Question for the group regarding Hall of Fame eligibility....

[whitehse]

So I have a question for the group......

With the new veteran committees that have been formed by the Hall of Fame this past weekend, what are the chances of a guy who won 283 games in his career with 180 complete games with over 2400 strike outs and who won 16 gold gloves in his career getting into the Hall in the next four years?

Yes, I am speaking of Jim Kaat and I cannot help wonder if he even has a chance with the numbers he has. And with the rules changes, are there others who have been on the fringe that now have a better shot?

Any thoughts?

[con40]

Jim Kaat's chances are slim at best. He was a dependable starter who hung way past his shelf date.

I think the new committee will look more at dynamic players of the era who did not put up stats due to longevity. This group of players has been the most excluded from the modern era. Seems any player who hasn't hit 500 HRs, 3000 Hits, 300 Wins, 3000 Ks, or 400 saves has been left out.

My sense is we'll see new love for the following players (or others like them):

Steve Garvey
Don Mattingly
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker
Bobby Grich
Ted Simmons
Ron Guidry

[whitehse]

Jim Kaat's chances are slim at best. He was a dependable starter who hung way past his shelf date.

I think the new committee will look more at dynamic players of the era who did not put up stats due to longevity. This group of players has been the most excluded from the modern era. Seems any player who hasn't hit 500 HRs, 3000 Hits, 300 Wins, 3000 Ks, or 400 saves has been left out.

My sense is we'll see new love for the following players (or others like them):

Steve Garvey
Don Mattingly
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker
Bobby Grich
Ted Simmons
Ron Guidry

To use an overused phrase...are these players members of the hall of very good? Are they Hall worthy? I think you make an excellent point and even though these players were some of the best to play in their era, I cannot help but wonder if they will get the love they may deserve.

And for the record, the only one I do not agree with you is is Grich. I saw him play and he certainly was good but I just do not see him getting to the hall.

[OlderTheBetter]

Yes they were good players but rarely one of the top three in their league in any one season.

The Hall has more than enough players from that era and I don't want them
to dilute it any more than it already is by electing any of the guys just listed.

[paul]

Forgive my ignorance, but what new Veterans Committees were formed last weekend?

[nat]

They split baseball history up into four segments, with a Vet's committee for each. They'll meet according to some arcane schedule (so they don't all meet every year, or even on a regularly rotating basis).

Did they change the way that the ballot works? If not, they're not going to start electing people. The VC had a hard time electing people because committee members could list at most four people on their ballots, and they needed 75% (IIRC) to get elected. Since the candidates that the VC looks over almost by definition don't stand out (Willie Mays gets elected before the VC gets to take a look at him), there's unlikely to be enough of a consensus among the voters to get anyone over that 75% bar. If they wanted the VC to elect people they need to drop the % requirement or let voters vote for more than four candidates.

But really, I'm okay with the VC not electing anybody. We've already got Lloyd Waner, Jesse Haines, Highpockets Kelly, George Kell, and on and on in the hall of fame. For every Lou Whitaker who really deserves it but gets passed over, there's legions of very iffy candidates whom they could (and probably would) enshrine. Cooperstown doesn't need a plaque for Carlos Zambrano (to pick a random pitcher with more WAR than Jesse Haines).

[SAllen2556]

Whitaker and Trammell are going to get in - bet on it. And when they do, I don't want to hear any whining or complaining from you guys! :D

[darkhorse9]

The committee will fail without a Dale Murphy selection.

[DBesse27]

The committee will fail without a Dale Murphy selection.

Murphy and Garvey are the 2 snubs that stand out to me. More deserving than Raines, btw.

[Johnny630]

My two are Ken Boyer and Gil Hodges, followed closely by Dick Allen and Minnie Minoso.

The boat has probably left the pier on all of these guys, who knows, it's fun to talk about :-)

[DBesse27]

My two are Ken Boyer and Gil Hodges, followed closely by Dick Allen and Minnie Minoso.

The boat has probably left the pier on all of these guys, who knows, it's fun to talk about :-)

Minoso is a good one I forgot.

[bravos4evr]

Murphy and Garvey are the 2 snubs that stand out to me. More deserving than Raines, btw.

Nobody is a bigger Braves fan than I, BUT, Murph's career just fell off too quickly.

Garvey has the problem of playing a position of power and not bringing much to the table. If we just look at 1b WAR since 1945,Garvey falls 40th (behind guys like McGriff, Texiera, Will Clark, Mark Grace and Giambi)

Both of their counting stats and metrics fall below guys like Raines Raines is one of the top lead off men of all time. 66.4 WAR career, (more than Murph or Garvey) 808 stolen bases too! I think voters have punished him too much for having the bad luck to play at the same time as Henderson.

