Let's talk about Hall of Fame candidates who have been "neglected"

[tedzan]

Francis Joseph "Lefty" O'Doul is one of my favorite guys in Baseball. It mystifies me, why Lefty O'Doul is not in the BB Hall of Fame.
For starters, Lefty's career BA is an outstanding .349 over a Major League career that spanned 11 years. His hitting ability is high-lighted by a .398 BA with
254 Hits, 32 HR's, 122 RBI's, while playing for the Phillies in 1929. He followed that up with a .383 BA in 1930. I could continue with all the reasons why he
should have been enshrined in the Hall of Fame, but I leave it to you to read his SABR write-up...... https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/lefty-odoul/

Between his playing years, and his years as a Manager in the PCL, Lefty is a tremendous example of Baseball at it's best.

Let's hear your stories of some of the BB players who you feel have been neglected to be in inducted in Baseball's Hall of Fame.


https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/tedzan77/1927xZeenutODoul.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/GeoMillerLeftyODoulx50.jpg

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/DeLong1933GoudeyODoulx50.jpghttps://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/tedzan77/1933GoudeyODoul.jpg


https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1952MomsCookiesODoulx50.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/leftyodoulpostcard.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[ClementeFanOh]

Bad Bill Dahlen!

Trent King

[G1911]

The person who most belongs in the Hall of Fame but is not in is (in my opinion) James Creighton, who seems more than anyone to have shifted the game from offense vs. defense to being oriented around pitcher vs. batter. The way the veteran committees work now suggests he ain't getting in anytime soon either.

O'Doul was a starter for five seasons and played 970 games. I think he has a good case for his contributions to the game paired with his obvious talent in a very short career, but his contributions to the game are central in a country that the Hall of Fame is not set up to recognize.

I would vote for Bill Dahlen.

I am surprised Gil Hodges is not in, with his managing of the 1968 Mets as the cherry on top to an excellent career with a mythologized team.

Kenny Lofton may or may not deserve it, but he sure deserved to actually be considered. I hope he gets an honest examination someday.

[Casey2296]

I'll agree on Lefty O'Doul and Dahlen, would also add Dummy Hoy, Coombs, Magee, & Wood.
_

[Seven]

Wonderful post, Ted!

I would normally say Minnie Minoso, as I think he's put together a more than impressive resume. I feel like he's defintely gotten some more attention lately though, with Negro League Stats being worked in. Luis tiant is another, who I think really deserves the nod, as he had some very impressive years, with the Red Sox

In recent history, Kenny Lofton would be another player that had some incredible years on the field, only to immediately fall off the ballot.

Maybe a less conventional pick, due to the circumstances, and maybe belongs more in the "Hall of Fame talent" category, but, Cecil Travis deserves some consideration. He was a hell of a ballplayer, put together 8 high quality seasons before the War. Suffered frostbite, comes back and is a shell of his former self. I think he technically hits the service time requirement, but will probably never get in.

[boysblue]

Whenever one of these types of 'conversations' starts up I always mention Dave Steib. I admit my bias as a Blue Jays fan, but to me he was--along with Jack Morris, I suppose--the dominant AL starter of the '80s.

A horse who got absolutely robbed in '84 Cy Young voting (fourth? seriously?!). Check it out: Pete Vukovich had nowhere near the year Steib had. There was a five-year stretch where everytime he took the ball there was a chance that he might toss a no-no. He did: once. Though he lost a couple of others in the ninth, and came within a whisker of tossing back-to-back no-hitters if memory serves. And all of this with a lousy team behind him and an equally lousy bullpen to save games for him (that might explain why he threw so many innings and so many complete games).

Never had a real shot at the post-season either: he was past-it by the time the Jays got good as team. I have always maintained that had he played for a quality team--especially one with a large following--Dave Steib would be a borderline HOFer.

[Topnotchsy]

I'll echo some of the names already mentioned:

- Lefty O'Doul - Playing career + huge role in baseball's popularity in Japan + PCL manager
- Kenny Lofton - Way better career than Lou Brock. Much better fielder, way better baserunner (Brock's caught stealing's almost completely mitigated the value of his stolen bases
- Minnie Minoso - Think he warrants entry, particularly when combining his Negro League career (which was short) with his career in the MLB. (Using MLB in the way it was used then. I recognize that the Negro Leagues are now officially a Major League).
- Johan Santana - I much prefer a Hall-of-Fame with the players who were elite, even if only for a shorter period of time. Santana was the best pitcher in baseball for roughly 5 years. I'll take him in over Jack Morris personally (though I am sure others disagree).
- Andruw Jones - Arguably the best defensive centerfielder ever. 400+ home runs.
- Dick "Cannonball" Redding - One of the greatest pitchers to ever play in the Negro Leagues.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Rick Reuschel or however you spell it might have been a bit better than his counting stats.

Dewey Evans had a nice career.

There are the usual suspects like Gil Hodges and Dale Murphy and Tony Oliva and Dick Allen.

One of my favorites, Luis Tiant.

Jim Kaat and Tommy John with close to 300 wins each.

[egri]

Billy Pierce.

[Mike D.]

I believe there are a bunch of 2nd basemen who deserve enshrinement.

In rough order, Whitaker, Grich, Randolph, Kent, Utley, Pedroia, maybe Kinsler.

Cano would also be on the list if he hadn't been stupid and popped for steroids (and twice, no less).

[G1911]

Minoso really should be in, it's long overdue at this point.

Curt Schilling is clearly a HOFer, I'm fine with a world where a pitcher of his quality is not in, but by the Hall's standards with their SP picks the last decade, he belongs.

Jeff Kent has a very good case as one of the best hitting 2B ever, but seems to be getting little real consideration and is going to fall off the ballot.

For the pre-war side, Larry Doyle has a good case and has not been mentioned, I think.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If you think 3B is underrepresented, Ken Boyer.

[Orioles1954]

Cecil Travis

[bbcard1]

The problem with Lefty O'Doul is the problem with Buck O'Neil. They made significant contributions, but their contributions do not fit within the parameters of the way hall of fame voters are instructed to cast their votes. Of course, Curt Schilling is a case in point that many of the voters don't care.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Cecil Travis

I don't think you can make assumptions about years someone never played, although obviously before the war he was headed in that direction. If I recall Kenny Cole and I debated this one a while back. Knowing Kenny, he probably thinks he won lol.

[Jason19th]

Firpo Marberry should be in as the first great relief pitcher. 148 wins, 99 saves and a .627 winning percentage. Was Rollie Fingers before Rollie was even born.

[tedzan]

"Turkey Mike" Donlin is one of my favorite T206 subjects. His life story is part of the reason why I like him.
In 1905, John McGraw made Donlin the Captain of the New York Giants....and Mike enjoyed his best season, batting a career-high .356, with 216 Hits
and Mike led the NL with 124 Runs. Mike's career BA = .333, if he had taken his BB career more seriously.... "he would have been a contender" …..for
the Hall of Fame. Instead, he and his wife were very much devoted to Vaudeville. In New York City they were the "Talk of the Town".

Hey Guys.... you can catch "Turkey Mike" on the TCM Channel when they are featuring the old Silent Movies. Donlin appeared in 65 movies from 1914
to 1933. Including, the movie classic "The General", and the 1927 very popular BB movie...."Slide Kelly Slide".


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/T206DonlinSweetCap3x4Fac30x.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/DonlinCycle460x25.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/DonlinCycle460x25bx.jpg
SWEET CAPORAL 350-460 Factory #30


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[G1911]

Donlin is an interesting guy, but he was a starter for 5 seasons. For a guy whose claim to baseball greatness is a .333 batting average, 1,282 hits is a very small amount.

I'd put him in the "great talent, wasted his career and much of his life" category of what-could-have-been's.

Chick Hafey was a starter for 7 years, the player I can think of with the shortest real tenure in the modern major leagues who made the Hall (and whose election is almost universally derided).

[drcy]

Creighton obviously should be in there

[riggs336]

I always mention Ken Boyer and Vada Pinson.

[FrankWakefield]

I think the Hall wasn't too far off track when I was a kid...

I recall a book My Greatest Day in Baseball, by Carmichael, I read it several times as a kid; one time I read it and then started and finished it a second time... Most of Those guys belonged in the Hall, and most of those guys were the only ones who belonged in the Hall.

