Baseball Hall of Fame Vote

[bcbgcbrcb]

Congratulations to Barry Larkin, the only player selected this year by the BBWAA. I think they got it right this year with that one and only selection. Thoughts?

[grainsley]

Next year should be real interesting, with folks like McGwire, Sosa, Clemens on the ballot...

[FrankWakefield]

Wow... I'm surprised. Surprised by all of it. Yet I shouldn't be surprised by anything the Hall does anymore...

[sycks22]

Larkin, Sutter, man they let anyone in there nowadays.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Grant:

I think that you meant to say Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, etc.

I would counter that Sosa has absolutely no chance, Bonds about 50/50 and Clemens maybe a little less than that....... We'll see............

Biggio will be a very interesting case, my guess is that he gets in maybe his third time around, Piazza will likely take a while if he gets in.....

[asphaltman]

I'm not up to speed on the Hall of Fame voting. Are there still any serious candidates pre-1940 that will ever get in at this point?

[sycks22]

I was hoping my boy Jack Morris would get in. Best single game pitching performance in World Series history. 10 inning shut out game 7 of the series for my Twinkies. I realize the perfecto by Larsen, but nothing matches up to that game.

[ScottFandango]

Grant:

I think that you meant to say Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, etc.

I would counter that Sosa has absolutely no chance, Bonds about 50/50 and Clemens maybe a little less than that....... We'll see............

Biggio will be a very interesting case, my guess is that he gets in maybe his third time around, Piazza will likely take a while if he gets in.....

WOW i give bonds more like 5% chance....

does anyone want to celebrate that man??? nobody i know wants to

[abothebear]

I wish they'd vote Morris in. I know he doesn't measure up statistically, but he was the ace of the 80s. He was a consistent top performer for over a decade with practically no peer. Sure some pitchers shined brighter during that time, but not so consistently bright.

And Trammell definitely needs to be in if Larkin and Ozzie are in. If Trammell didn't fizzle out like he did in the 90s with his injuries I think people would see how great his career was, and how he was the SS that changed the position, Ripken coming along a few years after. In the words of Neil Young, "its better to burn out, than to fade away."

Tim Raines ought to be in.

My mind isn't made up on Martinez and Bagwell. I'm on the fence.

[Ease]

I was hoping my boy Jack Morris would get in. Best single game pitching performance in World Series history. 10 inning shut out game 7 of the series for my Twinkies. I realize the perfecto by Larsen, but nothing matches up to that game.

+1, Morris was an ace on three teams, an outstanding big-game pitcher, and the winningest of the 80's. Crazy that he's not in. He's up to 67% from 54% and has two more chances, so here's to hoping he can get in.

[sportscardpete]

Congrats to Larkin!!

Clemens would have the best shot out of any of those, but he definitely wouldn't get in first ballot.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I give Bonds the best chance next year because I think that it is easier to identify the pre-steroids portion of his career than it is to identify that of Clemens. Most baseball experts will tell you that the pre-steroids career of Bonds, just up to that point, was first-ballot HOF material.

[glchen]

I'd prefer that no one with the taint gets in. Not Bonds, Clemens, ARod, etc. Heck, Canseco should get in just to spite these guys. Maybe 30 years later, the Veterans Committe can have a different look at this era, but make them wait 30 years.

I like Morris and I like Schilling on next year's ballot. I know people have problems with Schilling, but he was a big part in bringing a WS to both Arizona and Boston.

[sportscardpete]

I give Bonds the best chance next year because I think that it is easier to identify the pre-steroids portion of his career than it is to identify that of Clemens. Most baseball experts will tell you that the pre-steroids career of Bonds, just up to that point, was first-ballot HOF material.

Phil,

I'm not disagreeing with you, but couldn't you say there is a strong chance it started when he was with the Jays?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Gary:

Good point about Schilling, he would be next in line after those previously mentioned. To me, he had a few really good seasons but not enough of those type of seasons like a Maddux, Glavine, Big Unit, etc.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Pete:

I think that you might be right on with that assesment. Prior to joining Toronto, Clemens had four consecutive "sub-par" seasons in a row for Boston after seven great seasons in a row. At that point, would you have considered him a first-ballot HOF'er? I think maybe not where Bonds definitely was prior to the 2000 season.

[YankeeCollector]

The vote is ridiculous when I see players like Eric young, Vinny Castilla, bill mueller and brad radke get votes. Whoever voted for these guys should lose their voting priviledges!

McGwire was on the ballot and I believe got 19%of vote.

[drc]

Reasonable chance that Biggio is the first of the next bunch to get in.

[sycks22]

The vote is ridiculous when I see players like Eric young, Vinny Castilla, bill mueller and brad radke get votes. Whoever voted for these guys should lose their voting priviledges!

McGwire was on the ballot and I believe got 19%of vote.


Radke was a hall of famer innings 2-7.:)

[jefferyepayne]

Pete Rose should be allowed in before Bonds, etc. ...

jeff

[insidethewrapper]

I don't understand the Hall of Fame.The standards are really getting low. But not as low as allowing Phil Rizzuto in . today on MLB Network they were even talking about Bernie Williams getting in - what a joke ! I never thought of Bernie in the same way as Mantle , Mays etc. That's what it takes to get into the Hall in my opinion.


Hits HR RBI Bave. 162 game ave
Phil Rizzuto 1588 38 563 .273
Larkin 2340 198 960 .295 15 Hr - 71 RBI
Trammell 2365 185 1003 .285 13 HR - 71 RBI


How can Larkin get in and not Trammell ?
How could Rizzuto even be considered ?
How can Bonds even be questioned ? Great stats and speed long before any drug use ?

[carrigansghost]

If Larkin is in, how can Trammell not be elected?

Rawn

[kmac32]

They need to let Big Lee Smith in soon. He was the premeir closer of his era. Let Morris in also. The thing everyone seems to forget is that the players are supposed to be compared with their peers. If you use toadys standards, halfvthe players in the hall would not have been elected ti Cooperstown.

[Kzoo]

I was hoping my boy Jack Morris would get in.

IMO, if Morris and Trammell played in New York, they'd both be in already.

Matt

[Fred]

This is a really fun time of year on the board.... HOF balloting always brings out the baseball fan in most of us.

The HOF is very H20'd down but it is our shrine for our cardboard heros... it's the reason why we pay so much for a 33 Goudey of Eppa Rixey in nice condition. If Eppa Rixey (just one example, sorry Rixey fans) isn't in the HOF then the price of his card may be a little more than that of a common player. Sure, the guy won 20 games (or more) in three different seasons but he also lost 20 (or more games) twice. As the story goes and a lot of us know many of the guys voted in were done so by their buddies on the veterans committee. How does Cy Young not make it on the first ballot?

This is a fun time of year. One thing I wish the HOF would do is create a "pioneers of the game" section and recognize a few more 19th century players that are just as deserving (or more) as some of the common folk already enshrined.

[yanks12025]

I'm willing to bet Bonds was using way earlier than 2000, I'd say for most of his career. Why not Biggio, has 3,000 hits.

What you guys are doing, is comparing today's players to the players of Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, etc. The game has changed since then, so I think it's fine that less high stats players get in. If we only allowed players in who had stats like Ruth, etc then we'd barely have anyone in there(meaning current day players).

[ctownboy]

insidethewrapper,

I can not STAND the New York bias as far as the HOF goes.

I mean, take Rizzuto's stats and have him play for the Reds instead of the Yankees and do you think he even gets a sniff of the HOF? No.

Now, take Larkin's stats and have him play for the Yankees instead of the Reds. Guess what? Not only would he be a Hall Of Famer but probably a first ballot one at that.

David

[yanks12025]

insidethewrapper,

I can not STAND the New York bias as far as the HOF goes.

I mean, take Rizzuto's stats and have him play for the Reds instead of the Yankees and do you think he even gets a sniff of the HOF? No.

Now, take Larkin's stats and have him play for the Yankees instead of the Reds. Guess what? Not only would he be a Hall Of Famer but probably a first ballot one at that.

Daivd

Maybe cause as a Yankee, he'd won more rings. And winning it all, adds to your stats.

[sflayank]

i am amazed that no one on this board sees the obvious
last year he got 61%....I would like to know how its possible that so many people didnt think he was a hof'er last year and changed their mind this year
thats the problem with the system....either u belong in or you dont
putting someone in just because theres no one else is ridiculous

[ctownboy]

I have said this before and I will continue to say this, as far as the HOF goes, anybody linked to PED use should be forever banned from baseball.

The Commissioners Office had a rule in place against PED use back in 1993 but the Players Association did not want to adopt it. Because the owners didn't want to fight the Players Association (and risk a strike) they let it slide.

So, I don't see why the players get to have their name go down into the history books (as far as being elected into the HOF) when THEY didn't want to pass a rule against PED use, THEY benefited financially from PED use and THEIR stats were enhanced because of PED use.

David

[rdixon1208]

Biggio should get in before any of these guys. His stats might be better than you think. He's the only player in MLB history with 3,000 H, 600 2B, 400 SB, and 250 HR. This is from a guy that played 14 of his 20 seasons between C and 2B. And he was an All Star at both positions.

[yanksfan09]

insidethewrapper,

I can not STAND the New York bias as far as the HOF goes.

I mean, take Rizzuto's stats and have him play for the Reds instead of the Yankees and do you think he even gets a sniff of the HOF? No.

Now, take Larkin's stats and have him play for the Yankees instead of the Reds. Guess what? Not only would he be a Hall Of Famer but probably a first ballot one at that.

Daivd

I don't think that's true. It hasn't helped Don Mattingly get many votes, also votes weren't crazy for Bernie Williams. I'm not saying those guys or Larkin should be in though. I think it's getting a bit watered down these days. If you really have to think of a player he probably shouldn't be in.

I also agree with last comment...what changed so much from this year to last year with Larkin? Just because no one else isn't going in doesn't mean we need to get someone in just to have a ceremony.


Finally, Brade Radke and Mueller etc...getting votes?

These people should absolutely lose their voting priveledges. How can you possibly justify any votes for those players?

[h2oya311]

Reasonable chance that Biggio is the first of the next bunch to get in.

+1 - - Biggio all the way...now coaching my high school alma mater!!

BTW, what ever happened to Dale Murphy? That guy was another one that fizzled out instead of leaving on top...

[Orioles1954]

The whole "Hall of Fame is too watered down" argument is not very compelling to me. A sport with 150+ years of professional history and there are only 240ish enshrined? My goodness, the Baseball Hall of Fame is a fraction of the other three North American sports. Plenty of room if even a hundred more were added. My problem is that guys who deserve is it like Buck O'Neil, Lefty O'Doul, Cecil Travis, Gil Hodges and a slew of other 19th century and Negro League greats aren't in.

[Chris Counts]

"Larkin, Sutter, man they let anyone in there nowadays ..."

I can't believe anyone would even question Barry Larkin's Hall of Fame credentials. He should have been inducted last year. Unfortunately, it seems to be fashionable for some folks (and tragically, some voters as well) to bash every would-be Hall of Famer, regardless whether they've studied the player's stats. Look up Barry's numbers, compare them to every other existing Hall of Famer at his position, and get back to me when you've done your homework. You'll discover he was better than at least half of them ...

