Way more likely that he just figured out how to properly install an old nail or a thumbtack in his glove -- perfect for scuffing purposes -- so that it wouldn’t be detected.

Scott still hasn’t totally come clean on that, but in an interview he gave for MLB Network’s upcoming documentary about the 1986 postseason, he comes as close to a full confession as any crafty ball-doctorer ever will:

They can believe whatever they want to believe. Every ball that hits the ground has something on it. ... I’ve thrown balls that were scuffed but I haven’t scuffed every ball that I’ve thrown.​

I love that passive voice: “balls that were scuffed.” It’s OK, Mike. We all know. We’ve known for 25 years. You gave us a fun, improbable 300+ strikeout season that was nice to plug into our Lance Haffner sim baseball game for our Commodore 64s and your treachery, while almost impacting the results of the 1986 season, ultimately didn’t carry the day. We’re cool with it. Really, we are. Now give us a big hug.​

 

If you limit it to 10-15 guys, you are going to miss a lot of great players who didn't age well or were in Houstion for a short period of time. I care more about greatness than longevity (i.e., I care more about when a player was great instead of how long they were good).

This isn't a perfect way to view things, but I'm going to try to use stats to approximate what I consider great (this isn't perfect). I don't consider below 4 fWAR to be great. So, I am going to count 4 fWAR as the great threshhold (maybe should be a little higher) as I don't care about players having a lot of good. The following is a players' sum wins above great (WAG) . -1 fWAR and 3.9 fWAR in a season both count as zero as I don't care about the difference between good and bad seasons. I just care about a player's greatness in the seasons he was great.

Pitchers


I don't know anything about Cuellar, but the other guys on the list provided great seasons (Dierker and JR Richard knowledge 2nd hand). Top 4 are easy HoF for my opinion as they were either great for a while or shined incredibly brightly in a short period of time.

Position Players

I'd probably drop Cedeno based on off the field stuff (but I'd probably want someone with more knowledge to make that decision). Of the 1980s and on players, Hidalgo was the only real surprise, but he really did have 2 great dominant seasons.

It is a really small Hall if is limited to guys that provided more greatness than Mike Scott provided you share my opinion that accumlating good or worse seasons shouldn't impact a guy's inclusion.

I want to remember greatness so I'm more a big hall type of guy. I slant towards sheer dominance over longevity, though. I think there are moments (mostly recent moments) worth acknowledging in the Hall.

 

Then maybe 1962-1980 does not deserve anyone?

If 2015-2023 has 6-10 players then maybe the players from before them just aren't HOF worthy in comparison.

Maybe the 5th best player on a team isn't a HOF because there are 4 players better than him on his own team even if he may be among the best in baseball.

It's all relative.

IMO the Astros HOF is for the best among the Astros. Not the best baseball players who happen to be Astros.

 

Probably two rigid for the 2nd bullet point...
Maybe for bullet point 2: One regular season top 3 league MVP or Cy Young or a LCS/WS MVP. This may open it up a little too much.

 

>STARES AT NBA<

...but NFL HOF is really who sucks up to Pancakes "The General" McClain the most where they vote all together and there are lobbying efforts by the reporters for favors.

 

Astros All-Stars with at least two appearances as an Astro...
(I do know how meaningless this is considering the automatic selections and covering only half the season, but this reflects affinity with fans as well as performance):

• Jose Altuve 8
• Craig Biggio 7
• Lance Berkman 5
• Cesar Cedeno 4
• Jeff Bagwell 4
• Turk Farrell 4
• Billy Wagner 3
• George Springer 3
• Justin Verlander 3
• Mike Scott 3
• Roy Oswalt 3
• Alex Bregman 2
• Bob Knepper 2
• Bob Watson 2
• Carlos Correa 2
• Dallas Keuchel 2
• Darryl Kile 2
• Dave Smith 2
• Denis Menke 2
• Framber Valdez 2
• Gerrit Cole 2
• Glenn Davis 2
• Hunter Pence 2
• Joaquin Andujar 2
• Joe Morgan 2
• Jose Cruz 2
• Kyle Tucker 2
• Larry Dierker 2
• Michael Brantley 2
• Miguel Tejada 2
• Moises Alou 2
• Nolan Ryan 2
• Roger Clemens 2
• Rusty Staub 2
• Ryan Pressly 2
• Yordan Alvarez 2

 

Again your comprehension skills are $h!t.

I SAID HE WAS NOT KOUFAX!!

 

I really like your WAG statement. Did you create it or find it? If not familiar but like it quite a bit and plan on using it.

Personally I would use it but also look at a season requisite. Just like MLB requires 10 years to be eligible, a player should not be eligible for the Astros HOF without some minimum service or level.

I would say use your WAG but also have a minimum of seasons.

Maybe have minimum 5 seasons of 3.0 + WAR then use WAG to rank the eligibles?

This would remove guys like Hidalgo who only had 2 seasons above 2.0 WAR but is the 9th best position players according to WAG. To me he is exactly who should be kept out. If a player isn't good for at least 5 years he does not deserve in any HOF as he was mediocre much more often than great

 

I think considering all star selections is useless.

Bagwell: 12 seasons over 4 WAR but only 4 all star selections.

Berkman: 6 seasons over 4 WAR and 5 all star selections.

Altuve: 7 seasons over 4 WAR and 8 all star selections

 

Bagwell was historically a slow starter and it cost him so many all star appearances. 7th in MVP in 2000 and 01, didn't make the team either year. Lost out to guys like Gallaraga and Ryan Klesko.

 

I created it to match how I view greatness. I don't care about excluding guys because of lack of longevity. Lack of greatness should be what keeps a guy out. If you can't beat Hidalgo's WAG generated in two great seasons with 5 seasons of barely to moderately great, Hidalgo was the greater player.

 

Off the top of my head- if I was in charge of the Astros HOF
Hitters:
Bagwell, Biggio, Cruz, Cedeno, Altuve, Berkman, Wynn, Correa, Bregman, Morgan, Doran, Puhl, Springer, Davis, Caminitti, Alvarez, Springer, Gurriel, Tucker (if he has another couple big years before he leaves
Pitchers:
Oswalt, Dierker, Ryan, Scott, Nierkro, JV, Richard, Keuchel, Clemens, Wagner
To me- an MVP is an auto admit, a Cy Young is an auto admit, a World Series MVP is an auto admit (provided it's not a fluke or one off- so you are under suspicion Jeremy Pena), sustained really good play on a team that goes to the playoffs all the time is also good enough. That lets Yuli Gurriel in but just barely. If, for example, the Astros went to the playoffs 4 more times in the next 4 years and Chas has a couple more moments then he's in.
Billy Wagner gets in just b/c he's a HOF guy and spent more of his career with the Astros than anywhere else.
That's 30 guys if you count Chas- with him getting in the same way Yuli did if the team success continues. That also would likely put in Framber if he keeps plugging away and maybe Presley if he's on the bottom of another dogpile sometime between here and there. This franchise will have been around for 70 or so years by the time that's all said and done- having 32 or 34 HOF'ers seems pretty reasonable to me.
I mean- the entire point of a HOF is to tell the history of the franchise and have a way for the fans to remember the good times and for kids to learn more about what came before them. It's better to miss with too many than not enough.

 

This is how I see it.