That being said, I think next year's ballot gets he and Bagwell in.

[irv]

Minoso is a good one I forgot.

The HOF should be embarrassed, Minnie Minoso isn't gracing their walls!

It's an absolute travesty, imo that he wasn't selected years ago, let alone last year, his last chance and while he was still alive. :mad:

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/110848566/minnie-minoso-first-latino-superstar-hof


Career highlights and awards
9× All-Star (1951–1954, 1957, 1959–1960²)
3× Gold Glove Award (1957, 1959, 1960)
3× AL stolen base leader (1951–1953)
Chicago White Sox #9 retired

[savedfrommyspokes]

If Puckett is in with 2 WS championships during a shortened career, why in the world is Munson with 2 WS championships, a ROY and MVP not in? Okay, so Munson only averaged 13 HR/80 RBI/.292 a season vs Puckett who averaged 19 HR/99 RBI/ .318 a season, but Munson was a catcher.

[nat]

Puckett was also a not-very-good choice. In general, there are enough weak hall of fame members that the "if x is in, y should be too" argument isn't a very good one. Not even his mom thinks that Jim Bottomley should be in the hall of fame, so the fact that Don Mattingly (for example) was better than Bottomley doesn't really help his case a whole lot.

The grievous oversights, IMHO (and ignoring guys who will get in eventually and guys who are kept out because of steroids) are Trammell, Whitaker, and I've come around on Grich. There are a few older guys who are qualified, Bill Dahlen comes to mind, but I have a hard time getting worked up over them. Being good at everything but great at nothing is a good way to get the HOF to ignore you, and that's what's going on with Whitaker and (to a lesser extent) Trammell. Their all-around-skill means that they ended up being just as valuable as more one-dimensional players who were more visible in producing their value (guys like Reggie Jackson). Grich had something of the same problem. Actually, another problem that all three of these guys have is that they're middle infielders, and the voters have always had a hard time adjusting for the fact that middle infielders simply don't hit like corner guys. With the rarest of exceptions, you just can't play a position like 2B or SS at the major league level, and still hit like a first baseman.

Raines is on the short-list for second-greatest lead off hitter ever. The common comparison is with Tony Gwynn. Compare 3931 times on base for Gwynn, 3935 for Raines. Gwynn got his through hits, Raines through walks. Hits are better, they can advance runners. But Raines makes up for it with an extra 500 stolen bases at a very good rate (13th all time on rate). Fortunately, it looks like Raines gets in this year. He'll probably share the stage with Jeff Bagwell and Trevor Hoffman (!?!).

As for the new guys on the ballot, I expect Vlad to get about 50% and go in pretty quickly. Maybe take him three ballots or something. Manny will get a steroids penalty and will clog up the ballot for a decade. Hard to say what will happen with Ivan Rodriguez.

[darkhorse9]

I've always hated the fact that Mickey Lolich's name is NEVER mentioned for the Hall of Fame. He had historic numbers, but was overshadowed by Bob Gibson and (worse) Denny McLain.

Consider:

In the 1965-74 decade, he struck out more (2,245) than any other major league pitcher. In the same decade, he had more wins (172), and more complete games (155) than any other AL pitcher.

His 2,679 strikeouts is the most in AL history by a left-hander. (Randy Johnson struck out 2,545 while pitching for AL teams, a number that includes strikeouts in inter-league play.)

His 2,832 career strikeouts in both leagues ranked in the top 10 in major league history when he retired in 1979.

He is the only left-hander with three complete World Series games in the same Series.

Lolich ranks among the Tigers' all-time leaders in many categories, including strikeouts (1st), shutouts (1st), and wins (3rd)

[Robs70sCards]

I never considered Minoso, so that was a nice little article. For whatever reason I had a couple older Mickey Lolich cards when I was a kid I used to oogle over his stats. Never even considered him so that's a nice tip of the hat.

I'll give you Trammell & Whitaker, I'll even agree on Steve Garvey, but no on the rest.

I was happy that Jim Rice mad it a few years ago. When I was a kid he was all over the place, regular cards, league leaders, loved that era of Boston. My first glove was a Fred Lynn glove so for awhile I was all about Fred Lynn and the Boston Red Sox, lol.

[rats60]

Trammell is the only guy that really stands out to me. He should go in as soon as the Veterans Committee elects him. The problem with Whitaker is what about Grich. Garvey, what about Keith Hernandez. Munson, what about Simmons. Murphy, what about Maris. When you let in borderline guys then you start pushing the boundary down. I think it is going to happen because steroid guys aren't getting in and they need to keep electing players.