[Chris Counts]

"What changed so much from this year to last year with Larkin? Just because no one else isn't going in doesn't mean we need to get someone in just to have a ceremony ..."

Yahoo columnist Tim Brown, who gets to vote, wrote a column last year arguing why Larkin SHOULD NOT be in the Hall of Fame. This year, he wrote a column arguing why Larkin SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame. There was never a problem with Larkin's credentials. Brown's credentials are a different story ...

[YankeeCollector]

i am amazed that no one on this board sees the obvious
last year he got 61%....I would like to know how its possible that so many people didnt think he was a hof'er last year and changed their mind this year
thats the problem with the system....either u belong in or you dont
putting someone in just because theres no one else is ridiculous

+1

[Clutch-Hitter]

Dale Murphy should definitely be in the hall. He was a great player and was/is a 1st class man. Injuries cut his career short; steroids would have extended it.

[Orioles1954]

"What changed so much from this year to last year with Larkin? Just because no one else isn't going in doesn't mean we need to get someone in just to have a ceremony ..."

Yahoo columnist Tim Brown, who gets to vote, wrote a column last year arguing why Larkin SHOULD NOT be in the Hall of Fame. This year, he wrote a column arguing why Larkin SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame. There was never a problem with Larkin's credentials. Brown's credentials are a different story ...

I agree with about Larkin being elected. However, it's important to realize that the Hall of Fame is not necessarily a mandate about how great a player truly is. It is, in fact, a MEDIA AWARD and a MEDIA AWARD only. Just like the Cy Young, MVP, Gold Glove, etc.....it is a media award comprised of sports journalists who may or may not be baseball followers.

[T206BrownHindu]

How can Tim Raines not be in the Hall? The ones that should lose their voting privileges are the nine yahoos that filled out a blank ballot.

Mark

[novakjr]

i am amazed that no one on this board sees the obvious
last year he got 61%....I would like to know how its possible that so many people didnt think he was a hof'er last year and changed their mind this year
thats the problem with the system....either u belong in or you dont
putting someone in just because theres no one else is ridiculous

I think part of that may be because voter want to make sure at least one person get in per year. I honestly believe it's more than a secret ballot. There's much thought put into when a player gets in, rather than just whether he should get in.

Instead of thinking of it like Larkin got in this year because there was no one else worthy on the ballot. I'd like to think that he DIDN'T get in last year, because there was no one else on this years ballot..

[Exhibitman]

i am amazed that no one on this board sees the obvious
last year he got 61%....I would like to know how its possible that so many people didnt think he was a hof'er last year and changed their mind this year
thats the problem with the system....either u belong in or you dont
putting someone in just because theres no one else is ridiculous

There are a number of writers who believe that first ballot should be reserved for the very elite ballplayers, like Gwynn, and will not vote for a middle of the road HOFer on the 1st ballot but will do so the next time around.

FWIW, I think Larkin is a worthy HOFer given his position and era. Who was a better SS from 1990-1996? His career WAR is actually better than Gwynn, Snider, Murray, Santo, Carter, McCovey, Banks, Baker and quite a few other HOFers. He got an MVP, 3 Gold Gloves, had over 2300 hits and stole 379 bases. As a shortstop that is HOF worthy stuff. He wasn't expected to hit 50 HR and drive in 120 runs. That wasn't his job, which is why his WAR is better than so many big stats guys--they played at the slugger positions where massive production was expected.

[Chris Counts]

"FWIW, I think Larkin is a worthy HOFer given his position and era. Who was a better SS from 1990-1996? His career WAR is actually better than Gwynn, Snider, Murray, Santo, Carter, McCovey, Banks, Baker and quite a few other HOFers. He got an MVP, 3 Gold Gloves, had over 2300 hits and stole 379 bases. As a shortstop that is HOF worthy stuff. He wasn't expected to hit 50 HR and drive in 120 runs. That wasn't his job, which is why his WAR is better than so many big stats guys--they played at the slugger positions where massive production was expected ..."

Adam, I nominate you as a Hall of Fame voter. You're better informed than most of them ...

[novakjr]

There are a number of writers who believe that first ballot should be reserved for the very elite ballplayers, like Gwynn, and will not vote for a middle of the road HOFer on the 1st ballot but will do so the next time around.

FWIW, I think Larkin is a worthy HOFer given his position and era. Who was a better SS from 1990-1996? His career WAR is actually better than Gwynn, Snider, Murray, Santo, Carter, McCovey, Banks, Baker and quite a few other HOFers. He got an MVP, 3 Gold Gloves, had over 2300 hits and stole 379 bases. As a shortstop that is HOF worthy stuff. He wasn't expected to hit 50 HR and drive in 120 runs. That wasn't his job, which is why his WAR is better than so many big stats guys--they played at the slugger positions where massive production was expected.

Any thoughts on a SS with 2800+ hits, 401 SB's and 11 Gold Gloves?:)

[Big Six]

He'll get in...don't know when but he will. He was that good...Raines, too.

[sam majors]

I think Larkin was elected because they needed somebody to put in! A very good player but not Hall worthy in my opinion. The Pro football Hall Of Fame is even more watered down! They have to have at least four inducted but no more than seven each year. How foolish is that.

[novakjr]

He'll get in...don't know when but he will. He was that good...Raines, too.

Agree about Trammell and Raines. Now I'm not saying this guy belongs, but I'm still wondering how Lou Whitaker got written off so quickly?

[tbob]

The best pitcher of each decade since the beginning of baseball is in the Hall. Jack Morris was the best pitcher in the 80's. He should be in. He was the ace of 3 pitching staffs and lead each to a world championship. If he had "Red Sox" or "Yankees" on the front of his uniform, he would already be in.
There is absolutely no proof that Jeff Bagwell ever took PEDs or steroids. He should go in with Morris next year.

[Bigdaddy]

The question is not whether someone had a Hall of Fame worthy career before taking PEDs or after. If that's the case, then Pete should be in becasue he was only fingered for betting on baseball after his playing career was over - he's not being touted for his managerial career.

It's not when you did it, or for how long, or how many bets you made, it's the fact that you intentionally cheated the game and the basis for competition. If someone chose to do that, then they should not be in the Hall. The Hall will not be diminished because of shady characters being left out.

[FrankWakefield]

That's not the deal with Pete. Please find a copy of The Fix Is In, then read it. After that, even most diehard Reds fans understand why Pete should never go in (excepting for when he buys an admission ticket, 363 days a year).

[triwak]

The whole "Hall of Fame is too watered down" argument is not very compelling to me. A sport with 150+ years of professional history and there are only 240ish enshrined? My goodness, the Baseball Hall of Fame is a fraction of the other three North American sports. Plenty of room if even a hundred more were added. My problem is that guys who deserve is it like Buck O'Neil, Lefty O'Doul, Cecil Travis, Gil Hodges and a slew of other 19th century and Negro League greats aren't in.

Totally agree!!!

And I believe Morris will get in next year, along with Bagwell AND Biggio. PED users will be destined to wait for their veteran's committee nominations. The best ones may eventually get in, but it'll be a long time - perhaps after their deaths.

[packs]

I was glad to see Mattingly getting more votes this year. I'm surprised at how few votes Bernie Williams got.


I think Larkin is a deserving HOFer. Today short stops are expected to hit 30 home runs and steal 30 bases. However, until Larkin did it in 1996 no other short stop ever had. He was truly ahead of his peers.

I don't think Morris should ever get in. He wasn't the best pitcher of the 80s, he just had the most wins. Roger Clemens won 95 games in 5 seasons in the 80s. Was Morris better than he was? Clemens also won back to back CYs in the 1980s. Morris never finished higher than 3rd.

For a guy who is supposed to be the best pitcher of the 80s, Morris posted a 4.00 ERA three times and posted a 3.94 in 1988. He would go on to post a 4.00 or higher ERA in 4 of his last 5 seasons after 1989.

[Clutch-Hitter]

The thing about the drugs is that a man can remain bulked up throughout a grueling 162 game season while using them. It would seem unlikely that they could stick to a weightlifting schedule. I didn't follow the news, but didn't they only target the superstars and/or people breaking records? If thats the case, the players who were using drugs but not tested will get in with their less significant careers. A couple of people mentioned here were quite bulky towards the end of their careers, deep into the seasons. I wouldn't be surprised if nearly all players used, therefore Mac and Bonds should be compared to their peers. They were much better than all the other users playing on the same field.

And I'm not a Bonds fan BTW

PS: steroids will not help a man hit a 92 MPH slider

[tjb1952tjb]

"Biggio should get in before any of these guys. His stats might be better than you think. He's the only player in MLB history with 3,000 H, 600 2B, 400 SB, and 250 HR. This is from a guy that played 14 of his 20 seasons between C and 2B. And he was an All Star at both positions."

Totally agree........Craig Biggio should be a first ballot HOFer.

[ScottFandango]

That lack of love for RIZZUTO is surprising....guess you guys never heard of GLUE

RIZZUTO was the glue for many many championships, he was also awarded MVP at the time, rightfully being recognized as a VERY important part of the greatest run ever...

More then hrs in baseball....
RIZZUTO was better, had more championships than maranvile, but nobody complains about him rabbit

The anti new York bias is thick on this board.

[tedzan]

That lack of love for RIZZUTO is surprising....guess you guys never heard of GLUE

RIZZUTO was the glue for many many championships, he was also awarded MVP at the time, rightfully being recognized as a VERY important part of the greatest run ever...

More then hrs in baseball....
RIZZUTO was better, had more championships than maranvile, but nobody complains about him rabbit

The anti new York bias is thick on this board.

Scott

I'm not sure about "The anti new York bias is thick on this board" ?


Anyhow, I agree with everything else in your post here regarding "The Scooter".

As some of you know, Phil Rizzuto was my nearby neighbor when I grew up in Hillside, NJ. I met him many times and even flew 1st class with him on a 2-hour flight to Chicago in 1984.

One of the best tributes I heard given to Rizzuto was from Ted Williams. I met Ted in the 1980's and we had a great conversation. Ted firmly believed and told me.....

"If Phil Rizzuto was the Red Sox shortstop in the late 1940's and the early 1950's, the Red Sox would have been the AL Champs those years, not the Yankees."


TED Z

[ctownboy]

Scotfandango,

Dave Concepcion played against better competition (African-Americans and actual relief pitchers instead of former starters with dead arms), played for great teams that won World Series, was a better hitter and probably a better defensive Short Stop than Rizzuto and look how much HOF love he has received.

Using Baseball Reference's black ink and gray ink tables for offense and how they relate to how a player stacks up against HOF players, Concepcion scores higher than Rizzuto. Using their comparison of players in general, Concepcion compares to better players than Rizzuto.

If you think Baseball Reference puts too much weight towards the offense then remember that Concepcion and Larry Bowa were the two best defensive Short Stops in the NL until Ozzie Smith came along.

Again, if Concepcion had played in NY and accomplished these things, we would be talking about him as a Hall Of Famer now. But because we are talking about a Latin player who played in Cincinnati during the 1970's and 1980's instead of a guy from NY in the 1950's (who also had a long broadcasting career and a Money Store commercial to keep his name, face and voice in the public eye) we are not doing that.