I agree with:

O'Doul
Dahlen
Kaat

I'd DEFINETLY add Ed Reulbach

I could live with Travis Jackson and Joe Wood

No to Lofton, Schilling, A Jones... and others.

Hodges and Murphy were REALLY good guys; but to me they fall a bit short and that 'good guy' and 'deserving' sentiment doesn't and shouldn't tip the scales. Dick Allen wasn't a good guy, but wasn't as bad as some think, I could almost live with him getting in.

I'm a Cardinals fan, starting with seeing Mr. Musial play in 1963. Boyer was a dependable RBI / cleanup hitter in 1964... but he falls a bit short of what I think of as Hall standards. I think Molina will get in, I'm definitely a Molina fan, but I'm thinking he's right at the threshold and needs a bit more...

It's not little league soccer where everyone plays, everyone is included, everyone gets to play a lot, everyone gets a gold star, and everyone gets a trophy. There's already a couple of dozen that I think should have never gone in, and that's realistically unfixable. Let's not compound that by adding more sow's ears to what should have been only silk purses.

[G1911]

If Reulbach is a HOFer, I don't see how Schilling isn't, statistically.

[FrankWakefield]

Get a copy of Bill James' Historical Baseball Abstract and read the two page article "Ed Who"

First edition...

[G1911]

I've read it. Reulbach was a fine pitcher. He pitched almost 1,000 innings less than Schilling, with an ERA higher after you adjust for context. I have a hard time seeing how he is a HOFer and Schilling is not still.

[shagrotn77]

Gil Hodges is probably the most glaring omission IMO. Of course, he actually got in in 1994, only to have Ted Williams deny the deciding vote in an act of pure evil, but I digress. I'm not as high on Dahlen as many others are, but I hope he gets in since I have his Mayo rookie :). In terms of modern players whose candidacies have been neglected, I'll go with Fred McGriff. He was a model of consistency and if he had hit just 7 more HR, he probably would have been first ballot.

[cardsagain74]

Colavito.

Had the same career numbers as Gil Hodges despite playing in pitchers' parks (so his career OPS+ is a lot higher).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Who here of a certain age didn't think back in the day that Steve Garvey was a lock HOFer? The metrics really were not kind to him.

[paul]

George Van Haltren.
Pete Browning (but I'd hate to have to get one of his cards).

[Tabe]

Albert Belle - one dominant season after another before his career was ended by injury.

Jim Edmonds - 393 homers and elite defensive CF

[FrankWakefield]

George van Haltren would be a good addition.

Schilling... I concede to bias against him. He won 70 more games than he lost. Ed Reulbach won 76 more games than he lost, while pitching in about 170 fewer games, .632 winning compared to .597. Reulbach is ranked 45th in lifetime winning percentage, Schilling 127th. Both are in lofty company. Spud Chandler leads that list.

Bill James' Politics of Glory (I think original edition is best) covers how Hafey and a few others got into the Hall who arguably shouldn't have. Hafey was a Cardinal, as was his HOF mentor Frankie Frisch.

Thank You for reading the Ed Who article... I'm a fan of his, obviously. I don't the the 1908 Cubs even make it to the World Series without him. And if they hadn't, we'd have a few less Cubs cards in T206. The successful teams of the day have more cards.

Edmonds... as a Cardinal I should advocate his induction, but I just think that the line oughta be just a tiny bit beyond. Hall of Fame, not Mansion of Fame. The Few, like with the Marines.

[perezfan]

Vada Pinson, Gil Hodges, Dale Murphy, Curt Schilling and Dummy Hoy would be my top 5.

A bunch of players with nothing at all in common, but all deserving IMHO. Would also love to see Dave Concepcion and George Foster get in some day, but that's more of a sentimental thing.

[moogpowell]

Alone on offense you can make a strong argument for the HOF. Throw in his defense and the case becomes better. Granted, he was hardly likable or someone you'd want to split a croissant with. Moreover, cocaine always hung over his candidacy. But if HOF voters overlooked it for Tim Raines it why should that be an issue for Parker?

Moreover, the idiocy of 3,000 hits equaling automatic entry (Rose aside) rears its ugly head. If Parker had 288 more hits he would be a HOF lock, given historical precedent. That's silly because if he averaged 15 more hits per year to hit 3,000 that wouldn't have materially influenced his offensive profile.

[perezfan]

Alone on offense you can make a strong argument for the HOF. Throw in his defense and the case becomes better. Granted, he was hardly likable or someone you'd want to split a croissant with. Moreover, cocaine always hung over his candidacy. But if HOF voters overlooked it for Tim Raines it why should that be an issue for Parker?

Moreover, the idiocy of 3,000 hits equaling automatic entry (Rose aside) rears its ugly head. If Parker had 288 more hits he would be a HOF lock, given historical precedent. That's silly because if he averaged 15 more hits per year to hit 3,000 that wouldn't have materially influenced his offensive profile.

Agree with Parker. He was the most feared hitter in baseball for a pretty long stretch. And also had that cannon of an arm... good call.

[toledo_mudhen]

Gil Hodges is probably the most glaring omission IMO. Of course, he actually got in in 1994, only to have Ted Williams deny the deciding vote in an act of pure evil -

Yep, Hodges is definitely a "glaring" omission - Next chance for him will be in December 2021 when candidates from the "Golden Days" era (1950–1969) are once again considered.....

One of my favorites -

<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/150864751@N07/49877287318/in/album-72157714245015612/" title="#187 Hodges SGC 80"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49877287318_de3b2aa7a1.jpg" width="500" height="316" alt="#187 Hodges SGC 80"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[GaryPassamonte]

Ross Barnes. The first superstar of recognized professional baseball. Only player to hit over .400 in four seasons. Pioneer type players are shamefully underrepresented and almost omitted in the HOF.

[YazFenway08]

I think the state of TN is greatly under-represented in the Hall...

Parisian Bob Caruthers
Clyde Milan
Tommy Bridges
Vada Pinson

I think they all had pretty outstanding careers....probably just short of the Hall but damn fine....

[bbcard1]

Gil Hodges is probably the most glaring omission IMO. .

Gil is a perfect argument against a lot of the players we are discussing here. When you combine his managerial and player record he looks like a hall of fame, however voters are not supposed to vote on anyone as a player/manager. His stats are light as a 50s 1st basemen...not in comparison to the league but in comparison to the established powerhitting HOFers. It wouldn't be a travesty if he were in neither is it one that he's not. Never really lead the league in anything all that significant, WAR well below the established level for firstbasemen, he had a lot of All Star appearances, but so did Ed Bailey. After his career he was Really nice player but you have to be a big hall guy to let him in. He was an under .500 manager, but did get the Mets an amazing world series, so there's that. He would have likely climbed in his win % had he not died young.

Some people will argue he lost years to the war. That's conjecture...he probably didn't miss much time but even if he did you can't make assumptions on "what if." If you're going to do it for Thurman Munson and Gil Hodges you have to do it for Vida Blue and Tony Conigliario.

One other thing. He was only 47 when he died, which is tragic, but I have neve seen a picture of him, even from his early days when he looked younger than 47.

[maniac_73]

I think Carlos Delgado and Fred McGriff are overlooked because they came up in the Steroid Era.

[dealme]

I would like to see Tommy John get in not only for the nearly 300 wins, but also for the surgery that bears his name. I also like seeing Vada Pinson getting some love in this thread. When I first started taking baseball seriously as a player (maybe 6th grade?), my dad borrowed an instructional video from the coach at the high school where he taught. It had Vada Pinson going through various hitting drills. He's been an under-the-radar favorite of mine ever since.

[milkit1]

Id vote for Johnny Kling. He was constantly voted best catcher by his peers whom played with him and he lead the Cubs to 3 straight pennants, took a year off (Cubs finish 2nd) comes back and brings the cubs to the series again in '10

466614

[Mark17]

I think Carlos Delgado and Fred McGriff are overlooked because they came up in the Steroid Era.

Fred McGriff and his 493 HRs is in if not for the 1994 strike, which robbed him of at least 7 HR. He was having his best season, with 34 home runs in his 113 games, before the player strike wiped out the rest of the season.

I have no sympathy for the players regarding that strike but it's too bad most of them (Molitor, Morris, etc.) didn't pay a price like McGriff.

