When considering a player for the HOF..do you think that players should be evaluated against their era or against history?
The cases of Ron Santo, Alan Trammell, etc made me want to bring this up.

Personally, I feel it's more logical to base a players' career against what he did in comparison to players at his position in his era. Alan Trammell was the 2nd or 3rd best SS in the league for 15 years, yet his performance is dwarfed by that of Nomar Garciaparra...who's the 2nd or 3rd best SS in the league now. It's impossible to try to evaluate how Nomar would have done in the 80s and likewise for Trammell now.
Jim Rice won't look like shit when stacked next to Manny Ramirez when all is said and done.


So, historical or era based evaluation?

i like to look a bit at both. to just compare a player to his era doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, as maybe it was a downtime for players at his position, i.e. Santo. For this reason I feel it's also important to look how a player stacks up historically.


i should add: i don't really like to look how players did compared to others "at his position." i like to look how he did compared to the greatest in his era and in history. I do like to take into account the player's skills defensively; but not just compare them to people who play the same position.

That's exactly why I made the case of Jim Rice vs. Manny Ramirez. Manny's numbers are almost Ruthian, but so are a lot of other players right now. How can you compare Ripken to what ARod did as a SS? How about Wagner vs. Trammell?
I think there's too much difference at ALL positions in different eras. No way does Bob Gibson drop a 1.12 ERA in 2005.
John Sickels uses league-based comparisons when evaluating prospects, and I think it's a really good way to determine what a players ability really is. Hitting in the PCL is different than hitting the the Texas League or Sally Leauge, etc. You've got to look at what a guy does in the element he plays in. History is pretty insignificant to me, especially when you see the current offensive numbers.

you must take into account the era in which a player played.......this is true for just about every sport.

For a number of reasons:
Rule changes
Expansion
Exclusion of minorities
Equipment changes

Right on.

i see your point, but here's the thing - you expect a different type of hitting/performance out of different posistions.

Ryne Sandburg was a special second baseman because he could play second base and because he could hit the ball a ton. If he'd played, say, left field, i'm not so sure he's a hall of famer. (he's in the hall of fame, right? i can never remember)

You almost have to take account the era, becasue generally the player that changes the era or sets a landmark is one who deserves HOF status. I saw on OTL the agruement for maris being in the HOF. He broke the record and had arguably only two great years and was average to above average for his career. If you didnt take into accountthe eras no pitcher hsould ever be submitte dbased on cy youngs stats, i think we always use the era becasue lets face it, players are always getting better, as better understanding for training and body nutrition increases the result on teh field will also increase. Argue all you want, Miami could prolly take the 60's packers based on athletic ability and the change in schemes and speed. It's evolution baby. There are recievers who are bigge rthna lineman were then, its just a matter of changing times, if you cant glide along with them than youd be doing alot of great athletes a disservice

He was just elected this year

Well, both. And here's my reasoning:

Some eras are weaker than others. The eighties was notoriously bereft of great players. There were few great hitters and few great pitchers. It was an era of mediocrity, along with the late seventies.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/mvp_cya.shtml

look at these guys. Can it really be argued the guys in the eighties are as good as the guys in the nineties? Sure, steroids, juiced ball, blah blah blah, but witht he exception of Caminiti, Giambi, Mo Vaughn, and Terry Pendleton, all of the mvps since 1990 are great players. All are at least marginal HOF candidates.

Not counting the HOF pitchers from the eighties, other than Mike Schmidt, Sandberg, Ripken and George Brett, is there one guy who matches up to the more mediocre mvps of the 90s? Would you take Robin Yount, a Hall of Famer by the way, in his prime over Juan Gonzalez in his?

As for the pitchers, sure, all those guys were nice pitchers I guess, if only for a season or three, but, getting rid of Clemens since he was a part of both decades (though more a part of the 90s-present) the 80s simply can't match up with Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Pedro, and Randy Johnson. Even with the help of Steve Carlton, who wasn't as good as the top four pitchers of the 90s.

So sure, it's useful to say a guy was among the top players of his era, but if his era in general wasn't worth a damn then why does it deserve to have a lot of Hall of Famers in the first place?

2B is the easiest position on the field to play

That's right, except for 1B, LF, RF, CF, 3B (and defensively Pitcher).

source: From 25 years of playing every position.
source: http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/bbd-bj1.html

I agree, but I think catcher should be on another list by itself.

I hope you just forgot the , and weren't serious