My biggest problem with the way the hall of fame votes go, is the inconsistency in the way voters vote. With one player who has good to great career stats, but was never "dominant", they focus on the fact that they were not "dominant". You have others who dominated in the era, but they did not run up great career stats, and they focus on their career numbers.
Now I can handle a standard of you have to have great career stats, and be "dominant" for a decade or more, but the reality is there are dozens upon dozens of player who are in who don't meet that criteria, but are in.
I look at 8 different things for offensive players, and I give greater or lesser credence to each depending upon position, and compare them to the median hall of famer
MVP votes
Number of times lead the league in significant statistical categories (Black Ink)
Number of seasons with bench mark performances say 30 hr, hitting .300 etc (Hall of Fame Monitor)
Silver Slugger awards (best offensive season at your position in your league)
Gold Glove (best defensive player at your position in your league)
Number of times you were in top 10 in a major statistical category (Gray Ink)
All Star games
Career statistics (Hall of Fame standards)
I also believe it is critical to compare players to the players of their eras. That is why I give a lot of credence to MVP, Black Ink, Silver Slugger, Gold Glove and All Star games.
Era is very important. Compare the players of the late 70's, 80's and early 90's to the era's just before and just after, the 50's and 60's and the late 90's to now. I am looking at the National League home run number only
From 1953 to 1973 there were 47 player seasons with 40 or more home runs. That is 21 seasons or 2.24 per year. That is effectively (7) 40 hr seasons for every 3 seasons. There were 2 seasons with no 40 hr seasons, 1967 and 1968, after which the mound was dropped. In every other year there was at least 1 per year, and 2/3 of the seasons there was at least 2.
From 1974 to 1995 there were 15 player seasons with 40 or more home runs, 5 of which were exactly 40 HR. That is 22 seasons 0.68 or per year. That is effectively (2) 40 hr seasons for every 3 seasons. There was never a season with more than 2 40 hr seasons. There were 11 seasons where there was no one who hit at least 40 hr, or 1/2 of the time. From 1981 to 1992 (12 seasons) there were only 5 player seasons with 40 or more HR.
From 1996 through 2007 there were 72 player seasons with 40 or more HR. That is 6 per year. Every single season had at least 3, and that was 2007. From 1996 to 2006 every year there was at minimum of 4 every single season.
In the 50's and 60's there were 4 times as many 40 hr seasons as the late 70's 80's and early 90's.
In the late 90's to the present there were 9 times as many 40 hr seasons as the late 70's 80's and early 90's.
How do you penalize players who played the majority of their career between 1974-1995 when they played in an era when power numbers were very low by historical standards? The most glaring examples in my mind are Steve Garvey, Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy.
Steve Garvey (compared to other first basemen)
Median HoF member had 2.46 cumulative MVP's, Garvey had 2.46
Median HoF member had 27 black ink points, Garvey had 12
Median HoF member had 100 monitor points, Garvey had 130.5
Median HoF member had 2.68 SS, Garvey had 4 (giving him credit for the seasons before it was awarded)
Median HoF member had 2 GG, Garvey had 4
Median HoF member had played in 7 AS games, Garvey played in 10
Median HoF member had 144 gray ink points, Garvey had 142
Median HoF member had 50 hall standards points, Garvey had 31.5
Garvey is hurt mostly because he did not lead the league like a typical hall of famer, and because his career stats are limited because he played in a non-offensive era. Otherwise he is right in line with a median hall of famer
Dale Murphy (compared to other outfielders)
Median HoF member had 2.02 cumulative MVP's, Murphy had 2.31
Median HoF member had 27 black ink points, Murphy had 31
Median HoF member had 100 monitor points, Murphy had 116
Median HoF member had 7 SS, Murphy had 4
Median HoF member had 3 GG, Murphy had 5
Median HoF member had played in 9 AS games, Murphy played in 7
Median HoF member had 144 gray ink points, Murphy had 147
Median HoF member had 50 hall standards points, Murphy had 34.3
Murphy is hurt mostly because his career stats are limited because he played in a non-offensive era. Otherwise he is right in line with a median hall of famer
Compare those guys to a First Ballot Hall of Famer of the same era Dave Winfield
Winfield (compared to other outfielders)
Median HoF member had 2.02 cumulative MVP's, Winfield had 2.20
Median HoF member had 27 black ink points, Winfield had 4
Median HoF member had 100 monitor points, Winfield had 148
Median HoF member had 7 SS, Winfield had 8
Median HoF member had 3 GG, Winfield had 7
Median HoF member had played in 9 AS games, Winfield played in 12
Median HoF member had 144 gray ink points, Winfield had 152
Median HoF member had 50 hall standards points, Winfield had 55.4
The biggest difference between Murphy and Winfield is that Murphy was far more dominate for a shorter period of time, but Winfield was good but not great for a longer period of time. As a result Winfield ran up greater career stats, but during his peak of about 8 years, Murphy was a far better player. Why does that make Winfield a first ballot hall of famer, and mean Murphy will never get elected? There are literally dozens of hall of famers who were not as good or dominate as Dale Murphy.
You can make a very similar argument for Andre Dawson, Dave Parker, Jim Rice, Don Mattingly, Ron Guidry, Bert Blyleven, and Jack Morris.