[sdimag]

Francis Joseph "Lefty" O'Doul is one of my favorite guys in Baseball. It mystifies me, why Lefty O'Doul is not in the BB Hall of Fame.
For starters, Lefty's career BA is an outstanding .349 over a Major League career that spanned 11 years. His hitting ability is high-lighted by a .398 BA with
254 Hits, 32 HR's, 122 RBI's, while playing for the Phillies in 1929. He followed that up with a .383 BA in 1930. I could continue with all the reasons why he
should have been enshrined in the Hall of Fame, but I leave it to you to read his SABR write-up...... https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/lefty-odoul/

Between his playing years, and his years as a Manager in the PCL, Lefty is a tremendous example of Baseball at it's best.

Let's hear your stories of some of the BB players who you feel have been neglected to be in inducted in Baseball's Hall of Fame.


https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/tedzan77/1927xZeenutODoul.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/GeoMillerLeftyODoulx50.jpg

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/DeLong1933GoudeyODoulx50.jpghttps://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/tedzan77/1933GoudeyODoul.jpg


https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1952MomsCookiesODoulx50.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/leftyodoulpostcard.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.
O’Doul is in the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame. An unofficial ambassador for baseball, he brought the DiMaggio’s and later The Babe and other stars to Japan!He managed Joe and Dom when they started out with the Seals.Dom credited Lefty for making him a major league hitter! Lefty brought his teams to Japan postwar which definitely help the US/Japan relations.

[jchcollins]

I think Minnie Minoso is probably the most glaring omission. Hodges is likely in that conversation as well.

With everyone else, different people have their personal favorites. I'd like to see Tiant get in. And Steve Garvey - though I understand why he's not in - relatively weak for a 1B in career homers, not a great OBP - low WAR if you want to evaluate him on advanced stats - but there is a decent argument to be made he was the best 1B in the NL for about a decade. He has everything else - the ASG appearances, the awards...

[abothebear]

Lou Whitaker
Darrell Evans
Lance Parish
Chet Lemon
Kirk Gibson
Johnny Grubb

[Kenny Cole]

I don't think you can make assumptions about years someone never played, although obviously before the war he was headed in that direction. If I recall Kenny Cole and I debated this one a while back. Knowing Kenny, he probably thinks he won lol.

I don't think I won. I feel like we each argued our perspectives and left it at that. It was up to others to decide whose arguments carried the most weight, although I still feel pretty strongly that he deserves consideration.

[bjerome]

My friend and I had a pretty lengthy debate regarding Harold Baines before he was elected. He was for, I was against. At that time, I listed him in what I called the HALL OF VERY GOOD. What I also did was ask myself a question regarding his candidacy. I asked myself "did he play his way into the conversation?", meaning does his career have a legitimate possibility that he could be looked at as far as the Hall of Fame Conversation goes. In looking at it that way my answer was a very overwhelming yes, he did play his way to consideration for the honor. As far as I'm concerned, once your name's in the conversation (Especially in the Vet's Committee), anything can happen. I have stuck to that logic ever since.

[G1911]

I think Carlos Delgado and Fred McGriff are overlooked because they came up in the Steroid Era.

I don’t think I would vote for Delgado in the end, but he very much deserved a fair look and genuine consideration instead of falling off the ballot first year.

McGriff I think belongs. If we keep out the steroid guys but only elect guys with steroid-level stats like Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey very few players from this era will be making the hall.

[Harliduck]

There are the usual suspects like Gil Hodges and Dale Murphy and Tony Oliva and Dick Allen.



I'm on Team Peter...and his additional comment on Ken Boyer. Add Minnie Minoso...


It would be nice if a few already in the HOF could be traded out...several simply don't belong.

Gil Hodges for Barry Larkin??? And so on....

[pitchernut]

First off, I don't believe this player is a HOFer. What I find interesting is that the second article assures the player into the HOF. I have a couple pre-1936 articles that assure the "no-no" pitcher a place in the HOF. What baffles me is what "HOF" are they talking about in 1916? I was always under the impression the HOF was created around 1936... Was there a HOF back then?:confused: Also, is the T-200 of Boston AL the only publicly available ephemera of George "Rube" Foster?.
PS sorry for sideways pics, and Smokey Joe should be in.

[Mike D.]

Lou Whitaker
Darrell Evans
Lance Parish
Chet Lemon
Kirk Gibson
Johnny Grubb

What’s your favorite team? :D

[G1911]

First off, I don't believe this player is a HOFer. What I find interesting is that the second article assures the player into the HOF. I have a couple pre-1936 articles that assure the "no-no" pitcher a place in the HOF. What baffles me is what "HOF" are they talking about in 1916? I was always under the impression the HOF was created around 1936... Was there a HOF back then?:confused: Also, is the T-200 of Boston AL the only publicly available ephemera of George "Rube" Foster?.
PS sorry for sideways pics, and Smokey Joe should be in.

The Hall of Fame was not a physical place or entity then; just a turn of phrase meaning a players greatness will be remembered, often in the context of a singular achievement like in this example. The term used in this sense predates baseball

[benge610]

Curve Ball.

With just 84 more hits in 2012 (of 2769 Career):
Johnny Damon would have joined Hank Aaron and Derek Jeter;
as the only players in MLB history to have at least 130 hits in 17 consecutive seasons. A true mark of a consistent and excellent hitter.

But alas, only 16 consecutive seasons; "17" truly was The Number. I am not introducing this for debate or analysis; just a statement of baseball stat fact.

https://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=1393&pictureid=31322

https://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=1393&pictureid=31321

[wolf441]

Who here of a certain age didn't think back in the day that Steve Garvey was a lock HOFer? The metrics really were not kind to him.

I completely agree with you, Peter. I don't think Garvey is a Hall of Famer, but if in 1979, you had to guess the current players who would make the Hall, Garvey would have solidly been on that list.

I think if Nap Rucker had the good fortune to come up with the Giants rather than the Dodgers, he would be in the Hall.

[brianp-beme]

Lou Whitaker
Darrell Evans
Lance Parish
Chet Lemon
Kirk Gibson
Johnny Grubb

How in the world did Johnny Grubb his way into this list?

Brian

[ctownboy]

abothebear must have been hungry when he made that list....

David

[FrankWakefield]

During college days it sure seemed to me that Steve Garvey was a lock for the Hall. 1974 thru 1980.... then everything tapered off... and for a while. Maybe we were paying more attention to baseball and Garvey's production during those 7 years, and then not so much to either afterwards; leaving us with the idea that he must have been the same old 'batting 4th, Garvey' for those subsequent years.

I wonder if us seeing the Dodgers so competitive, making the playoffs, during the last half of the 70s, if that has us remembering him as better than he was.

I understand that I'm in a tiny minority about Ed Reulbach. Seems to me that there's considerable agreement about a few players getting in, and then a bunch of Hall of Very Good players. Minoso, Damon, and others fit better in the HofVG, in my mind.

[G1911]

Went through each name and sorted them by what I think their category is. Added some new ones, ignoring steroid guys as the argument against them has nothing to do with objective discussion of performance or ranking among pioneers, but is a purely ethical argument that seems a separate issue from the analytical arguments.

Players I would vote for as a no-brainer, whose exclusion from the Hall is a detriment to the Hall
Ross Barnes
James Creighton
Minnie Minoso
Curt Schilling


Players I would vote for and think clearly belong, but see a reasoned argument against:
Bill Dahlen
Gil Hodges
Jeff Kent
Kenny Lofton
Fred McGriff


Players I could go either way on, borderline yes or borderline no:
Dick Allen (not mentioned yet)
Albert Belle
Lance Berkman (not mentioned yet)
Ken Boyer
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Rocky Colavito
Pebbly Jack Glasscock (not mentioned yet)
Tommy John
Jim Kaat - Poor ERA compared to league, lots and lots of consistent innings
Don Mattingly (surprisingly not mentioned yet)
Jim McCormick (not mentioned yet)
Tony Mullane (not mentioned yet)
Tony Oliva
Dave Parker
Cannonball Redding - what I have seen of his surviving numbers seems to me to suggest he is not a HOFer, but the numbers from his leagues are incomplete and dubious.
Luis Tiant
George Van Haltren
Lou Whitaker