In short, if people are using the number of World Series rings Rizzuto won (on teams that I think Dickey, DiMaggio, Ruffing, Gomez, Mantle, Berra and Ford, among others, had a LOT more to do with than Rizzuto) or how he was the GLUE for those teams (where in the HOF rules is that stated as a criteria and how many other players could that be used as a reason for their inclusion in the HOF?) then, to me, that means Rizzuto is NOT a Hall Of Fame player. Either that or there are OTHER players out there who should be getting looked at or talked about for the HOF that currently aren't.

Finally, why isn't Ted Simmons or, better yet, Joe Torre NOT being talked about as Hall Of Famers? Both put up great offensive stats as Catchers and Torre had a long and productive career as a Manager (guiding the Yankees to numerous World Series and winning rings to boot).

I have an anti-NY bias because I see too many players as being overhyped just BECAUSE they played for the Yankees (and now the Red Sox) when if they played for another team and did the same things they would be overlooked or their accomplishments put down because they didn't do them in NY.

David

[daves_resale_shop]

Gavvy Cravath
Ed Reulbach
Mike Donlin

All of which are more deserving than the likes of mcgwire, bondsn sosa etc...

[z28jd]

I think the Rizzuto lovers always miss the point that there is a difference between being a good ballplayer and a hall of famer. Rizzuto was a good ballplayer with one great year that played only for great teams. The Yankees still made the 1955 WS with him barely playing, repeated again in 1956 when he played even less, repeated in 1957 when he wasn't on the team, won again in 1958. They won from 36-39 and 60-64, before and after him, the Yankees won the AL over and over for a long time.


Red Sox wouldn't have won the AL with Rizzuto instead of Vern Stephens because if Rizzuto was in Boston, Stephens would've been in the middle of the Yankees lineups driving in runs. Then Johnny Pesky took over, then in 1952 the Red Sox were horrible, they weren't making up a 16 game difference in 1953 because of a light hitting shortstop and by 54 Rizzuto wasn't that good. The Red Sox wouldn't have won anything more with Rizzuto unless the Yankees only put 8 men in field and left the SS position open

No one denies he had a good career but his numbers blend in with a ton of guys who didn't have a chance to play for the Yankees their entire career. Rizzuto could've played with the Senators his whole career and he wouldn't even sniff the HOF, don't believe me, ask Cecil Travis fans.

Rizzuto never even got the support of the writers who saw him back in the day that Marty Marion did. Marion got 40% of the votes in 1970, 7th highest total and only non-HOF besides Hodges in the top 10. At 11th place you had Allie Reynolds, 12th Johnny VanderMeer and down in 15th, Rizzuto on his 8th try. Only if Marion could've been a star shortstop for a team that went to the WS.... :rolleyes:

[Orioles1954]

Scotfandango,

Dave Concepcion played against better competition (African-Americans and actual relief pitchers instead of former starters with dead arms), played for great teams that won World Series, was a better hitter and probably a better defensive Short Stop than Rizzuto and look how much HOF love he has received.

Using Baseball Reference's black ink and gray ink tables for offense and how they relate to how a player stacks up against HOF players, Concepcion scores higher than Rizzuto. Using their comparison of players in general, Concepcion compares to better players than Rizzuto.

If you think Baseball Reference puts too much weight towards the offense then remember that Concepcion and Larry Bowa were the two best defensive Short Stops in the NL until Ozzie Smith came along.

Again, if Concepcion had played in NY and accomplished these things, we would be talking about him as a Hall Of Famer now. But because we are talking about a Latin player who played in Cincinnati during the 1970's and 1980's instead of a guy from NY in the 1950's (who also had a long broadcasting career and a Money Store commercial to keep his name, face and voice in the public eye) we are not doing that.

In short, if people are using the number of World Series rings Rizzuto won (on teams that I think Dickey, DiMaggio, Ruffing, Gomez, Mantle, Berra and Ford, among others, had a LOT more to do with than Rizzuto) or how he was the GLUE for those teams (where in the HOF rules is that stated as a criteria and how many other players could that be used as a reason for their inclusion in the HOF?) then, to me, that means Rizzuto is NOT a Hall Of Fame player. Either that or there are OTHER players out there who should be getting looked at or talked about for the HOF that currently aren't.

Finally, why isn't Ted Simmons or, better yet, Joe Torre NOT being talked about as Hall Of Famers? Both put up great offensive stats as Catchers and Torre had a long and productive career as a Manager (guiding the Yankees to numerous World Series and winning rings to boot).

I have an anti-NY bias because I see too many players as being overhyped just BECAUSE they played for the Yankees (and now the Red Sox) when if they played for another team and did the same things they would be overlooked or their accomplishments put down because they didn't do them in NY.

David

+1

The Yankees would have been a third place team without "Glue" Rizzuto. ;)

[z28jd]

Did you know the most comparable player to Rizzuto all-time is Art Fletcher, time to start hoarding his t206 cards for when the veterans committee finally inducts him!

Also in those top 10 comps from baseball-reference for both Rizzuto and Fletcher is Claude Ritchey. One of our board members recently wrote a slightly interesting article on him but they left out his Hall of Fame credentials? I wonder why... http://www.piratesprospects.com/2012/01/claude-ritchey-bio.html

[insidethewrapper]

World Series Championships have nothing to do with being in or out of the HOF. Banks never won, Ted Williams never won etc. The everyday player can't pitch or manage the team. They were great players and they belong in the HOF. If the Tigers didn't win in '68, does that mean Kaline should not be in the HOF ? That would be insane.

[novakjr]

Scotfandango,

Dave Concepcion played against better competition (African-Americans and actual relief pitchers instead of former starters with dead arms), played for great teams that won World Series, was a better hitter and probably a better defensive Short Stop than Rizzuto and look how much HOF love he has received.

Using Baseball Reference's black ink and gray ink tables for offense and how they relate to how a player stacks up against HOF players, Concepcion scores higher than Rizzuto. Using their comparison of players in general, Concepcion compares to better players than Rizzuto.

If you think Baseball Reference puts too much weight towards the offense then remember that Concepcion and Larry Bowa were the two best defensive Short Stops in the NL until Ozzie Smith came along.

Again, if Concepcion had played in NY and accomplished these things, we would be talking about him as a Hall Of Famer now. But because we are talking about a Latin player who played in Cincinnati during the 1970's and 1980's instead of a guy from NY in the 1950's (who also had a long broadcasting career and a Money Store commercial to keep his name, face and voice in the public eye) we are not doing that.

In short, if people are using the number of World Series rings Rizzuto won (on teams that I think Dickey, DiMaggio, Ruffing, Gomez, Mantle, Berra and Ford, among others, had a LOT more to do with than Rizzuto) or how he was the GLUE for those teams (where in the HOF rules is that stated as a criteria and how many other players could that be used as a reason for their inclusion in the HOF?) then, to me, that means Rizzuto is NOT a Hall Of Fame player. Either that or there are OTHER players out there who should be getting looked at or talked about for the HOF that currently aren't.

Finally, why isn't Ted Simmons or, better yet, Joe Torre NOT being talked about as Hall Of Famers? Both put up great offensive stats as Catchers and Torre had a long and productive career as a Manager (guiding the Yankees to numerous World Series and winning rings to boot).

I have an anti-NY bias because I see too many players as being overhyped just BECAUSE they played for the Yankees (and now the Red Sox) when if they played for another team and did the same things they would be overlooked or their accomplishments put down because they didn't do them in NY.

David

I agree completely. Torre should've been in as a player...He'll get in as a MGR, but I hope that doesn't stop people from pursuing him as a player as well.. A strong case can be made for Ted Simmons. I wouldn't mind seeing him get in(but I'd be ok if he doesn't). Conception should eventually get in. If all goes well, I think it would be fitting to see the two Venezuelan #13 shortstops get in together. Imagine if the BWAA voted in Vizquel, and Veterans voted in Conception the same year. I think that would be a great thing.. Now before anyone jumps down my throat about Vizquel. He's a no brainer in my books.. Arguably one of the two best defensive SS's in history(Smith may or may not have been better), 2800+ hits, 400+ SB's, and a leader both on and off the field. According to Baseball-reference his top 8 "similar batters" in order are- Luis Aparicio, Rabbit Maranville, Ozzie Smith, Bill Dahlen, Dave Conception, Luke Appling, Pee Wee Reese, and Nellie Fox. Everything about Omar screams Hall of Fame...

[Robextend]

It is a great debate because we all have our own standards and definition of "hall of famer".

I don't consider Larkin, Dawson, Rizzuto, etc...hall of famers. To me they are in the same boat as McGriff, Dale Murphy, Al Oliver, Raines, etc...

Compare Ted Simmons stats to the greatest catchers of all time and tell me why he didn't get any consideration for the HOF. Doesn't make sense to me.

[tedzan]

I think the Rizzuto lovers always miss the point that there is a difference between being a good ballplayer and a hall of famer. Rizzuto was a good ballplayer with one great year that played only for great teams. The Yankees still made the 1955 WS with him barely playing, repeated again in 1956 when he played even less, repeated in 1957 when he wasn't on the team, won again in 1958. They won from 36-39 and 60-64, before and after him, the Yankees won the AL over and over for a long time.

John D.

By 1955, Rizzuto's career was ending. Pardon me for correcting you. He had more than just 1 great year. In 1949, he was runner-up for the AL MVP award to Ted
Williams. Speaking about Ted....I trust his judgement of Rizzuto, when he said to me......

"If Phil Rizzuto was the Red Sox shortstop in the late 1940's and the early 1950's, the Red Sox would have been the AL Champs those years, not the Yankees."


Red Sox wouldn't have won the AL with Rizzuto instead of Vern Stephens because if Rizzuto was in Boston, Stephens would've been in the middle of the Yankees lineups driving in runs. Then Johnny Pesky took over, then in 1952 the Red Sox were horrible, they weren't making up a 16 game difference in 1953 because of a light hitting shortstop and by 54 Rizzuto wasn't that good. The Red Sox wouldn't have won anything more with Rizzuto unless the Yankees only put 8 men in field and left the SS position open


John

OK, you are too young to have seen Rizzuto play and I'm too old and did see Rizzuto play from 1949 to 1956. He was a tremendous Lead-Off batter. An expert bunter,
and a good hitter (especially when a lead-off runner was needed). His fielding at SS and his throwing arm were excellent. And, this is what Ted Williams was alluding to.

Rizzuto's enthusiam for the game; and, his ability to execute at bat and on the field are intangibles that are not evident in the statistics.


Rizzuto never even got the support of the writers who saw him back in the day that Marty Marion did. Marion got 40% of the votes in 1970, 7th highest total and only non-HOF besides Hodges in the top 10. At 11th place you had Allie Reynolds, 12th Johnny VanderMeer and down in 15th, Rizzuto on his 8th try. Only if Marion could've been a star shortstop for a team that went to the WS....


Rizzuto did not get the support when it came to HOF voting because of guys like Charles Gehringer who had it in for Phil (I've never understood why). Ted Williams
was very influential in getting Phil into the HOF.

Marty Marion should be in the HOF, he was "Mr Shortstop" before Ernie Banks.
Furthermore, considering some of the guys who have been inducted by the Veterans Committee in recent years, Marion, Hodges, Reynolds, and Vander Meer should
all certainly be in the HOF.