[nat]

Whitaker and Grich are both well qualified. Putting Grich in wouldn't push the line down at all. WAR isn't everything, but it's pretty good, and Grich leads Craig Biggio by 5 (basically, one all-star quality season), to take one recent and well-qualified HOF second baseman.

"If Garvey, why not Hernandez" works, except that Garvey is hilariously under qualified, whereas Hernandez has a case. (Not one that I'd support, but a case.) It helps that Hernandez was probably the best defender ever at first base. Garvey, by contrast, has a 3 WAR lead over Travis Fryman. So if you think that Travis Fryman is pretty close to being a hall of famer, then Garvey has a case. If you think that Travis Fryman isn't anywhere close to being a hall of famer, probably best to forget about Garvey.

Munson probably would have had a good argument if he had lived. But it's hard to put together a hall of fame career in 11 seasons unless you're Sandy Koufax or something.

[the 'stache]

I have to disagree; Mickey Lolich is not a Hall of Famer. He was a pretty good pitcher for a while, but compared to his peers, he just doesn't measure up. And there's certainly nothing historic about his pitching performance. That's overstating it a bit.

His 7 year WAR peak is 38.6. There are 50 starters in the Hall, and they average a 50.3 7 year peak WAR. Lolich is ranked 112th all-time as a starter by JAWS. And, his career ERA + is 108. 100 is Major League average.

He finished second in the Cy Young once, and third once. And in those seasons, his ERA + was only 124 and 127. Hardly exemplary. He didn't receive any votes the other eight seasons where he was a full time starter, post 1967.

Wins in a decade isn't really a great way to evaluate a pitcher. A good pitcher can get a lot of wins on a great team, and the Tigers team he was on was very, very good. Multiple seasons of 90 + wins, including a 103 win season in 1968 when they won the World Series. Given his number of complete games, it doesn't surprise that he won a lot of games. But his pitching metrics, again, ERA +, WHIP and FIP, don't show he was anything spectacular.

Good pitcher, but not a Hall of Famer, in my opinion.

I've always hated the fact that Mickey Lolich's name is NEVER mentioned for the Hall of Fame. He had historic numbers, but was overshadowed by Bob Gibson and (worse) Denny McLain.

Consider:

In the 1965-74 decade, he struck out more (2,245) than any other major league pitcher. In the same decade, he had more wins (172), and more complete games (155) than any other AL pitcher.

His 2,679 strikeouts is the most in AL history by a left-hander. (Randy Johnson struck out 2,545 while pitching for AL teams, a number that includes strikeouts in inter-league play.)

His 2,832 career strikeouts in both leagues ranked in the top 10 in major league history when he retired in 1979.

He is the only left-hander with three complete World Series games in the same Series.

Lolich ranks among the Tigers' all-time leaders in many categories, including strikeouts (1st), shutouts (1st), and wins (3rd)

[brian1961]

Thanks Irv, for posting the excellent, compelling, article on Minnie Minoso. I always thought he should have been elected based on his playing performance. It never really occurred to me of Mr. Minoso's major contribution to MLB as a pioneer for talented Latinos to finally be brought to the majors. That really should have been the final contributing catalyst to elect him in the lucid(???!!!***##%%) minds of the Veterans Committee.

Now it's too late for the man to enjoy and savor the honor.:( to :mad:

This was not the first time this has happened....... ---Brian Powell

[Beatles Guy]

Ted Simmons should be in. Bench overshadowed him for sure and the Cardinals weren't very good in the 70's. His numbers are right up there with Gary Carter. In fact, he has a higher OPS, more hits, more RBI's and a higher AVG than Carter. Granted he was not the defensive player that Carter was, but he was above average.

[midwaylandscaping]

Dale Murphy >>> Maris by 8 miles IMO when I was looking over some comments. This new procedure may help, heavy emphasis on may, Dwight Evans. Like some others Trammell and Whitaker are almost locks to get in , and Jack Morris is going to waltz in.

[darkhorse9]

I have to disagree; Mickey Lolich is not a Hall of Famer. He was a pretty good pitcher for a while, but compared to his peers, he just doesn't measure up. And there's certainly nothing historic about his pitching performance. That's overstating it a bit.

His 7 year WAR peak is 38.6. There are 50 starters in the Hall, and they average a 50.3 7 year peak WAR. Lolich is ranked 112th all-time as a starter by JAWS. And, his career ERA + is 108. 100 is Major League average.





Lolich certainly deserves more consideration than Jack Morris.

[skil55voy]

A little humor: Terry Forster, highest batting average for anyone playing in over 500 games.