Players I think are below Hall standards but I see how a reasonable argument could be made:
Tommy Bridges
Dave Concepcion
Johnny Damon
Carlos Delgado
Larry Doyle
Jim Edmonds
Darrel Evans
Dwight Evans
George Foster
Steve Garvey
Kirk Gibson
Bob Grich
Dummy Hoy
Andruw Jones
Johnny Kling
Sherry Magee
Thurman Munson (not mentioned yet)
Dale Murphy
Lefty O’Doul - Japan & PCL has never before been a factor for consideration.
Buck O’Neil - Nostalgia in and of itself is not enough.
Billy Pierce
Vada Pinson
Ed Reulbach - short career and his peak is not high enough to compensate
Johann Santana
Dave Stieb - About equal to Morris, but let’s not make that mistake twice.
Joe Wood


Players for whom I do not see a reasoned argument, are not serious candidates:
Jack Coombs - 2,300 IP and an ERA worse than the league average. 1 excellent season is not a HOFer
Mike Donlin
Johnny Grubb - This must be a tongue in cheek joke
Chet Lemon- This must be a tongue in cheek joke
Firpo Marberry
Clyde Milan - No HOF milestones, 9% better bat than league, good player but there is no way he is HOF
Lance Parish
Dummy Taylor - Less than 2,000 IP, 116 wins, ERA 7% better than league. Over 100 pitchers belong ahead of him.
Cecil Travis - Would be first player elected to the Hall of Fame specifically for what he did not accomplish rather than for what he did.

[Mike D.]

Mention of Mattingly and Garvey make me think another thread - “Guys who felt like Hall of Famers during their careers, but now are unlikely to be inducted”.

Guess you’d need to specify “non-steroids addition” to keep the list of reasonable size. :D

Garvey, Mattingly, Murphy…maybe Joe Carter?

[perezfan]

Mention of Mattingly and Garvey make me think another thread - “Guys who felt like Hall of Famers during their careers, but now are unlikely to be inducted”.

Guess you’d need to specify “non-steroids addition” to keep the list of reasonable size. :D

Garvey, Mattingly, Murphy…maybe Joe Carter?

I would add Dave Parker, Al Oliver, Jim Edmonds, Darryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden and maybe David Cone to that list.

And if they fail to make it to Cooperstown in the future, definitely Joe Mauer and Buster Posey (looking ahead).

[Mike D.]

I would add Dave Parker, Al Oliver, Jim Edmonds, Darryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden and maybe David Cone to that list.

And if they fail to make it to Cooperstown in the future, definitely Joe Mauer and Buster Posey (looking ahead).

I still think Edmonds and Cone have a shot via Vets committee.

I remember reading the term “Al Oliver Abyss” describing the gap between 2700 career hits and 3000. :)

[jingram058]

Okay, here we go:

Gil Hodges - Sorry, folks, this one's a no-brainer. No logic, facts, or stats other than cruelty can justify why he isn't already in.

Stan Hack - Another one that I just don't understand. Is it just because he played for the Cubs? Great third baseman.

Riggs Stephenson - Crazy batting average, and wildly popular Cub, but punished for his weak, football-injury throwing arm.

Charlie Grimm - The Cubs list could go on and on. This man was a baseball ambassador, beyond being a great player, and yes, also manager of some very competitive, because of him, but not so great teams.

Cecil Travis - Great, versatile ballplayer for a dreadful Senators team, then suffered the misfortune of not just being in the Army during WW2, but suffering frostbite in combat during the Battle of the Bulge, which effectively wrecked his baseball playing career. And he was never bitter about it.

Those fellows above I feel quite strongly about. The fellows below get an "Honorable Mention" from me on the strength of crazy accomplishments:

Frankie Crosetti - Waved more men home while coaching at third than anyone in history, and player and coach on 23 World Series teams.

Johnny Vander Meer - If he never did another thing, he gets mention just for throwing 2 consecutive no-hitters. Just imagine someone doing that. Pete Rose said it best, "Someone might tie that someday, maybe, but no one will ever break it. No one is ever going to throw 3 consecutive no-hitters." Pete's obviously not going in, but I love him anyway.

Bucky Walters - Just didn't truly dominate as a pitcher long enough, but what a great story of his conversion from average third baseman to, for a few years, overwhelming pitcher at the hands of another guy you hear nothing about, Jimmy Wilson.

[blackandgold]

Alone on offense you can make a strong argument for the HOF. Throw in his defense and the case becomes better. Granted, he was hardly likable or someone you'd want to split a croissant with. Moreover, cocaine always hung over his candidacy. But if HOF voters overlooked it for Tim Raines it why should that be an issue for Parker?

Moreover, the idiocy of 3,000 hits equaling automatic entry (Rose aside) rears its ugly head. If Parker had 288 more hits he would be a HOF lock, given historical precedent. That's silly because if he averaged 15 more hits per year to hit 3,000 that wouldn't have materially influenced his offensive profile.

As I was reading down through these posts, I thought I should mention The Cobra. Glad someone beat me to it.

[rats60]

I think Minnie Minoso is probably the most glaring omission. Hodges is likely in that conversation as well.

With everyone else, different people have their personal favorites. I'd like to see Tiant get in. And Steve Garvey - though I understand why he's not in - relatively weak for a 1B in career homers, not a great OBP - low WAR if you want to evaluate him on advanced stats - but there is a decent argument to be made he was the best 1B in the NL for about a decade. He has everything else - the ASG appearances, the awards...

Steve Garvey is the poster child for what is wrong with WAR. All Garvey did was get hits drive in runs and win games. From 1974-1984 Garvey led his team to 5 National League Championships and 1 World Championship. He committed no errors for a whole season and supposedly had a negative dWAR. 10x AS, 4 GG, MVP and 2 x NLCS MVP. He is absolutely a HOFer.

[Orioles1954]

For the first few years of his career Joe Mauer was considered a lock.

[bjerome]

I will still say that Mauer is getting in. It is strictly because of what he did behind the plate. In the history of the game there have been a total of 6 Batting titles won by a catcher. Bubbles Hargrave, Ernie Lombardi x2, and Buster Posey all have one. All were National League Catchers. Mauer has 3 himself and is the only American League Catcher to accomplish this feat. His MVP Award, Silver Slugger Awards, and Gold Gloves all add to him being the best all-around Catcher of his time. His induction will likely be later in his candidacy, but he's going to go in on the basis of what he did behind the plate as he did things no other catcher had ever accomplished.

[David W]

Mention of Mattingly and Garvey make me think another thread - “Guys who felt like Hall of Famers during their careers, but now are unlikely to be inducted”.

Guess you’d need to specify “non-steroids addition” to keep the list of reasonable size. :D

Garvey, Mattingly, Murphy…maybe Joe Carter?

It is the Hall of FAME, not great. As a child of the 1970's and 80's, no baseball players were more famous than Garvey, Mattingly, and Murphy. They also had borderline great careers, but they were FAMOUS. Dave Parker also fits this category. Joe Carter.... decent career but only famous for 1 game.

As a midwest Cardinal fan, Garvey was famous, but became infamous for stealing the MVP from Lou Brock in 1974. Murphy was a 2 time MVP, and benefitted from the boom in cable TV, led by Ted Turner, owner of the Braves.
Mattingly, MVP and Yankee legend, back injuries slowed him down. Parker was an MVP, and famous for 2 great throws in an all star game, plus on one of the legendary teams, We Are Family 1979 Pirates.

If the 1984 Tigers had been able to sustain that greatness, rather than just that 1 magical year, I think Lou Whitaker (who should be in anyway, and Lance Parrish (not sure on him) would also be in.

I'd put these guys pictured in the HOF.

[maniac_73]

By Coincidence this article just came out today after I mentioned Delgado yesterday. Us canucks think alike lol. Make sure to check out Kevins blog hes fantastic
https://cooperstownersincanada.com/2021/06/30/delgado-worthy-of-cooperstown-induction-as-player-and-as-trailblazing-huminatarian/

[Mike D.]

It is the Hall of FAME, not great.


People always say that, and it IS the name…but it’s never been really true.

There are players who are “famous” who aren’t inducted, and players who aren’t famous are in.

“Fame” is subjective and changes - many players were famous in their time but are no longer.

I think the key is that sometimes it’s hard to know if a career is a hall of fame one until it’s over or almost over. Look at a guy like Adrian Beltre…10 years into his career, few thought he’d be a hall of famer. Now he’s a likely first ballot lock.