P.S.....Give my regards to your Dad. Tell him my 1957 T-Bird is tuned-up and ready to race :)

TED Z

[ctownboy]

robextend,

Replace Thurman Munson with Ted Simmons on those mid-1970's Yankees teams and Simmons is a Hall Of Famer.

Simmons was in the majors at a younger age than Munson and had a longer career and still his OPS+ is higher than Munson's (117 to 116). Sure, if he had lived, Munson could have put up a few more good seasons to raise his OPS+. However, if Munson had played as long as Simmons did, it is also likely that he would have had a drop off in production and his OPS+ would have fallen.

No, I don't believe in the idea that just because a guy played for the Yankees (or Red Sox) and put up good, but not great, stats for their career that they should some how get a HOF boost for it.

David

[Robextend]

Simmons closest contemporaries that are in the HOF are Bench, Fisk and Carter. Simmons had more hits, a higher batting average, more doubles and more RBI then all of them as well as being an 8 time all-star.

[ctownboy]

robextend,

Ted Simmons info From baseball-reference:

Gray Ink Batting - 95 (238), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 124 (110), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 44 (116), Average HOFer ≈ 50

Similar Batters

1. Miguel Tejada (855)
2. Alan Trammell (831)
3. Carlton Fisk (819) *
4. Joe Torre (818)
5. Gary Carter (818) *
6. Lou Whitaker (817)
7. Barry Larkin (805) *
8. Yogi Berra (805) *
9. Joe Cronin (804) *
10. Ryne Sandberg (791) *

Six of Simmons ten comparables are IN the HOF. Do the same comparison for Phil Rizzuto and see what happens.

Oh, I am sorry, that is right, Rizzuto played in New York, for the Yankees, won a bunch of rings and had Ted Williams around to influence the HOF voters.

David

[tbob]

I don't think Morris should ever get in. He wasn't the best pitcher of the 80s, he just had the most wins. Roger Clemens won 95 games in 5 seasons in the 80s. Was Morris better than he was? Clemens also won back to back CYs in the 1980s. Morris never finished higher than 3rd.

For a guy who is supposed to be the best pitcher of the 80s, Morris posted a 4.00 ERA three times and posted a 3.94 in 1988. He would go on to post a 4.00 or higher ERA in 4 of his last 5 seasons after 1989.

I have to disagree with you on Morris. He was a big game pitcher and only Sandy Koufax had as many Babe Ruth awards as Morris (best player in the postseason). Yes he didn't win 300 games (only won 254) but arguably there will never be another 300 game winner in MLB. Morris was a gamer and never wanted to come out of a game, often wanting to pitch all 9 innings. I think this hurt his ERA because of late inning runs scored against him when he was tiring but had a lead. He won 162 games during the 80's, a MLB best, and his 7th game 10 inning shutout of the Braves in the 1991 WS was arguably the greatest pitching feat in history because of what was at stake, even better than Larsen's perfect game. He was a 5 time All-Star and started 14 consecutive opening games. His ERA ended up at 3.90 but he was a dominant force on the mound.

[packs]

Even Morris' post-season ERA is almost 4.00. People keep saying no one will win 300 games again but since Morris' retirement Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, and Tom Glavine all went on to win 300 games.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Average season of 15 HR 71 RBI, for a guy who ended up with only 2300 hits, doesn't feel like a HOFer to me.

[David W]

Any thoughts on a SS with 2800+ hits, 401 SB's and 11 Gold Gloves?:)

Vizquel is Ozzie without the back flips....

Ozzie actually has a higher OBP than slugging %, that doesn't happen very often.

There a ton of 60's to 90's SS that are real similar in many ways.

Tony Fernandez, Aparicio, Ozzie, Concepcion, Bowa, Campaneris, Trammel, Burleson, and why some got in and others don't....... who knows.

Not to mention the whole Lou Whitaker thing.....

[Irwin Fletcher]

I'm glad that Larkin was elected - I think he is a deserving HOFer at his position. I would also like to see Raines and Trammell get in.

Jack Morris, however, is not a Hall of Famer. The argument that he was the best pitcher of the 1980s is based on an arbitrary span of years that basically gives Morris credit for having his career begin before 1980 and end after 1989. There is simply no reason to use this temporal criteria to evaluate a player's skill and performance. The bottom line is that Morris was above average, but not by much (about 5 percent). There are so many other clearly superior pitchers who have gotten much less HOF consideration than Morris just because their period of quality pitching didn't occur between years ending in a 0, including David Cone, Jim Kaat, Chuck Finley, Orel Hershiser, Luis Tiant, and Rick Reuschel. None of these pitchers deserve to be in the HOF, but all of them were better than Morris.

Take a look at Baseball-Reference's list of WAR leaders for pitchers. Morris has a lower career WAR than Javier Vasquez, Tom Candiotti, and Bob Welch (and I would also argue that Welch was better than Morris in the 1980s).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Chuck Finley and Rick Reuschel "clearly superior" to Jack Morris?:confused::confused:

[Runscott]

I'd prefer that no one with the taint gets in.

:eek:

[Runscott]

I'd prefer that no one with the taint gets in.

:eek:

[Robextend]

Mike Mussina is going to be interesting in a couple of years. I don’t think he is a hall of famer, but postseason success aside, his career was better than that of Jack Morris (who I also don’t think is a hall of famer).

[byrone]

Interesting CBC article about Larry Walker.

He should have more Hall of Fame consideration

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/mlb/story/2012/01/10/sp-mlb-walker-halloffame-ballot.html

"It’s clear by looking at Walker’s production over 17 seasons that his numbers stack up with anyone in the Hall.

He won three batting titles, seven Gold Gloves, the National League MVP in 1997 and boasted a lifetime on-base-plus slugging percentage of .965, which is higher than 45 of the 64 outfielders currently in the Hall including Reggie Jackson and Dave Winfield. His .565 slugging percentage also ranks 13th all-time.

“When you look at a guy like Larry Walker and think of the best all-around players from his era, who’s better? Barry Bonds, maybe,” said Glew. “He hit 49 home runs when he won the NL MVP award [and drove in 130]."

[novakjr]

Interesting CBC article about Larry Walker.

He should have more Hall of Fame consideration

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/mlb/story/2012/01/10/sp-mlb-walker-halloffame-ballot.html

"It’s clear by looking at Walker’s production over 17 seasons that his numbers stack up with anyone in the Hall.

He won three batting titles, seven Gold Gloves, the National League MVP in 1997 and boasted a lifetime on-base-plus slugging percentage of .965, which is higher than 45 of the 64 outfielders currently in the Hall including Reggie Jackson and Dave Winfield. His .565 slugging percentage also ranks 13th all-time.

“When you look at a guy like Larry Walker and think of the best all-around players from his era, who’s better? Barry Bonds, maybe,” said Glew. “He hit 49 home runs when he won the NL MVP award [and drove in 130]."

Huge Larry fan...I completely agree. I never really bought into the whole Colorado factor.. I think it's a lame excuse.

[howard38]

.

[BleedinBlue]

Huge Larry fan...I completely agree. I never really bought into the whole Colorado factor.. I think it's a lame excuse.

What? No Colorado factor? Here are Larry's home and road splits for his career. This includes his MTL and STL days but come on, the road hitter is a marginal all-star. The Home hitter is a HOFer.

Home Away
Games 986 1002
At Bats 3429 3478
Runs 789 566
Hits 1193 967
2B 268 203
3B 39 23
HR 215 168
RBI 747 564
BA 0.348 0.278
OBP 0.431 0.37
SLG 0.637 0.495
OPS 1.068 0.865

[abothebear]

I don't remember if this was mentioned, but I wonder if the strike has worked against the late 70s - 80s guys whose careers were winding down in the early 90s? Morris, Whitaker, Trammell, Murphy, Raines. The strike clouded their retirements, or made a clean break between their greater career narrative and their last couple below average years. A cursory review reveals almost no players (apart from the milestone achievers) who retired between 93 and 97 to have been selected to the HOF. Carlton Fisk, Ozzie Smith, and Kirby Puckett being exceptions (Fisk debuted in '69 so he doesn't quite fit the category, Puckett's selection was emotionally expedited, and Smith actually performed consistent to his career his last season and did not fade (this is where his bland career offensive numbers actually worked in his favor, there is no fading when you are bad already). Perhaps this is a coincidence, or perhaps it is not unusual anyway.

For a similar reason I think it was a big mistake, historically speaking, for Pujols to go to another team. He has divided his legacy into two halves, and one of them aint going to be pretty. If he stayed in st. louis his career narrative would seemlessly wane and people would get it, and appreciate it. Now he has set up career two to be an inevitable disappointment. The only way he will be able to sew his two career halves together is if he wins a couple world series championships for the Angels in the first few years.

Getting back to Jack Morris, I understand why people don't think Jack should be in. And it doesn't bother me that he isn't in. But I would like to see him get in.

A few posts back someone said saying he is the best of the 80's is and arbitrary thing and doesn't mean anything. While I agree with this statement as he described it, I don't think people are using that statement in that way. At least that is not how I use it. I use it as a shorthand to represent the end of that particular era in baseball. Morris's career was pretty much the last 15 years of the pre-strike - pre juiced ball/juiced bodies era. His career should be judged in relation to his peers and by the judgement of his peers. And I think a strong case can be made for him by those measures.

[ctownboy]

abothebear,

You bring up a good point about the different years there were work stopages in baseball. Some players lost the equivalent of a season (or maybe two) because of the different strikes from the 1970's to the 1990's.

As far as 1981 is concerned, Dave Concepcion had a career year as far as offense goes (116 OPS+). He was an All Star, won the Silver Slugger Award and finsihed fourth in the MVP balloting.

Oh yeah, the Reds also had the BEST record in baseball that year but DIDN'T make the Play Offs because of the strike. The owners decided that the best thing to do would be to have the winners of each half of the season to go to the Play Offs.

If the Reds had made the Play Offs that year, it is possible that they could have won the World Series. If they had, then Concepcion would have ANOTHER ring on his career resume and, according to the Phil Rizzuto supporters, that would have helped him as far as his HOF argument goes.

David

[packs]

Even if you don't think Rizzuto was a HOF player there is no doubt at all that he was a HOF Broadcaster. Whether you call him a player or a broadcaster is semantics but the bottom line is he IS a HOFer.

Dave Concepcion is not. He wasn't the fielder Vizquel or Smith are/were and has no record in the booth or a lasting contribution to baseball. Not to metion Rizzuto lost 4 YEARS in the absolute prime of his career to the war.

[Fred]

For those of you that like Larry Walker you guys gotta love Todd Helton:

Split
<pre>
Home Away
Games 1039 1015
AB 3688 3637
Runs 826 503
2B 296 258
3B 26 9
HR 212 135
RBI 788 520
B.A. .354 .291
SlgAve .620 .478
OPS 1.071 .869
</pre>
I suppose, even with the Denver bias he's still a pretty good hitting machine.

[novakjr]

For those of you that like Larry Walker you guys gotta love Todd Helton:

I suppose, even with the Denver bias he's still a pretty good hitting machine.

I was joking before when I blew off the Colorado factor. But yes, Walker, Gallaraga, Burks, Castilla, Helton, Holliday, Tulo. I can't help it. I've always been a fan of those Colorado sluggers. Helton power splits shouldn't be that different. Helton only played 5 seasons pre-humidor.. However, they did build that stadium with a deep outfield to account for the pre-humidor power surge. So nowadays, it's a great park for doubles and average.. Walker and Helton are still hall worthy in my book though, and Tulo's gotten off to a great start.