Games 620
AB 78
Runs 7
Hits 31
2B 4
3B 1
HR 0
RBI 7
BB 2
SO 9
Avg .397
OBP .413
SLG .467

[bravos4evr]

Lolich certainly deserves more consideration than Jack Morris.

I agree, Lolich has Morris beaten in WAR (64.6-55.8) ERA (3.44- 3.90) and in pretty much every other pertinent stat.

Morris was a good pitcher, but not nearly HOF material (and the small sample size of a couple of good world series starts isn't enough to get him in)

Heck Lolich is 28th in fWAR since 1920 among all starters and considering his innings pitched is in good company for HOF consideration.


Minoso was a good player, but career length hurts him a fair bit. He only had 10 years of positive contribution (yet played for 4 more not counting his "decades" stunt.) I have a tough time supporting someone with less than 60 WAR unless injury or tragedy shortened their career.

[JustinD]

Dale Murphy >>> Maris by 8 miles IMO when I was looking over some comments. This new procedure may help, heavy emphasis on may, Dwight Evans. Like some others Trammell and Whitaker are almost locks to get in , and Jack Morris is going to waltz in.


As a Detroiter I have to love this post.

The HOF snub of the 84' WS team is a sore point around here.

[clydepepper]

I have to disagree; Mickey Lolich is not a Hall of Famer. He was a pretty good pitcher for a while, but compared to his peers, he just doesn't measure up. And there's certainly nothing historic about his pitching performance. That's overstating it a bit.

His 7 year WAR peak is 38.6. There are 50 starters in the Hall, and they average a 50.3 7 year peak WAR. Lolich is ranked 112th all-time as a starter by JAWS. And, his career ERA + is 108. 100 is Major League average.

He finished second in the Cy Young once, and third once. And in those seasons, his ERA + was only 124 and 127. Hardly exemplary. He didn't receive any votes the other eight seasons where he was a full time starter, post 1967.

Wins in a decade isn't really a great way to evaluate a pitcher. A good pitcher can get a lot of wins on a great team, and the Tigers team he was on was very, very good. Multiple seasons of 90 + wins, including a 103 win season in 1968 when they won the World Series. Given his number of complete games, it doesn't surprise that he won a lot of games. But his pitching metrics, again, ERA +, WHIP and FIP, don't show he was anything spectacular.

Good pitcher, but not a Hall of Famer, in my opinion.


Bill- While I agree with you that Lolich is not a Hall of Famer, I have to point two instances of his pitching performances being historic:


1.) He won three games in the 1968 World Series culminating with breaking Bob Gibson's 7-game World Series winning-streak - oh, and clinching the championship for the Tigers.

2.) In 1971, he amassed 376 Innings Pitched which were the most by any pitcher since Grover Cleveland Alexander threw 388 in 1917.

Now, I'd call both of those pretty darn historic.

As for my opinion on who's out that should be in...I have to go back to the island again:

Minnie Minoso and Luis Tiant
Tiant's stats compare favorably to both Drysdale and Hunter, though I concede that those two are border-line at best.

But, Hey - Eppa Rixey is in there - so why not Lolich and Kaat and Tommy John!

[the 'stache]

Not Hall of Fame worthy. I made a typo last night when I said his career ERA + was 108. It's 104. For his career, he was 4% better than the average Hall of Fame pitcher. And he deserves induction into Cooperstown? Really?


Heck Lolich is 28th in fWAR since 1920 among all starters and considering his innings pitched is in good company for HOF consideration.
.

Jack Morris isn't Hall of Fame worthy, either.

Lolich certainly deserves more consideration than Jack Morris.

I wouldn't call either one of those things historic.

Historic is hitting in 56 games in a row, or batting .400 in the live ball era. Being the pitcher that ends another pitcher's World Series winning streak is a nice talking point, but you're really overselling that if you consider it an historic feat.

And pitching 388 innings, while impressive, is not what I'd call historic, either.



Bill- While I agree with you that Lolich is not a Hall of Famer, I have to point two instances of his pitching performances being historic:

1.) He won three games in the 1968 World Series culminating with breaking Bob Gibson's 7-game World Series winning-streak - oh, and clinching the championship for the Tigers.

2.) In 1971, he amassed 376 Innings Pitched which were the most by any pitcher since Grover Cleveland Alexander threw 388 in 1917.

Now, I'd call both of those pretty darn historic.

[stargell1]

Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Steve Garvey

All 3 were superstars and should be in.

[nat]

"Lolich certainly deserves more consideration than Jack Morris."

I dunno, zero isn't greater than zero.