[SD]

How about Schoolboy Rowe, Doc Cramer, Gary Sheffield, Todd Helton, Jim McCormick, Billy Pierce & Mickey Lolich?



Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[TUM301]

Roger Maris, strong argument could be made he still owns the single season`s (and possibly all sports) most historical number, 61.

[tiger8mush]

Clemens and Bonds?

Its my understanding that over half the league is thought to have been using PEDs at the time, which MLB knew about but did nothing to stop. Pitchers faced hitters on PEDs, hitters faced pitchers on PEDs. MLB started serving suspensions for PED usage in 2005; Bonds & Clemens finished their careers playing 2005 and 2006 and 2007 (in their 40s) w/o a suspension. Both were SOOO dominant, their stats are just crazy. And they faced opponents who were also on PEDs.

How many years have pitchers been doctoring the ball with spider tack and other substances, which is against MLB rules, but was never stopped until now? None of the Astros lost their stats nor rings for cheating and many of those same coaches and players are still playing today. Many old timers, including HOFers, have admitted to (or been accused of) cheating in one way or another.

I was on the fence in the past, but am leaning towards induction for them both. Thoughts?

[cammb]

Vada Pinson was every bit as good as Clemente

[maniac_73]

Clemens and Bonds?

Its my understanding that over half the league is thought to have been using PEDs at the time, which MLB knew about but did nothing to stop. Pitchers faced hitters on PEDs, hitters faced pitchers on PEDs. MLB started serving suspensions for PED usage in 2005; Bonds & Clemens finished their careers playing 2005 and 2006 and 2007 (in their 40s) w/o a suspension. Both were SOOO dominant, their stats are just crazy. And they faced opponents who were also on PEDs.

How many years have pitchers been doctoring the ball with spider tack and other substances, which is against MLB rules, but was never stopped until now? None of the Astros lost their stats nor rings for cheating and many of those same coaches and players are still playing today. Many old timers, including HOFers, have admitted to (or been accused of) cheating in one way or another.

I was on the fence in the past, but am leaning towards induction for them both. Thoughts?

Im very pro those guys and steroid era guys getting in but figured that would take this thread in a way different direction lol

[Orioles1954]

Good article. I also wonder how Hodges would have performed in the pitcher's era of the 1960s.

https://halloffameindex.com/2019/09/21/gil-hodges-vs-norm-cash/

[benge610]

I will still say that Mauer is getting in. It is strictly because of what he did behind the plate. In the history of the game there have been a total of 6 Batting titles won by a catcher. Bubbles Hargrave, Ernie Lombardi x2, and Buster Posey all have one. All were National League Catchers. Mauer has 3 himself and is the only American League Catcher to accomplish this feat. His MVP Award, Silver Slugger Awards, and Gold Gloves all add to him being the best all-around Catcher of his time. His induction will likely be later in his candidacy, but he's going to go in on the basis of what he did behind the plate as he did things no other catcher had ever accomplished.

Thank you Brad for presenting. In attempts to get my youngest boy into the stuff, Mauer was selected to go mining for; wax boxes of 2002 Topps, etc.
Opening packs with the ol' man! "Woo-Hoo!", whenever a Mauer was pulled.
Good Times; even bought him a Mauer jersey prior to our HOF Inductions at Cooperstown. Time passes and so does our focus; kinda lost track of Mauer's career. Thank you Brad.
Ben

[SD]

Real question is, is the hall of fame a history of the greatest performers during there era, regardless of character flaws or the writers way to only elect players they enjoyed being around.
Should Integrity and humility really have a place in the hall? Or should it only be based on numbers. Does the era played truly get taken into account? If so, the steroid era is no different then any other era of baseball. All had rule breakers trying to get an advantage. Was steroids really much different then players intentionally fixing games, doctoring balls or belittling another player based on ethnicity? All, knowingly cheated or showed lack of integrityans can be easily found in the hall. If so, Rose, Bonds, Clemens, Schilling and McGwire all are deserving.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[Mark17]

Real question is, is the hall of fame a history of the greatest performers during there era, regardless of character flaws or the writers way to only elect players they enjoyed being around.
Should Integrity and humility really have a place in the hall? Or should it only be based on numbers. Does the era played truly get taken into account? If so, the steroid era is no different then any other era of baseball. All had rule breakers trying to get an advantage. Was steroids really much different then players intentionally fixing games, doctoring balls or belittling another player based on ethnicity? All, knowingly cheated or showed lack of integrityans can be easily found in the hall. If so, Rose, Bonds, Clemens, Schilling and McGwire all are deserving.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

...

[SD]

...What I was meaning to say above is there is a lot of players in the hall that have been accused of cheating and still got in.
So do all those players now get an asterisk?
Clemens and Bonds have denied their use. So if they get in, asterisk?
Or do we embrace the steroid era and accept that it was sort of baseballs fault for not dealing with it in the 90s. MLB teams will always push their players to push the boundaries of whats legal. Technology has just help expose the cheating in the game after it helped those players get an advantage.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[darwinbulldog]

What I was meaning to say above is there is a lot of players in the hall that have been accused of cheating and still got in.
So do all those players now get an asterisk?
Clemens and Bonds have denied their use. So if they get in, asterisk?
Or do we embrace the steroid era and accept that it was sort of baseballs fault for not dealing with it in the 90s. MLB teams will always push their players to push the boundaries of whats legal. Technology has just help expose the cheating in the game after it helped those players get an advantage.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

Of course. I don't know why I bother posting this every couple of years, but the best players of the 50s/60s/70s were using the best substances available to them at the time to enhance their performance, and so were the best players of the 80s/90s/2000s. There's no good reason to think that Bonds and Clemens wouldn't have used greenies if they had been born a generation earlier and no good reason to think that Aaron and Mays wouldn't have used "PEDs" (TM) if they had played a generation later. Being pleased that two of those guys are in the Hall and that the other two are not then is tantamount to endorsing discrimination on the basis of birth year, which is silly.

[jingram058]

At the end of the day, the one guy not in that seems totally idiotic that he isn't is Gil Hodges. Go ahead and ignore this, and yack ad-nauseum or write a PhD dissertation about this guy, that guy, the other guy, whatever. The Hall of Fame has lost credibility big-time over the past few years over some really bad decisions, and you can't explain, ignore or deny it away. Perception is reality. I used to think I really wanted to visit Cooperstown, but as Dylan said, things have changed.

[SD]

At the end of the day, the one guy not in that seems totally idiotic that he isn't is Gil Hodges. Go ahead and ignore this, and yack ad-nauseum or write a PhD dissertation about this guy, that guy, the other guy, whatever. The Hall of Fame has lost credibility big-time over the past few years over some really bad decisions, and you can't explain, ignore or deny it away. Perception is reality. I used to think I really wanted to visit Cooperstown, but as Dylan said, things have changed.Exactly, the election process for the hall is flawed. If Ortiz gets in 22, then the flood gates will open.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[G1911]

Exactly, the election process for the hall is flawed. If Ortiz gets in 22, then the flood gates will open.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk


I'm fine with steroid guys getting in, or being kept out, but the standard should be the same for all of them. Ortiz has thus far seemed to get a complete and total pass in the public eye while no other popped user has. If he gets in first ballot, and I think his odds are fair, while Bonds and Clemens at best languish, it will be an even bigger joke than electing Harold Baines.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Fred McGriff and his 493 HRs is in if not for the 1994 strike, which robbed him of at least 7 HR. He was having his best season, with 34 home runs in his 113 games, before the player strike wiped out the rest of the season.

I have no sympathy for the players regarding that strike but it's too bad most of them (Molitor, Morris, etc.) didn't pay a price like McGriff.

+1. Crime Dog was robbed!

.

[cardsagain74]

Clemens and Bonds?

Its my understanding that over half the league is thought to have been using PEDs at the time, which MLB knew about but did nothing to stop. Pitchers faced hitters on PEDs, hitters faced pitchers on PEDs. MLB started serving suspensions for PED usage in 2005; Bonds & Clemens finished their careers playing 2005 and 2006 and 2007 (in their 40s) w/o a suspension. Both were SOOO dominant, their stats are just crazy. And they faced opponents who were also on PEDs.

How many years have pitchers been doctoring the ball with spider tack and other substances, which is against MLB rules, but was never stopped until now? None of the Astros lost their stats nor rings for cheating and many of those same coaches and players are still playing today. Many old timers, including HOFers, have admitted to (or been accused of) cheating in one way or another.