[Irwin Fletcher]

Mike Mussina is going to be interesting in a couple of years. I don’t think he is a hall of famer, but postseason success aside, his career was better than that of Jack Morris (who I also don’t think is a hall of famer).

I agree - Mussina is a really close case. And he was significantly better than Morris.

[Irwin Fletcher]

Chuck Finley and Rick Reuschel "clearly superior" to Jack Morris?:confused::confused:

Baseball-Reference has Finley's career WAR as 55.0, compared to 39.3 for Morris. This is a significant difference. Also, Finley's career adjusted ERA+ is 115 (15 percent better than league average) while Morris's is 105 (5 percent better than league average).

Believe it or not, Reuschel blows both of them away in WAR - 66.3(!) and his career adjusted ERA+ is a solid 114.

My point is that no one considers Finley or Reuschel to be HOFers and rightfully so. Why all the love for Morris?

[packs]

I think Mussina is a definite HOFer but he'll probably have to wait a few years. He finished nearly 120 wins over 500 pitching his entire career in the AL East during the height of the steroid era. That's a HOFer to me.

[BleedinBlue]

I think Mussina is a definite HOFer but he'll probably have to wait a few years. He finished nearly 120 wins over 500 pitching his entire career in the AL East during the height of the steroid era. That's a HOFer to me.

I find it interesting that had Mussina decided to extend his career and play another 2-3 marginal years to get his 300th win he would be a LOCK hall of famer but because he quit on top but shy of 300 he's marginal.

[t206hound]

I'm glad to see Larkin get in... I always thought he was a great player, regardless of statistics. I got the auto below when he was on rehab assignment in Indianapolis in 1989. He was extremely nice to all the fans (especially the kids), much more so than the other Reds who came through Indy during rehabs (Chris Sabo comes to mind).

[sportscardpete]

I was joking before when I blew off the Colorado factor. But yes, Walker, Gallaraga, Burks, Castilla, Helton, Holliday, Tulo. I can't help it. I've always been a fan of those Colorado sluggers. Helton power splits shouldn't be that different. Helton only played 5 seasons pre-humidor.. However, they did build that stadium with a deep outfield to account for the pre-humidor power surge. So nowadays, it's a great park for doubles and average.. Walker and Helton are still hall worthy in my book though, and Tulo's gotten off to a great start.


Gallaraga was one of my favorite players... i wish he had better stats.. To come back from what he went through and dominate is astounding.

I think Helton is well on his way to the HoF.

[abothebear]

"My point is that no one considers Finley or Reuschel to be HOFers and rightfully so. Why all the love for Morris?"

Because it isn't the Hall of Statistics.

[David W]

Back a few posts to the strike/lockout comment.

Harold Baines would be a hall of famer except for the 1981 and 1994/95 missed games, as he would certainly have made 3000 hits and 400 HR's.

McGriff gets to 500 homers without 94/95.

Neither is likely to get in......

[kcohen]

In the Rizzuto v Conception debate, I find the contention that the latter played against superior competition to be highly questionable.

[Chris Counts]

"In the Rizzuto v Conception debate, I find the contention that the latter played against superior competition to be highly questionable."

It's easy for me to believe. Even though the Indians integrated in '48 and the White Sox two years later, the American League wasn't completely integrated until 1959. Most teams dragged their feet on it. The Yankees didn't lift their ban until 1955, when Rizzuto was essentially done. So there were many African-American and Latino players who never had a chance to play against Rizzuto. Because the National League integrated much faster — and raised its level of talent, its teams dominated the 1960s (Dodgers, Cardinals), while the Yankees steadily declined. They didn't win again until the late 1970s, when players like Reggie Jackson, Willie Randolph, Chris Chambliss, Mickey Rivers and others raised their talent level ...

[novakjr]

Back a few posts to the strike/lockout comment.

Harold Baines would be a hall of famer except for the 1981 and 1994/95 missed games, as he would certainly have made 3000 hits and 400 HR's.

McGriff gets to 500 homers without 94/95.

Neither is likely to get in......

Completely agreed. McGriff played 50 post-season games, around the same as he missed because of the 94/95 strike. In those 50 games he hit 10 HR's...That would've put him at 503. Gehrig coincindentally, also had 10 post-season HR's. That would also put him at 503. Counting post-season. Sam Rice goes over 3000 hits.

Those I believe are the only 3 players that go over major milestones(300 W, 500 HR, 3000 K or H) if you were to count post-season stats..

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by David W
Back a few posts to the strike/lockout comment.

Harold Baines would be a hall of famer except for the 1981 and 1994/95 missed games, as he would certainly have made 3000 hits and 400 HR's.

McGriff gets to 500 homers without 94/95.

Neither is likely to get in......

I'm not so sure McGriff won't get in. Some of the writers are already saying that they are looking at him again and what he did without PED's. I think that with the fact that they won't be voting for any of the steroid guys (at least for the first few years) it will give McGriff a chance to get in within the next 5 years. I'm really curious as to how Morris will do in the next couple of years. If he doesn't get in, he will be only the 2nd person ever to get over 50% and not get in...the first and only so far is Gil Hodges, and don't get me started about that :)

[ctownboy]

howard38,

1) Concepcion playing against better competition has nothing to do with Rizzuto missing playing time because of WW II. It has EVERYTHING to do with black ball players NOT being allowed to play Major League baseball during the first half of Rizzuto's career.

2) Who is to say that Rizzuto would have put up better numbers if he would have played baseball instead of going into the military? Back then the rules weren't as stringent, as far as safety goes, so there is always the possibility that Rizzuto could have been at Second Base waiting for a throw from Joe Gordon and a runner does a barrel roll into Rizzuto when trying to breakup a Double Play and Rizzuto tears knee ligaments and can never play again.

Now, I give more credence to the idea that Ted Williams missed out on putting up better stats because of the years he missed due to military service because A) he was a better hitter and B) he played the Outfield and had less chance of being involved in a collision and getting hurt.

3) According to Ted Z, who is a self proclaimed Rizzuto fan, Rizzuto was the lead off hitter for the Yankees from 1949 to 1955. If this is true, then it means he had guys like DiMaggio, Mantle and Berra batting behind him. Yet, during those five or six years, Rizzuto scored 100 or more Runs only twice. Furthermore, Ted Z said he was a good hitter. Yet, again, during that time period, he had 150 or more Hits only twice.

Now, if you look at Concepcion's stats and career, here is what you will find.

1) For the first four years he was in the Majors, he was not an everyday player.

2) Once he became an everyday player, he hit at the bottom of the order. Just imagine what his stats would have looked like if Sparky Anderson had moved him to the top of the order and he had had Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench, Tony Perez and George Foster batting behind him?

Nope, I look at their stats, the teams they played on and the competition they faced and say that Concepcion was a better player and deserves to be in the HOF more than Rizzuto does.

Now, if you think neither deserve to be in the HOF that is fine.

David

[ValKehl]

Thomas Boswell's (he's the very-long-time baseball writer for the Wash. Post) column in today's newspaper re Larkin, Bagwell and the PED candidates is a good read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/hall-of-fame-and-steroids-questions-no-one-wants-to-answer/2012/01/10/gIQACXL8oP_story.html
Val

[ctownboy]

packs,

If you want to think Rizzuto is a Hall Of Famer because of his broadcasting career that is fine (then I will counter that if having a lengthy MLB career and then an even longer broadcasting career are good criteria to use for people getting elected to the HOF then Joe Nuxhall should be in).

However, the fact is, Rizzuto was NOT elected to the HOF by the people responsible for electing sportswriters and broadcasters. he was elected by the Veterans Committee. This means he was elected based on what he did as a player.

Even Ted Z, a self-proclaimed Rizzuto fan, admits that Ted Williams used his influence to get Rizzuto elected. So, Rizzuto was not elected to the HOF when he was on the regular ballot and it took an all-time great like Williams to lobby for him with the Veterans Committee.

To me, that is like George W. Bush getting into Yale because of who his Father and Grand Father were. Both Rizzuto and George W. made it into prestigious institutions but neither did it on their own merits. They had outside influences help to get them in.

Again, like I said in another post, so what that Rizzuto lost time due to serving in WW II? Just because he lost time doesn't mean his stats would have gotten better. Sure, he could have played during all of that time and performed well. Conversely, he also could have been taken out at Second Base by a guy trying to break up a Double Play, had his knee ruined and never played again. Nobody knows.

So one cant just assume he would have played, played well and put up better numbers. You have to look at what he did on the field and the numbers he actually put up.

Again, I say there were other players on the Yankees who were better than Rizzuto and had more input to them winning games than Rizzuto did. Just because Rizzuto happened to be a starter on those teams that won World Series doesn't mean he automatically should be considered a better player than what he was.

David

[ctownboy]

kcohen,

"In the Rizzuto v Conception debate, I find the contention that the latter played against superior competition to be highly questionable."

Really? I will ask you then, who do you think was a better Short Stop, Phil Rizzuto or Ernie Banks?

Most people would say Banks.

But, even if a guy like Banks were available to play from 1941 until 1947, he wouldn't have been allowed to because of the color of his skin. Also not likely to have been playing during those years were Latin players like Luis Aparicio, Dave Concepcion and Omar Vizquel.

Furthermore, in the five to 10 years after WW II, competition for MLB jobs was thinned because so many young, able bodied guys were in the War and were either injured or killed, thus thinning the herd as far as competition goes.

On top of that, those soldiers who did come back from the War healthy had a choice to make; become a pro baseball player and have a slight chance to make the Majors OR take advantage of the GI Bill and go to college for little to no cost. Which option do you think a lot of those guys chose?

Finally, as another person posted, the Yankees had a ban on Black players until 1955. This means they HAD a chance to sign Ernie Banks but didn't. Who do you think would have won the competition for the Short Stop job between Banks and Rizzuto?

Banks. And if that had happened then guess what would have happened to Rizzuto? He would have either been relegated to being a back up player for the Yankees, traded to another (probably lesser) team or he would have retired.

Either way, without the competition, Rizzuto was a starter for a team he probably otherwise wouldn't have been and won rings he probably otherwise wouldn't have won and gets rewared with an HOF induction because of it.

David

[mr2686]

Interesting that you think Rizzuto would be on the bench or traded if the Yankees had Banks. Banks only played 9 of his 19 major league seasons as a short stop (Rizzuto had 13) and they had almost identical fielding percentages...and Rizzuto had about 2446 more chances. Why wouldn't they have moved Rizzuto to 2b...or moved Banks to 1b (he played there 11 seasons). By the way, I do believe Concepcion should be in the hall as well for a lot of the same reasons I think Rizzuto and Reese are in.

[doug.goodman]

Ted Williams used his influence to get Rizzuto elected. So, Rizzuto was not elected to the HOF when he was on the regular ballot and it took an all-time great like Williams to lobby for him with the Veterans Committee.

I tend to stay out of these HOF "worthy / not worthy" threads, but in this situation, I feel like I need to say that if Ted Williams thinks somebody should be in the Hall, that trumps all of the opinions and stats that I've seen mentioned.