And let's keep a lid on the fWAR. Very few pitchers have a substantial impact on batting average on balls in play; year to year differences are almost all random variation. But when we're talking about hall of fame qualifications we're not talking about two or three hundred innings, we're talking about thousands and thousands. I.e., enough for us to be confident that we're seeing a real skill and not random variation. For hall of fame discussions you want bWAR.

[bravos4evr]

"Lolich certainly deserves more consideration than Jack Morris."

I dunno, zero isn't greater than zero.


And let's keep a lid on the fWAR. Very few pitchers have a substantial impact on batting average on balls in play; year to year differences are almost all random variation. But when we're talking about hall of fame qualifications we're not talking about two or three hundred innings, we're talking about thousands and thousands. I.e., enough for us to be confident that we're seeing a real skill and not random variation. For hall of fame discussions you want bWAR.

bwar is fairly lousy, baseball reference is an antiquated system ERA+??? that's like 1995 saber technology. FIP stabilizes over time and as you said, the large sample size evens things out, sure it might underestimate uber ground ball pitchers a touch, but not enough to make that much difference. (if you consider that WAR isn't a perfect system anyway)

[midwaylandscaping]

As a Detroiter I have to love this post.

The HOF snub of the 84' WS team is a sore point around here.


84 Tigers. That is one of the all time great teams that is always overlooked.

[DBesse27]

My guy is in and that's all I care about :)

[Harliduck]

Edgar Martinez most likely won't cut it with the regular vote, I look for the veterans committee on his era to put him in. As a Seattle homer, I will celebrate. I don't care about stats, just listen to his peers.


I'm still in the Gil Hodges camp. Dominate player, historic Manager achievement (69 Miracle Mets). His exclusion surprises me...with such a Yankee and Dodger bias you would think he would have been a no brainer.

I grew up in the 80's and I'll be honest, when I think of superstars from that era I was not thinking Trammel, Whitaker, Morris...well, maybe Morris...and I loved the 84 Tigers. They were great players, but I don't get it...maybe because I didn't live in or near Detroit. I'm not trying to rile anyone up, and I am sure one could make the same comments to me about Edgar. Grich? Reading his name in this thread is the first time I have ever heard anyone talk of him and the hall. That name surprised me. Simmons? He played in an era of great catchers and was overshadowed, but his stats and how I remember him I do believe he has a shot. Imagine a Ted Simmons in today's market, he would be a superstar. I am not sure I could say that about Trammel and Whitaker. Whitaker led the league only 1 time in ANY stat on his baseball card, games played in the strike shortened 1981 season. Dominate? In 19 years? He batted over .300 once. Long above average career. Same for Trammel...he led the league twice in Sac's...twice. Nothing else. You can throw saber metrics at me all day long, if you can't lead the league during your era in ANYTHING, you were not dominate. I guess both were better than Barry Larkin, he never lead the league in anything, ever. I am sure he loves PED's more than anyone...

Great article on Minoso...his cultural additions I believe were enough. When I was a kid I actually thought he was already in. A shame he died without this honor.

I would not be upset for Tommy John as well...his above average (not enough) stats are more to do with longevity, but his addition to the game forever changed the game and many, many players after him. His name is synonymous with current baseball, how many players can say that?

[nat]

This hits both of the points that I made above: all-around players get ignored, and middle infielders are unfairly held to the offensive standards of corner players.

Trammell, Whitaker, and Grich weren't amazing at any one thing. But they were good at pretty much everything. You can be a great player by being one-dimensional (so long as you're very very good in that one dimension), or you can be a great player by being good everywhere (while being outstanding nowhere). All three of them hit for good, but not great, power, got on base well (but weren't the best), played good defense (but they weren't Ozzie), and so on. Yes, Ozzie was the better defensive player, but they were all better than him at the bat. Sure, Reggie Jackson was a better hitter, but it's a good thing that Jackson didn't try playing shortstop.

Relatedly, it's probably a mistake to ask middle infielders to lead the league in offensive categories. The class of players who can play 2B or SS is pretty small. The intersection of that class with the class of players who can lead the league in major offensive categories is tiny. Different positions have different offensive expectations, which is a fact that we should recognize when discussing the hall of fame.

[bravos4evr]

there tends to be 3 kinds of HOF players:

1- those who accumulate counting stats via shorter careers with more dominant numbers - like say Pedro, Koufax or Dimaggio

2- those who who accumulate stats via very long careers of solid production - like Eddie Murray or Pete Rose

3- those who do both (the inner circle) of Ruth, Aaron, Mays,Ted Williams


I think all deserve inclusion, as there is more than one way to have an elite career.