I was on the fence in the past, but am leaning towards induction for them both. Thoughts?

I agree with you. And even though it shouldn't be, I would imagine that the steroid era is treated a lot differently because most other cheating in baseball (past and present) is a lot more subtle.

If a pitcher doctors the ball or a hitter is gulping greenies by the handful to really sharpen their edge in various ways, you usually don't see a thing. But on the flipside, what's more noticeable than Bonds and McGwire turning into highly bulked up action figures at the plate (and then hitting 70+ homers in a season to smash a decades-long record)?

[G1911]

I agree with you. And even though it shouldn't be, I would imagine that the steroid era is treated a lot differently because most other cheating in baseball (past and present) is a lot more subtle.

If a pitcher doctors the ball or a hitter is gulping greenies by the handful to really sharpen their edge in various ways, you usually don't see a thing. But on the flipside, what's more noticeable than Bonds and McGwire turning into highly bulked up action figures at the plate (and then hitting 70+ homers in a season to smash a decades-long record)?

I agree with this. I think it's a combination of how visible it is, the absurd statistics it produced (Gaylord Perry chucking spitters pithed very well, but he didn't obliterate records like a video game character), and the sense that the cheating is somehow unnatural. A 'boys will be boys' cheating of scuffing a ball or throwing a spitter sometimes feels different to many, than using the latest lab drugs to fundamentally change the field of play every single at-bat where they appear like the Hulk. Perhaps it should not feel different, but I think that it does to many.

[Ricky]

Of course. I don't know why I bother posting this every couple of years, but the best players of the 50s/60s/70s were using the best substances available to them at the time to enhance their performance, and so were the best players of the 80s/90s/2000s. There's no good reason to think that Bonds and Clemens wouldn't have used greenies if they had been born a generation earlier and no good reason to think that Aaron and Mays wouldn't have used "PEDs" (TM) if they had played a generation later. Being pleased that two of those guys are in the Hall and that the other two are not then is tantamount to endorsing discrimination on the basis of birth year, which is silly.

Aaron didn’t use greenies. In his autobiography he said he tried them once and the way they made him feel scared him so never again.

[Ricky]

Vada Pinson was every bit as good as Clemente

This is a hot take!

[bbcard1]

Any love for Bobby Mathews and his 297 wins? Three more and it would not have been a discussion. He was done by 1900 and has a terribly forgettable name. He probably didn't stack up against the best of his era, but he sure racked up a lot of stats, though the teams he played on were wonky. Once netted 625 innings in a single season.

[cardsagain74]

I agree with this. I think it's a combination of how visible it is, the absurd statistics it produced (Gaylord Perry chucking spitters pithed very well, but he didn't obliterate records like a video game character), and the sense that the cheating is somehow unnatural. A 'boys will be boys' cheating of scuffing a ball or throwing a spitter sometimes feels different to many, than using the latest lab drugs to fundamentally change the field of play every single at-bat where they appear like the Hulk. Perhaps it should not feel different, but I think that it does to many.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q_KQ5f8PAY

[GaryPassamonte]

Any love for Bobby Mathews and his 297 wins? many eras of baseball. Three more and it would not have been a discussion. He was done by 1900 and has a terribly forgettable name. He probably didn't stack up against the best of his era, but he sure racked up a lot of stats, though the teams he played on were wonky. Once netted 625 innings in a single season.

Mathews was an excellent pitcher for a number of years. His career totals helps illustrate the folly of comparing players across the many eras of baseball. Although seasons were shorter in the 19th century, starting pitchers simply pitched more games than they would into the 20th century and beyond. Getting 300 wins, like hitting .400, was easier in the 19th century than later years. On the other hand, hitting home runs was infinitely more difficult and not really a part of the style of baseball played back then. My point is that when evaluating players, using benchmarks is folly. The best way to evaluate any player is by viewing his record compared to his peers.
This assures an apples to apples comparison. This is not to say Mathews is not a hofer. I have no problem with his worthiness.

[YazFenway08]

It is possible than cammb and I are now friends....

[Mozzie22]

Don Mattingly and Kirby Puckett have nearly identical numbers and at no time ever did anyone say Puckett was the best player in the game. Mattingly was the best player in the game for a period in the 80's.

Mattingly should be in.

[bbcard1]

Mathews was an excellent pitcher for a number of years. His career totals helps illustrate the folly of comparing players across the many eras of baseball. Although seasons were shorter in the 19th century, starting pitchers simply pitched more games than they would into the 20th century and beyond. Getting 300 wins, like hitting .400, was easier in the 19th century than later years. On the other hand, hitting home runs was infinitely more difficult and not really a part of the style of baseball played back then. My point is that when evaluating players, using benchmarks is folly. The best way to evaluate any player is by viewing his record compared to his peers.
This assures an apples to apples comparison. This is not to say Mathews is not a hofer. I have no problem with his worthiness.

An issue he has, generic name aside, is that he died before the turn of the century and was probably largely forgotten by the time of the first HOF class.

[Phil Arem]

How about Keith Hernandez? 11 Gold gloves, close to 300BA, mvp, batting title, clutch hitter and 2 rings. Not to mention a hilarious announcer!

[GaryPassamonte]

An issue he has, generic name aside, is that he died before the turn of the century and was probably largely forgotten by the time of the first HOF class.

I agree and this issue pertains to many 19th century players. As I said in my original post on this thread, 19th century players, more specifically pioneer players are underrepresented in the HOF. This will never be changed unless baseball historians/SABRites have a majority voice on the Historical Overview Committee and the final Election Committee. SABR's 19th Century Committee has chosen the Most Overlooked 19th Century Legend for the past 13 years. Only Deacon White has been elected to the HOF from this group. This shows you how well the current HOF process works and how much they consider the input of the people that know 19th century baseball better than anybody.
As an aside, I believe Mathews finished either second or third in this year's voting, which was won by Charlie Bennett. Mathews was included on my ballot.

[Mike D.]

Don Mattingly and Kirby Puckett have nearly identical numbers and at no time ever did anyone say Puckett was the best player in the game. Mattingly was the best player in the game for a period in the 80's.

Mattingly should be in.

Puckett finished top 3 in the MVP voting, top 10 4 other times. That’s 7 top 10 finishes in a 12 year career.

Mattingly had 2 top 3 finishes, 4 total top 10.

[Mike D.]

Wow…talk about different time. Mattingly had over 7,700 plate appearances…and struck out fewer than 450 times!

[Exhibitman]

Glasscock should be elected just so we can say the HOF has Glasscock and Dickey :D

I have been a big "Lefty" proponent for years, so all I can add to this thread about him are some of his Japanese cards from the 1949 Tour:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/frankleftyodoulcard/websize/1949%20Japanese%20OquDoul.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/frankleftyodoulcard/websize/1949%20Seals%20Tour%20OquDoul%20and%20two%20other% 20Seals.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/frankleftyodoulcard/websize/1949%20OquDoul%20Bromide%20with%20Betto%20and%20Wa kabayashi.jpg
1949 O'Doul Bromide with "Big Lebowski" Betto and Wakabayashi

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/frankleftyodoulcard/websize/1949%20Seals%20Japan%20Tour%20Bromide%20Lefty%20Oq uDoul%20and%20Japanese%20Manager%20Shinji%20Hamaza ki.jpg
O'Doul and HOF Japanese Manager Shinji Hamazaki

[rats60]

Vada Pinson was every bit as good as Clemente

15xAS....... 4xAS
12xGG....... 1xGG
1 MVP....... 0 MVP
1 WS MVP....... 0 WS MVP
2 WS Champ....... 0 WS Champ
4 BA Champ....... 0 BA Champ

Those two are not remotely close.

[sdimag]

15xAS....... 4xAS
12xGG....... 1xGG
1 MVP....... 0 MVP
1 WS MVP....... 0 WS MVP
2 WS Champ....... 0 WS Champ
4 BA Champ....... 0 BA Champ

Those two are not remotely close.

Thank you!

[vintagechris]

I'll try to limit my list as admittedly I'm that guy that thinks we should let more in.
Gil Hodges
Steve Garvey
Deacon Phillippe
Dave Parker
Kenny Lofton
Luis Tiant
Ken Boyer
Jack Glasscock
Minnie Minoso
Tony Oliva
Dave Concepcion(I don't know why great defense is not more of a consideration but heck the guy has over 2300 hits too).

