Monday, December 10, 2012

On the drive home from NoHo yesterday A. pointed out that although we have spent a fair amount of effort devising a nomination and election process, the actual criteria to be used by the electors is undefined. By way of illustration, the Baseball HOF's criteria are as follows:
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.
The Pro Football HOF bases enshrinement on only one factor:  on-field achievements and contributions to the game.

The Rock and Roll HOF criteria are likewise pretty open-ended: voters consider innovation and influence.

It should be noted that the Baseball HOF rules have evolved over a number of years-- it is the oldest institution of its kind. It also bears mentioning that only baseball includes criteria like " integrity, sportsmanship, [and] character". It is also worth mentioning that the Baseball HOF includes, inter alia, Ty Cobb,  and Walter O'Malley. (Football has O.J.. Nobody's perfect.)

I'd say that the quality we are looking for is influence, and I think that's been pretty clear up to this point, but I wanted to put it out there.


  1. Yes, I think it has to walk a line between influence on American culture in general and influence on our family in particular, but mostly the latter.

  2. My first thought was that I agreed with the estimable Mrs. Smart but then, this is after all the "Big Pink Hall of Fame" so I think that "mostly" is not a strong enough designation. "Primarily" is more to my way of thinking.