Doug

[tedzan]

1st....Hall of Famers elected to the HOF via the Veterans Committee (VC) is not something that you should diminish. Great ballplayers like Johnny Mize,
Sam Rice, Connie Mack, Vic Willis, Enos Slaughter, etc., etc. are in via the VC route.

I'm assuming that you saw Dave Concepion play and you favor him and that's fine. I saw Rizzuto play (on TV or at Yankee Stadium) during the Yankees
"dynasty" years (1949 - 1953).
All 5 of those years, Phil was in the running for the AL MVP award. He was runner-up (to Ted Williams) in 1949 and won the AL MVP in 1950. There is no
denying it, Phil was a significant factor during that 5-year dynasty.

Yes, I am biased.....Phil lived 2 blocks away from our home when I was growing up in the 1940's to 1950's. We, in the neighborhood in Hillside (NJ), saw
quite a lot of Phil. Back in those days, Mondays were usually off-days for the Yankees. Phil attended many of our Catholic Youth Organization meetings
on Monday nights at St. Catherine's school; and, spend hours talking with us and showing us pointers on playing baseball. Also, Phil would answer our
questions regarding some the great BB players of his time. I could go on with a lot more here; but, I'll spare you the details.

I'll leave you with this comparison......

7 seasons Rizzuto was in consideration for the AL MVP (top 20 ranking)

3 seasons Concepcion was in consideration for the NL MVP (top 20 ranking)

Don't misconstrue....I saw Dave Concepion play for most of his 19 years and I agree....he was a great shortstop.


TED Z

a.k.a. ......T-Rex TED

[ctownboy]

mr2686,

Here is why I think Banks would have started at SS and Rizzuto would have been benched if both were on the Yankees.

In 1953, Banks came up as a 22 year-old rookie with the Cubs and appeared in 10 Games. That year, Rizzuto was 35 and he had, basically, his last productive year.

I think if both were on the team in 1954, the Yankees would look at a 23 year-old Banks and prefer him over a 36 year-old Rizzuto. Even if they didn't in Spring Training or the start of the season, they probably would have at some point.

I mean, unlike teams today (because of Salary Arbitration and Free Agency), the Yankees weren't afraid to bring young players up and let them start IF they were talented. Mantle first appeared as a 20 year-old and was starting at 21. Berra first appeared at age 21, played half a season at 22 and was a regular at 23. So, if Banks showed any signs of his true talent, I don't think the Yankees would have hesitated to bench Rizzuto and start Banks in his place.

David

[novakjr]

I tend to stay out of these HOF "worthy / not worthy" threads, but in this situation, I feel like I need to say that if Ted Williams thinks somebody should be in the Hall, that trumps all of the opinions and stats that I've seen mentioned.

Doug

Where does that leave you on Mel Harder?

[Orioles1954]

Neither Rizzuto or Concepcion are Hall of Famers in my opinion...and this coming from someone who doesn't think the Hall of Fame is "watered down".

[howard38]

.

[ctownboy]

Doug Goodman and Ted Z,

1) Phil Rizzuto was on the regular HOF ballot for 14 years over a 20 year time period and the highest percentage of votes he received during that time was 38.4%. He had plenty of time to get voted in by guys who actually saw him play and the majority of them thought he didn't warrant induction.

Hall of Fame
1956 BBWAA ( 0.5%)
1962 BBWAA (27.5%)
1964 BBWAA (22.4%)
1964 Run Off ( 5.5%)
1966 BBWAA (17.9%)
1967 BBWAA (24.3%)
1967 Run Off ( 4.6%)
1968 BBWAA (26.1%)
1969 BBWAA (22.9%)
1970 BBWAA (26.3%)
1971 BBWAA (25.6%)
1972 BBWAA (26.0%)
1973 BBWAA (29.2%)
1974 BBWAA (30.4%)
1975 BBWAA (32.3%)
1976 BBWAA (38.4%)

2) You cherry picked guys who were voted in by the Veterans Committee who were good and who some today would be arguing for HOF induction if they weren't already in.

I am pretty sure I can go down the list of players the VC chose, cherry pick some names, pull them out, put them on a poll for this board to vote on and these guys would be determined to NOT be worthy of the HOF. Heck, I am sure guys like Bill James agrees that some of the VC's decisions are not correct.

Ted, you gave Johnny Mize and Sam Rice as two such people. The funny thing is, when looking at the yearly HOF vote percentage that they received when they were on the regular ballot, Mize's percentage was consistently higher than Rizzuto while Rice languished near obscurity until his last three years. However, the last two years, he received over 50% of the vote something Rizzuto never got close to.

3) Putting faith in Ted Williams judgement during the later years of his life is something I wouldn't do.

4) From 1941 until 1956, there were only eight teams in the AL so the number of total players eligible for MVP voting wasn't as great as during Concepcion's time.

For example, in 1950 (Rizzuto's MVP year) the Yankees used 38 players during the season. 15 of those players were Pitchers (five of whom appeared in eight or fewer Games). Of the 23 position players, only nine appeared in 100 or more Games and only 10 had 300 or more Plate Appearances (if you want to go by At Bats then it is only eight players). So, at most, each team would have maybe 20 guys who could be considered for the MVP (the number is probably closer to 15 but I am giving the benefit of the doubt).

This means that during his playing days, there might be 160 guys who could be considered for the MVP each year. So, for Rizzuto to finish in the top 20 of the MVP balloting he would only have to be better than 140 players (more like 100 players if the number of guys is only 15 per team).

Now, during Concepcion's time, there were 12 teams in the NL. In 1979, (I would have used 1981 where Concepcion finished fourth in the MVP voting but that was the strike shortened year) Concepcion finished ninth in the MVP balloting. During that season, the Reds used 35 different players, 14 of whom were Pitchers. Of the 21 position players, only eight played in 100 or more Games and nine had 300 or more Plate Appearances and At Bats.

Basically it works out to, again, between 15 to 20 players per team who could have been reasonably thought of as MVP candidates. But there is the rub. Concepcion had to compete against more players (an additional 60 to 80) when looking at whether he finished in the top 20 of MVP voting or not.

So, instead of having to beat, at most, 140 players like Rizzuto did to finish in the top 20 of MVP voting, Concepcion had to beat 220, at most, other players to finish in the top 20 of MVP voting.

Also, when looking at those MVP votes, Concepcion finished fourth, ninth and 15th while Rizzuto finished first, second, sixth, 11th, 14th, 19th and 20th.

Finally, yes, I grew up watching Concepcion play and the Reds were my favorite team. However, that is NOT the main reason I am arguing that Rizzuto is not a HOF player.

The main reasons are because I think Rizzuto got in by riding the coattails of DiMaggio, Dickey, Mantle, Berra and Ford (the ones most responsible for winning those World Series rings). He got in by having Ted Williams influence the VC and he got in because he just happened to be lucky enough to play for the Yankees.

For me, Rizzuto didn't have a long enough career (which would have given him a chance to accumulate counting stats), he didn't have a high enough peak and that peak didn't last long enough and he didn't lead his league in many offensive categories (he led the AL in Sac Bunts four times but if he were such a great hitter then he should have been swinging away and advancing the runner/s' via a Hit instead of the Bunt).

So, if Rizzuto got in the HOF by riding the coattails of others then I think Concepcion should to (Rose, Bench, Morgan, Perez, Foster, May Griffey, Seaver). But, he wont and that is because he didn't play in NY.

David

[bosoxfan]

Pete:

I think that you might be right on with that assesment. Prior to joining Toronto, Clemens had four consecutive "sub-par" seasons in a row for Boston after seven great seasons in a row. At that point, would you have considered him a first-ballot HOF'er? I think maybe not where Bonds definitely was prior to the 2000 season.

totally agree!

[tedzan]

Doug Goodman and Ted Z,


3) Putting faith in Ted Williams judgement during the later years of his life is something I wouldn't do.



Rizzuto..........and he didn't lead his league in many offensive categories (he led the AL in Sac Bunts four times but if he were such a great hitter then he should have been swinging away and advancing the runner/s' via a Hit instead of the Bunt).

David


David

1st....I would continue this discussion; however, I find your #3 statement here extremely ignorant, that this will be my last response to you on this subject.

I first met Ted Williams at a BB card show in Valley Forge, PA in 1984 and had a tremendous 40-minute conversation with him. Subsequently, I've met Ted
on several occasions in Cooperstown on HOF weekend (every year since the early 1980's, I have set-up at the BB card show there on HOF weekend). The
Summer of 1997 was the last time I met Ted in Cooperstown. Ted was his usual enthusiastic and friendly self. He was holding court with his numerous fans,
who had gathered around him. He loved to talk Baseball and respond to many questions thrown at him.

Now, let me see....didn't the Veterans Committe elect Phil Rizzuto for the HOF in 1993 ?

Ah yes, I was there to hear Phil's ceremonial speech in the Summer of 1994.

I'm asking you....have you ever met Ted Williams in person ?

I would be surprised if you did, because you appear to be totally uninformed with the statement of yours.


2nd....what the hell do you have against BUNTS ? Rizzuto was the quintessential team player. As a lead-off guy he would do whatever it took to start an
inning going by getting on base. You have completely dismissed his WALKS stat. From 1949 - 1953, Phil averaged 74 Walks / year. Furthermore, between
his Hits, Walks, and his keen running ability, he averaged approx. 100 RUNS / year during those "dynasty" years.

Hey guy, I remember seeing Mickey Mantle bunting on many an occasion. It has become a lost art in BB today.


TED Z

[doug.goodman]

Ted said everything for me, but I never met Williams.

With absolutely no disrespect intended to ctownboy, but he can talk until he is blue in the face and type volumes of text but ultimately, in my mind, it comes down to his opinion versus that of Ted Williams.

Doug


PS - and before it gets mentioned (again) I also am happy to take the opinion of Ted Williams over that of the BBWAA.

PPS - as long as I'm referencing the voters, it amazes me who DOESN'T get to vote (Bob Costas, etc). I would be perfectly happy to have the HOF members vote, and nobody else.

[howard38]

/

[kcohen]

kcohen,

"In the Rizzuto v Conception debate, I find the contention that the latter played against superior competition to be highly questionable."

Really? I will ask you then, who do you think was a better Short Stop, Phil Rizzuto or Ernie Banks?

Most people would say Banks.

David


First, I find the Rizzuto v. Banks question to be irrelevant to the question of whether Conception faced superior competition. The contention that he did appears to be based primarily if not solely on the color line. It is obvious that within the context of pre-1950 MLB, the general level of competition would have been raised with the inclusion of players like Josh Gibson and Satchell Paiges.

However, let's look at Rizzuto's time as opposed to Conception's. In Scooter's, there was not the watering down of expansion as there were only 16 teams. There were only three major pro sports, baseball, boxing, and horse racing. Therefore, a much greater percentage of the US athletic talent was channeled into baseball. In Conception's time, so many top athletes had gone into baseball and basketball.

To contend that the level competition in Rizzuto's time was inferior solely because of the color line is simplistic. It takes into consideration one element among several that are needed if one is to validly compare the two eras.

[tedzan]

3)
It's not entirely true. During that period Rizzuto batted first, second and eighth. In his career he actually started more games in the 8 spot than he did leading off.