[MooseDog]

Bay Area Candidates

1) Lefty O'Doul
2) Will Clark
3) Vida Blue
4) Jose Canseco
5) Billy Martin

O'Doul undoubtedly should be in. Clark is kid of Dale Murphy level. Blue and Canseco put up numbers equal to or better than other borderline HOF candidates but have drugs (Blue) and steroid (Canseco) scandals hanging over their heads.

Billy Martin should be in at the very least as a manager.

[Tabe]

How about Keith Hernandez? 11 Gold gloves, close to 300BA, mvp, batting title, clutch hitter and 2 rings. Not to mention a hilarious announcer!

If you like Keith Hernandez, then John Olerud goes in. Dead serious.

[Tabe]

Steve Garvey is the poster child for what is wrong with WAR. All Garvey did was get hits drive in runs and win games. From 1974-1984 Garvey led his team to 5 National League Championships and 1 World Championship. He committed no errors for a whole season and supposedly had a negative dWAR. 10x AS, 4 GG, MVP and 2 x NLCS MVP. He is absolutely a HOFer.

Garvey having low home run and OPS totals are the reason he's not in. Also, he committed few errors but had poor range.

[moogpowell]

I agree that his fielding stats are misleading. I remember from back in the day he would hardly stretch or go off the bag. If the throw was errant, too bad.

BUT I am hugely sympathetic to him possibly going in. For starters, he was a 10-time all star and fell just 401 hits short of 3,000. His career avg. was .294 and in post-season action he excelled, batting .338 in 55 post-season games with 11 home runs (which equates to a home run in 4.7% of plate appearances compared to his career average of 2.9%) and 31 RBIs.

And look at this stat!

Number of seasons with 200+ hits.

Steve Garvey - 6
Tony Gwynn - 5
Rod Carew - 4

[tod41]

Garvey having low home run and OPS totals are the reason he's not in. Also, he committed few errors but had poor range.

Garvey was a great post season player. One of the best. He was a dominant player in his era. Sometimes the stats don't tell the true story. He should be in the Hall of Fame if Tony Perez and Harold Baines are in. Keith Hernandez should also be in based upon some of the past selections.

[cammb]

Saw each of them play for a significant time, your stats don't impress me. How about seeing them in action.

[Tabe]

Garvey was a great post season player. One of the best. He was a dominant player in his era. Sometimes the stats don't tell the true story. He should be in the Hall of Fame if Tony Perez and Harold Baines are in. Keith Hernandez should also be in based upon some of the past selections.

If he was truly dominant, the stats would reflect that. Dominant corner infielders don't hit 21 or fewer homers in 16 of their 19 seasons. They don't end up with a career .775 OPS. Dominant players have seasons over 140 OPS+ (Garvey: 0).

Garvey was a fine player but he was a (mostly) singles hitter at a position where power is the norm.

[brianp-beme]

Garvey having low home run and OPS totals are the reason he's not in. Also, he committed few errors but had poor range.

He had a horrible throwing arm as well.

Brian

[SD]

Was Garvey worse than Tommy McCarthy, Rizzuto, Mazeroski, George Kelly or Baines? If thats the standard to get in, there's a lot of players who have been overlooked.

Albert Belle averaged a homer every 3.5 games during his carrer, ended with a average right under 300, better then Baines. Had less then half the amount of ABs as Baines but more HRs and a way higher ops, war and slugging %. But no he is not a HOF in my book.
Shoot Harold McCrae averaged better per season #s then Baines.
I don't even want to start on George Kelly....



Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[Mike D.]

Was Garvey worse than Tommy McCarthy, Rizzuto, Mazeroski, George Kelly or Baines? If thats the standard to get in, there's a lot of players who have been overlooked.


Thankfully, the “the mistakes of the past are the new criteria” approach isn’t the one widely used.

[tod41]

If he was truly dominant, the stats would reflect that. Dominant corner infielders don't hit 21 or fewer homers in 16 of their 19 seasons. They don't end up with a career .775 OPS. Dominant players have seasons over 140 OPS+ (Garvey: 0).

Garvey was a fine player but he was a (mostly) singles hitter at a position where power is the norm.

Consider the Era he played in. There were not many power hitting First Basemen like Rose, Hernandez, Chris Chambliss, Al Oliver, Rod Carew and others. Garvey has a higher OPS than Mantle in the post season. It should count for something. Garvey also had a 130 OPS+ five times including a 138+ in 1978.

[brianclat11]

I’ll second the vote for Dave Concepción of the 70s Big Red machine. For my money, one of the best defensive shortstops that ever played the game. His connection with Joe Morgan at 2nd was special. He could also handle the bat but kind of played second fiddle to the superstars on that team. The fact he hung around a little bit longer on the Reds when they went through some lean times didn’t help.

[bbcard1]

I've looked at Pinson pretty closely. He was a nice player. i think he needed two things to make the hall of fame...had his best seasons been more evenly distributed and had he played on a couple of teams that were a little more competitive. He was on the "catch lightning in a bottle" 1961 Reds team that ran into a meat grinder vs. the Yankees.

[mainemule]

Schilling, while a complete tool post-career, is a no-brainer.

3 WS rings
11-2 PS record
3,000 ks (only eligible member of this club not in HOF)
26th career WAR (all 25 ahead of him in HOF)
300 k's 3 times

Over-shadowed by Johnson and Pedro at times but won big game after big game.

How Mussina got in before Schilling still rankles me.

[Tabe]

Consider the Era he played in. There were not many power hitting First Basemen like Rose, Hernandez, Chris Chambliss, Al Oliver, Rod Carew and others. Garvey has a higher OPS than Mantle in the post season. It should count for something. Garvey also had a 130 OPS+ five times including a 138+ in 1978.

Playing in an era of mediocre first basemen doesn't make Garvey any better. He had basically the same OPS as Dan Driessen. Funny that you left out Willie Stargell and Jason Thompson when naming his contemporaries.

Yes, he was a very good postseason performer, beating out Mantle in OPS by .002, but that's not nearly enough to offset his simply "pretty good" regular season numbers.

Yes, he topped 130 in OPS+ but that's not "dominant". It's good but it's not dominant. He had one season in top 10 for OPS (10th place in 1978). One season over 5 in WAR. Two seasons top 10 in slugging, none over .500.

Garvey had a really nice career and I like the man. He was EXTREMELY nice to my friend & I when we met him a few years ago. But he wasn't dominant and he simply wasn't good enough for the Hall.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Playing in an era of mediocre first basemen doesn't make Garvey any better. He had basically the same OPS as Dan Driessen. Funny that you left out Willie Stargell and Jason Thompson when naming his contemporaries.

Yes, he was a very good postseason performer, beating out Mantle in OPS by .002, but that's not nearly enough to offset his simply "pretty good" regular season numbers.

Yes, he topped 130 in OPS+ but that's not "dominant". It's good but it's not dominant. He had one season in top 10 for OPS (10th place in 1978). One season over 5 in WAR. Two seasons top 10 in slugging, none over .500.

Garvey had a really nice career and I like the man. He was EXTREMELY nice to my friend & I when we met him a few years ago. But he wasn't dominant and he simply wasn't good enough for the Hall.

The metrics aren't so good for Gil Hodges either.

[Misunderestimated]

Jack Glasscock - he would be the only 1880's SS in the HOF ... George Wright is a pioneer who was done by the 1870's. Great long career and he did most of it without a glove.

Bobby Caruthers - a great pitcher who could play everyday and hit really well .. I guess Ohtani is the modern version and it hasn't happened since Ruth in about 1920.

JIm McCormick - He lost 40 in one season but his WAR is still higher than just about anyone eligible for the HOF (not named Clemens or Bonds).... and even higher than Mike Trout for the time being ...

Bill Dahlen - Great player who was recognized as a big deal in his own era. Strange how he got missed in the 50's when it seemed like they were putting everyone from the early 20th Century in the HOF who was a little famous. Even stranger that they missed George Davis until Bill James seems to have recovered him. Davis is statistically near the very top of Shortstops all-time.

Minnie Minoso -

Buck O'Neil - A lifetime achievement award.... He was a very good player and a good manager/coach too. But it's the whole package. This is generally not something the HOF is good at crediting. They like to compartmentalize the candidates.