Howard

My recollection during those 5 hey-day years (1949-1953), Rizzuto batted either 1st or 2nd in the line-up. And, after the 1st inning, it's immaterial
what position in the line-up he was at. My contention is that when Rizzuto was the lead-off batter in any of the subsequent innings of a game, he
would do what it took to get on base....either by a hit, bunt, walk, or beating out an infield grounder.

There is a fundamental maxim in Baseball that says when the lead-off batter gets on base....70 % of the time he will eventually score a run in that
inning.


TED Z

[howard38]

.

[Kenny Cole]

Maybe I'm viewing this too simplistically, but IMO it is really simple -- Rizzuto is a HOFer because he has been elected to the HOF. You can argue about whether that was a good selection or a poor one, whether he should have been selected or not, whether Ted Williams' viewpoint should or should not have triumphed, but that is a different issue.

When all is said and done and you get down to the nut-cutting, he has been elected. He is in the HOF and is thus a HOFer. Period. He isn't going to get kicked out because some non-voters disagree with the selection, so get over it. There are a number of people on the outside looking in that I would personally have chosen before him, but I don't get to vote.

[Orioles1954]

Ted Williams' opinions mean absolutely nothing concerning the Hall of Fame and a player's qualifications in being inducted. The reason they mean nothing is because the Hall of Fame IS NOT some sacrosanct institution that belongs to baseball fans or players. The Hall of Fame IS a media award, and a media award only. Approaching it from that viewpoint only has changed my perspective on the idea of "watering it down" or who belongs or does not.

[Kenny Cole]

That statement is inaccurate. The HOF is first, an award/honor granted by certain voting members of the media. It is second, an award/honor granted by whatever the current composition of the Veteran's Committee is.

If Ted Williams' opinion, as a member of the Veteran's Committee, gets a player elected, it is simply silly to say that his opinion means nothing. It may mean nothing to you, but the player is still elected on the basis of that opinion. Therefore, by definition, it means a lot.

[Irwin Fletcher]

"My point is that no one considers Finley or Reuschel to be HOFers and rightfully so. Why all the love for Morris?"

Because it isn't the Hall of Statistics.

That may be true, but I'm not aware of any other way to evaluate a player's performance and, just as importantly, compare a player's performance to that of his peers.

[Kenny Cole]

I would suggest that watching the person play is another, better, way. Doesn't work for the old timers, obviously, but having watched a person play and having access to the player's stats is better than simply crunching the numbers IMO.

[mr2686]

Kenny, you said a mouth full. You can't just crunch numbers and get the full story of a player. I think some of the new analytics have been great for the game and have helped further discussion, but they've also been bad in that they over analyze things. Example, the adjusted stats based on home ball park. Does that really tell you that a home run that a player hit in ball park A, would not have been out of ball park B? I mean, if you it the ball 380ft it's gonna go out of most parks (this does not include Coors field for obvious reasons). I think Hodges was hurt the most by this type of stat (although it sure doesn't seem to have hurt Snider).
Now, to another point. There are no right or wrong answers to any of this...that's what makes baseball great. The ability to have two people argue over their favorite players, or even two random players, and try to convince each other who was a better player. These types of questions and arguements have been going on for as long as baseball has been around. From Ruth vs Gehrig, to Mantle vs Mays vs Snider, to Rizzuto vs Reese, and now Larkin vs Trammel. It makes you want to learn more about your player so that you have more of an arguement...and in the process, you learn more about baseball in general. Great sport.

[Cy2009]

One of the biggest travesties in the Hall of Fame voting is Edgar Martinez. What a great hitter he was. His stats are impeccable when it comes to being a hitter. The only reason that he is not in there is because he was primarily a DH. Maybe I am confused, but hasn't that been a position since 1973? Heck the DH has been around a lot longer than the one-inning closer. Let's not vote any of those guys in because it is not a position that has been around long enough.

The fact that his not playing the field is ridiculous. For Hall of Fame recognition, rarely is fielding equated into the formula. Martinez batted .312 for 18 seasons. If there wasn't a DH, does anyone think that his bat would have been left out because he wasn't a strong fielder? Seattle would have hid him in left field or 1st base as baseball has done for a long time. But since the DH was allowed in the AL, this wasn't necessary. Plus Martinez was clutch. If the game was on the line with a guy on base and he came to the plate, he ripped the ball into an open area of the field, consistently.

The question isn't is Edgar Martinez worthy of the Hall of Fame. He is. The question is, do we start to recognize DH's as full fledged position players or let's get rid of the DH. Because if you don't recognize something that has been around for 40 years as significant, then get rid of it.

Cy

[rdixon1208]

Regarding Edgar Martinez, that's a nice Batting Average, but 2247 hits 309 HR's and 1261 RBI's isn't that impressive. Especially for his era. When I think or Edgar Martinez, I think good hitter....not HOFer. Below is a list of his most similar batters according to Baseball-Reference. There's not a HOFer on the list in my opinion....even though some of those guys could play the field too.

Will Clark
Todd Helton
John Olerud
Moises Alou
Magglio Ordonez
Bob Johnson
Bernie Williams
Paul O'Neill
Ellis Burks
Carlos Lee

[z28jd]

Martinez was a great hitter but if he had to play the field he would've likely been nowhere near the hitter he was. He was moved to DH because of nagging injuries and if he was forced to play the field 9 innings a game he would've missed many more games, probably been injured more often and not had the career as a hitter he had. The DH role definitely helped pad his offensive stats.

The comparison to a reliever is actually a good one because I'd never vote in any reliever, especially a one inning one. I don't care how good they are, it is one inning, it isnt always a tight situation, it isnt always the heart of a tough lineup theyre facing and they don't even play half the teams games. Definitely an overrated position. If you found some guy who pinch hit his entire career and hit .300 every year I wouldn't even think of voting him in no matter how impressive that feat is.

[novakjr]

Regarding Edgar Martinez. I wouldn't be against him getting in. But I'm also not gonna lobby for the guy either...The "best DH" thing is overdone and irrelevant...The Designated Hitter, while a position in a batting line-up, is also a position for players without a legit position. Forget the "designated" part, and just focus on the "hitter". Because, at it's core, that's all they are...I've said it before, and I'll say it again.(please pardon the caps) ANY PLAYER AT ANY POSITION IS A DH THAT HAPPENS TO ALSO PLAY DEFENSE. Basically, you can't judge a DH solely against other DH's. You must judge him against EVERYBODY on the field EVER!!!! Babe Ruth(minus the pitching years)=HITTER. Reggie Jackson=Hitter. Mike Schmidt=Hitter. Willie Mays=Hitter. Albert Belle=Hitter(sorry, just had to throw him in there). So on, and so on. EVERYBODY. If Edgar were at any "corner position" with those stats, would he be in? Probably not.. If he were an up the middle player? Probably. But let's face it, those are the key defensive positions, and it perfectly acceptable to give up some offense for a solid defensive presence.. Which Edgar certainly wasn't...

Again, I've got nothing against Edgar, but the truth is the truth...And I've stated nothing but the truth..

[packs]

I think Edgar is a definite HOFer. He's an old school player. He's not the kind of guy where you can just look at his stats. If you saw him play then you know how good he was.

Sometimes you have to point to stats to make a case for a guy's career. Other times you "just know." I don't think voters ever looked at stats when they were deciding who got in and who didn't in the old days. They just "knew" if you were a HOFer, which might explain how seemingly marginal guys like Ted Lyons, Rabbit Maranville, Ray Schalk and Jesse Haines et al were voted in. It's hard to tell looking at their stats. But what if we saw them play? How would we feel?

[rdixon1208]

I think Edgar is a definite HOFer. He's an old school player. He's not the kind of guy where you can just look at his stats. If you saw him play then you know how good he was.

Sometimes you have to point to stats to make a case for a guy's career. Other times you "just know." I don't think voters ever looked at stats when they were deciding who got in and who didn't in the old days. They just "knew" if you were a HOFer, which might explain how seemingly marginal guys like Ted Lyons, Rabbit Maranville, Ray Schalk and Jesse Haines et al were voted in. It's hard to tell looking at their stats. But what if we saw them play? How would we feel?

When a guy keeps a single from turning into a double because of his defensive ability it doesn't show up in the stat sheet. If you do that enough times over a long enough period of time you may be remembered as a guy that outplayed his stats. But Edgar Martinez was only a hitter. His stats tell the whole story....Not a HOFer.

[HRBAKER]

The question isn't is Edgar Martinez worthy of the Hall of Fame. He is. The question is, do we start to recognize DH's as full fledged position players or let's get rid of the DH. Because if you don't recognize something that has been around for 40 years as significant, then get rid of it.


IMO, Edgar is not a HOFer and I would get rid of the DH tomorrow.

[BleedinBlue]

IMO, Edgar is not a HOFer and I would get rid of the DH tomorrow.

+1

[sycks22]

People are talking about how much easier it is to be just a DH instead of playing the field. I would argue that playing the field keeps many player's minds in the game, case in point what happened to Adam Dunn this year? He hits 40 bombs / year when he's in the OF, but once he DH's he loses focus and hits .170 something. Also my favorite player Frank "The big hurt" Thomas was a much better hitter when he was playing 1B (back to back MVPs) than he was later in his career as a DH. Staying warm and focused for the 30-45 minutes between at bats is not to be over looked. What do you guys think about Thome? He's DHed for the last 7-8 years for the most part.

[z28jd]

People are talking about how much easier it is to be just a DH instead of playing the field. I would argue that playing the field keeps many player's minds in the game, case in point what happened to Adam Dunn this year? He hits 40 bombs / year when he's in the OF, but once he DH's he loses focus and hits .170 something. Also my favorite player Frank "The big hurt" Thomas was a much better hitter when he was playing 1B (back to back MVPs) than he was later in his career as a DH. Staying warm and focused for the 30-45 minutes between at bats is not to be over looked. What do you guys think about Thome? He's DHed for the last 7-8 years for the most part.


In the case of Thome, Thomas and especially Martinez, the position is considered easier for them because there is no way they could've taken the grind of playing the field added on to their time as a hitter. Martinez was injured in 1993, he never fully recovered from that, there is no way he plays another 1500 career games if he has to play the field too so even if he somehow hit just as well playing through the pain the overall stats he amassed would most certainly be worse. Without the DH he may not have made it through the 2000 season. Martinez was pretty bad in 1993 when he first got injured and nothing great in 1994 but as soon as he moved off the astroturf and onto the bench in 1995, he was still battling nagging injuries but was able to play almost everyday anyway and he excelled at the plate.

Thome actually played almost 1000 more games in the field than Martinez so really the only thing you can say about him is it is highly doubtful he would've reached 600 homers without the DH rule. Thomas played about 400 more games in the field than Martinez so his numbers are padded by the DH but he put up no doubt hall of fame numbers so even if you factor in the DH there shouldn't be any question with him making it

[Tomman1961]

The veteran's committee need to get Gil Hodges in.

[mr2686]

The veteran's committee need to get Gil Hodges in.

You are absolutely correct. Hodges retired with the 3rd highest homerun total for a righthander...and Mays had just past him. He led all 1st baseman in homeruns in the 50's and was 2nd in Homeruns and RBI's overall in the 50's (Snider was first). He won the first 3 gold gloves in his last 3 years as a full time firstbaseman and by all accounts he was one of the best firstbaseman of all time (at that time). Since he died so young, I don't feel it's unreasonable to add what a great job he did as a manager of some bad or average teams either.

[yanks12025]

Going by stats Jackie Robinson shouldn't be in the hall of fame. He just had basic stats. I know he didnt start his career till 28 and is the first black player in mlb.

[FrankWakefield]

And to add to what Mike just said about Mr. Hodges, from the first person accounts I've heard, Mr. Hodges was a kind gentleman.

[doug.goodman]

This seems like a fitting link...

http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/2012/01/13/name-dropping-herman-long/

Doug

[Tabe]

There is absolutely no proof that Jeff Bagwell ever took PEDs or steroids. He should go in with Morris next year.
Sure, there's no proof. However, he did:

- gain like 40-50 lbs of muscle during his career
- went from a career high of 20 HRs in 1993 to 39 in 1994, while playing in only 2/3 of a season
- was teammates with Ken Caminiti, an admitted 'roid user
- was teammates with Steve Finley, a widely-suspected 'roid user
- was teammates with Luis Gonzalez, another widely-suspected 'roid user
- had multiple joint injuries while playing a position that requires basically no throwing

Obviously, I have no proof that Bagwell did steroids. To me, however, the idea that he DIDN'T is pretty much laughable.

Tabe

[Tabe]

Sure, if he had lived, Munson could have put up a few more good seasons to raise his OPS+. However, if Munson had played as long as Simmons did, it is also likely that he would have had a drop off in production and his OPS+ would have fallen
Here's the dirty little secret about Thurman Munson:

He was 1 step from being washed up when he passed away. Any semblance of power was gone from his game (3 HRs in 97 games in 1979, 6 in 154 in 1978). He hit .288 in 1979 was it was obvious he was slowing down and was just about finished. If he had lived, he likely would have played through about 1981, put up another 12 HRs (tops), and 300 hits. And he still would have been short of HOF'er credentials.

Tabe

[Tabe]

Even if you don't think Rizzuto was a HOF player there is no doubt at all that he was a HOF Broadcaster. Whether you call him a player or a broadcaster is semantics but the bottom line is he IS a HOFer.
Broadcasters aren't HOF'ers. If you look at the list of guys in the HOF'ers, there are no broadcasters on that list (as broadcasters). Broadcasters have a separate wing and are given the Ford Frick Award but they aren't HOF'ers.

Tabe

[mr2686]

Broadcasters aren't HOF'ers. If you look at the list of guys in the HOF'ers, there are no broadcasters on that list (as broadcasters). Broadcasters have a separate wing and are given the Ford Frick Award but they aren't HOF'ers.


You are technically correct, however, for the most part they are still called HOFers, and just because they are part of the broadcaster wing or the print media wing, does not diminish their accomplishments or status in the HOF museum. As a side note, many collectors that collect HOF autographs do not collect the broadcasters or sports writers, but some do and they do make for some interesting additions for the HOF collection especially when some of those members were also on some championship teams, like Jerry Coleman, Joe Garagiola, Tony Kubek, etc.

[howard38]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[packs]

We're still dealing with semantics which is what I acknowledged in my post. Rizzuto is a HOFer no matter how you slice it. He belongs in the HOF whether you personally decide it should be as a broadcaster or a player. Dave Concepcion does not belong in the HOF at all.

[Chris Counts]

Personally, I would like to see more — and not less — players get inducted. But no matter how you slice it, if you go by stats alone, Rizzuto is a borderline candidate as a player. I put him slightly below Pee Wee Reese and slightly above Maury Wills and Dave Concepcion. People can talk all day long about intangibles, but that's how Rabbit Maranville and Bobby Wallace got in. A debate about intangibles will never be resolved. I'd take Alan Trammel or Cecil Travis over any of the previously mentioned shortstops. Travis — with his .314 lifetime average — gets short-changed because he didn't play long enough, but he also was never the same after the Battle of the Bulge. That should count for something ...

[spec]

You are technically correct, however, for the most part they are still called HOFers, and just because they are part of the broadcaster wing or the print media wing, does not diminish their accomplishments or status in the HOF museum. As a side note, many collectors that collect HOF autographs do not collect the broadcasters or sports writers, but some do and they do make for some interesting additions for the HOF collection especially when some of those members were also on some championship teams, like Jerry Coleman, Joe Garagiola, Tony Kubek, etc.

Clarifying further, there is no writers wing nor a broadcasters wing at the Baseball Hall of Fame. Though writers and broadcasters perpetuate the myth by referring to their honored colleagues as Hall of Fame writers or broadcasters, the annual winners of the Spink (writers) and Frick (broadcasters) awards for lifetime contributions to the game do not have plaques in the Hall; instead their names are engraved on a plaque at the Hall's library that is much more reminiscent of the Employee of the Month plaque at your local supermarket that the plaques in the Hall. These facts are not stated to diminish the accomplishments of these men, just to set the record straight.
Bob Richardson

[bbcard1]

I think, here's the scary part...without looking it up...I would put Harold Baines in far before Edgar Martinez. There was a time Baines was the most feared hitter in the game...I don't think Edgar ever achieved that.

[sycks22]

I know it more current, but ESPN just did a write up about determining the top players in every 5 year period starting in the '70's. It's crazy how many times Boggs is in there.

To the guy who wrote about wanting to see more players instead of less in the hall, doesn't that water down the HOF? Shouldn't only the top players make it instead of just average players? When I think of the hall I think Cobb / Wagner / Mays and when guys like Sutter and Rice make it the HOF loses its luster.

[glynparson]

I feel the hall of fame is there to tell the story of the sport and therefore believe in inducting more players, and for reasons other than just stats, but also in what they added to the story of the game.

[Chris Counts]

"To the guy who wrote about wanting to see more players instead of less in the hall, doesn't that water down the HOF? Shouldn't only the top players make it instead of just average players?"

Pete, As far as I can tell, there are no "average" players in the Hall of Fame, unless they got there for something else. There are a couple dozen players, though, who were essentially excellent players, but not worthy of being in the Hall of Fame. Most of these guys played in the 1920s and 1930s, and many were friends or teammates of Frankie Frisch, who played a key role in their election. So adding post-WWII players who were as good or better than these borderline inductees does nothing to dilute the existing standards of the Hall of Fame.

More importantly, in my mind, is the need for baseball to engage future generations of fans. A huge part of baseball's charm and popularity is its rich and colorful history. Baseball fans love to compare their heroes with those of earlier eras.

How do you explain to the casual fan — who's already saturated with news of steroid scandals, ownership scandals and a bumbling troll of a commissioner — that his heroes or his dad's heroes, guys like Tony Oliva, Dick Allen, Minnie Minoso, Luis Tiant, Alan Trammell, are not worthy of being in the Hall of Fame, but Ross Youngs, Highpockets Kelly, Dave Bancroft, Travis Jackson, Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines are good enough? To the casual fan who looks at the numbers, it just looks like incompetence or cronyism (which it basically is). Hardly the stuff that makes new fans want to learn more about the game's history — or care about its future ...

Now how is it that Jim Rice isn't worthy of being in the Hall of Fame? His stats look a heck of lot more impressive when you take away the steroid-induced stats that followed his career. I watched a lot of baseball in the 1970s and I'm not convinced there was a hitter in that decade that pitchers feared more. His OPS, by the way, is slightly higher than Reggie Jackson's. Nobody questions Reggie's merits. Just the same way nobody would ever question Roberto Clemente's merits, even though Minoso — who people will argue against all day long — has a higher OPS AND was likely as good a fielder ...

[Tabe]

I think, here's the scary part...without looking it up...I would put Harold Baines in far before Edgar Martinez. There was a time Baines was the most feared hitter in the game...I don't think Edgar ever achieved that.

There was never a time when Baines was the "most feared hitter in the game". Never. His best years - 1982 to 1985 - were FAR surpassed by Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly. And Wade Boggs. After that, you've got Canseco and McGwire. And then Frank Thomas.

My problem with Baines is that he was a DH who really never put up great numbers. Lots of very good numbers but nothing GREAT. I suppose you could make a case for his .304/29/94 in 1984 or his .309/22/113 in 1985. But does that in any way compare to Edgar Martinez winning 2 batting titles (hitting .327 or higher 5 times), 145 RBI in 2000 (6 seasons over 100 RBI), and career OPS+ of 147 (vs 120 for Baines)? I don't think so.

Baines wins in longevity but, in every other way, Edgar was the superior player.

Tabe

[Orioles1954]

What is wrong with having very good numbers over a very long period of time? In baseball history, how many players have played at least 20 years like Baines? Look at his comps on baseball reference. There are 5 Hall of Famers including Perez, Kaline and others. With Martinez....there are none.

[Tabe]

What is wrong with having very good numbers over a very long period of time? In baseball history, how many players have played at least 20 years like Baines? Look at his comps on baseball reference. There are 5 Hall of Famers including Perez, Kaline and others. With Martinez....there are none.
Nothing wrong with it. But I think the HOF should be for great players. And if you're a DH, simply putting up "good" numbers year after year doesn't make you great.

Looking at comps on baseball reference just shows you career totals. Does anybody really think Al Kaline and Harold Baines were similar players? I think not. One was an all-time great RF widely considered a top player for nearly his entire career. The other was so poor defensively that he was already DH'ing by age 26 despite having injuries and was never considered an elite player.

The original comment was that Baines was "the most feared hitter in baseball". I was showing that that statement is false. And that Edgar was better - which he was.

Tabe

[rdixon1208]

If a guy's HOF status is widely debated, he probably should not be in or didn't deserve to get in.

[Tabe]

If a guy's HOF status is widely debated, he probably should be in or didn't deserve to get in.
Yep, I pretty much agree. There's probably been a couple guys that were severely under or overrated, whose status was never questioned, but your rule is a good one. If you gotta really make a case for a guy, he shouldn't be in.

Tabe

[Chris Counts]

"If you gotta really make a case for a guy, he shouldn't be in ..."

It would be a very small Hall of Fame under those circumstances. I was just reading how Harry Heilmann was his era's Ron Santo. There were actually voters who insisted he wasn't worthy even though he hit .342 lifetime (#12 on the all-time list) and won four batting titles, never hitting under .393. Like Santo, everybody felt guilty for ignoring him and he was elected the year after he died ...

I hear many fans and voters talk about how so and so isn't worthy of being in the Hall of Fame, but they rarely point to statistical evidence backing up their opinions. It's my belief that the debate has to start with a meaningful comparison of the numbers. I don't think the problem is too much debate, it's that too many debaters — including many voters — simply haven't done their research ...

[vargha]

Edgar should definitely be in. It's not his fault that he lingered in AAA while the Mariners had Jim Pressley at 3B. And Edgar was NOT a DH because he was injury prone (whoever said that). He was a 3B with absolutely no range. He was one of THE dominant hitters in his day (to whoever foolishly threw that lame attack at him). I leave you with these quotes from Baseball Reference:

Mike Scioscia: "Edgar's a Hall of Fame-caliber hitter. He's the one guy you didn't want to see come up there with the game on the line."

Dusty Baker: "He's one of best right-handed hitters ever seen"

Mariano Rivera: "He's the toughest batter I ever faced"