Lou Whitaker

[TUM301]

Comparing Ozzie Smith and Omar Vizquel`s careers never really understood why one player is a hall of famer while the later barely gets 50% of the necessary votes. Omar`s numbers, minus the back flip, more than match up with Smith`s yet he rarely gets noticed.

[jingram058]

Schilling, while a complete tool post-career, is a no-brainer.

3 WS rings
11-2 PS record
3,000 ks (only eligible member of this club not in HOF)
26th career WAR (all 25 ahead of him in HOF)
300 k's 3 times

Over-shadowed by Johnson and Pedro at times but won big game after big game.

How Mussina got in before Schilling still rankles me.

You said it yourself, "a complete tool". People are denied entry for any number of reasons. I guess being an idiot, no matter your ballplaying accomplishments, will keep you out on occasion. Somebody on the MLB Network, while they were discussing the no selected 2020, said along with Jackson and Rose, Schilling will never go in.

[molenick]

This may be a different thread, but I have noticed there are a few players that people sometimes assume are in the Hall of Fame who are not (to the point of auction listings mistakenly mentioning the player being a HOFer).

Offhand, I can think of the following:
Jimmy Dykes
Charlie Grimm
Babe Herman
Pepper Martin

[mainemule]

This may be a different thread, but I have noticed there are a few players that people sometimes assume are in the Hall of Fame who are not (to the point of auction listings mistakenly mentioning the player being a HOFer).

Offhand, I can think of the following:
Jimmy Dykes
Charlie Grimm
Babe Herman
Pepper Martin

ALOT of auction listings state "HOF" or "Future HOF" in the title to grab your attention. Some are laughable....some are questionable.....some are likely.....some are a certainty.

[tod41]

Playing in an era of mediocre first basemen doesn't make Garvey any better. He had basically the same OPS as Dan Driessen. Funny that you left out Willie Stargell and Jason Thompson when naming his contemporaries.

Yes, he was a very good postseason performer, beating out Mantle in OPS by .002, but that's not nearly enough to offset his simply "pretty good" regular season numbers.

Yes, he topped 130 in OPS+ but that's not "dominant". It's good but it's not dominant. He had one season in top 10 for OPS (10th place in 1978). One season over 5 in WAR. Two seasons top 10 in slugging, none over .500.

Garvey had a really nice career and I like the man. He was EXTREMELY nice to my friend & I when we met him a few years ago. But he wasn't dominant and he simply wasn't good enough for the Hall.
Stargell was essentially and usually exclusively a Left Fielder in his prime. He did not start playing first base exclusively until 1975 and then he never came close to playing a full season. The most games he played was 126 in his co-mvp year (which was a make-up for his 1973 season) and he often played far less then that. So I would not consider him a contemporary of Garvey at first base. The fact is that you have to look pretty hard to find the power hitting first baseman that you see in other eras. That's why I think you have to judge a player in the era they played and not compare to other times. When you do that, you have to search and find a Jason Thompson as opposed to a Jim Thome. So considering everything, Garvey compares favorably in my humble opinion..

[Tabe]

Stargell was essentially and usually exclusively a Left Fielder in his prime. He did not start playing first base exclusively until 1975 and then he never came close to playing a full season. The most games he played was 126 in his co-mvp year (which was a make-up for his 1973 season) and he often played far less then that. So I would not consider him a contemporary of Garvey at first base. The fact is that you have to look pretty hard to find the power hitting first baseman that you see in other eras. That's why I think you have to judge a player in the era they played and not compare to other times. When you do that, you have to search and find a Jason Thompson as opposed to a Jim Thome. So considering everything, Garvey compares favorably in my humble opinion..

Eh, he was mostly a 1B as early as 1972.

And Garvey compares favorably to who? In 1977, one of his best years, he was middle of the pack in OPS+ among 1B. His contemporaries also included Tony Perez, Willie McCovey, and others. Heck, Bill Robinson outhit him.

The fact that Jason Thompson - a guy "you have to search and find" had a higher OPS+ than Garvey speaks volumes about Garvey being "dominant".

[Peter_Spaeth]

Garvey was a 10 time all star so I guess there is that. It seems like perhaps more than anyone in history, his metrics were crushed by not walking.

[moogpowell]

I'll add a wrinkle to the Garvey discussion. I think he suffers from dare I say a "branding" or perception issue. I think a strong case can be made that he deserves to be in the HOF. Garvey was SEEN as a slugger but his numbers do not show someone with abundant power. And yet Garvey had 6 seasons with 200 hits, 1 with 190 and 3 with 175+. He sported a career .294 avg. and batted over .300 7 times. So Garvey, when identified or compared to the prototypical "slugger" pales and yet his numbers paint him more as an excellent pure hitter who had impressive, but not incredible, power.

To make an investing comparison, he is a like a stock that is growing revenue/earnings far less than a stock like Amazon, so it won't fetch a generous valuation/multiple yet his relative power obscures how good a batsman he was so he doesn't get sufficient credit for that. In a sense he is in no man's land. Harmon Killebrew had a mediocre batting average but had power in spades (growth) and Rod Carew had hits and a high average (value). Falling into either profile I think makes it easier for people to judge someone's overall career. Granted, many all-time greats straddle both categories and have received proper recognition but that is because they were so accomplished there was nothing to debate — think Aaron, Mays, F. Robby, etc.

[ThomasL]

Im a small Hall guy so I will take someone out if Im putting someone in...

Putting in:

Buck O'Neil
Lefty O'Doul
-both based on a solid careers and stellar post career involvement and contributions.

Rafael Palmeiro
Sammy Sosa
-there are already steroid guys in so lets not be hypocritical here, these two should have been no brainers (3000 hits/500 HR guy and a 600 HR guy) had it not been for steriods

Taking out:
Rabbit Maranville
Jesse Haines
Bud Selig
Candy Cummings

(Schilling should be in and probably will get in so Im not listing him)

[rats60]

If he was truly dominant, the stats would reflect that. Dominant corner infielders don't hit 21 or fewer homers in 16 of their 19 seasons. They don't end up with a career .775 OPS. Dominant players have seasons over 140 OPS+ (Garvey: 0).

Garvey was a fine player but he was a (mostly) singles hitter at a position where power is the norm.

His home park was one of the toughest to hit home runs in. So what you are saying is if he played for the Braves and had exaggerated HR numbers, he would be a HoFer.

The game is decided by who scores the most runs, not who hits the most HRs or what team has the highest OPS. Garvey did what it took to win games, not impress want to be Statisticians.

[rats60]

Eh, he was mostly a 1B as early as 1972.

And Garvey compares favorably to who? In 1977, one of his best years, he was middle of the pack in OPS+ among 1B. His contemporaries also included Tony Perez, Willie McCovey, and others. Heck, Bill Robinson outhit him.

The fact that Jason Thompson - a guy "you have to search and find" had a higher OPS+ than Garvey speaks volumes about Garvey being "dominant".

To Veterans Committee HOF picks. He received over 40% of the BBWAA votes 3 times including his 1st time on the ballot. That typically signals that a player will get in eventually. Like Curt Schilling, his case was hurt by negative publicity in his personal life when he was on the ballot.

Willie McCovey 6 time All Star. Tony Perez 7 time All Star. Steve Garvey 10 time All Star. His contemporaries thought he belonged in that group.

[bbcard1]

I for one wish there weren't executives in the hall of fame. It just clutters up the place and no one ever paid to see Morgan Bulkeley's plaque.

[glynparson]

I think the Hall wasn't too far off track when I was a kid...

I recall a book My Greatest Day in Baseball, by Carmichael, I read it several times as a kid; one time I read it and then started and finished it a second time... Most of Those guys belonged in the Hall, and most of those guys were the only ones who belonged in the Hall.

I agree with:

O'Doul
Dahlen
Kaat

I'd DEFINETLY add Ed Reulbach

I could live with Travis Jackson and Joe Wood

No to Lofton, Schilling, A Jones... and others.

Hodges and Murphy were REALLY good guys; but to me they fall a bit short and that 'good guy' and 'deserving' sentiment doesn't and shouldn't tip the scales. Dick Allen wasn't a good guy, but wasn't as bad as some think, I could almost live with him getting in.

I'm a Cardinals fan, starting with seeing Mr. Musial play in 1963. Boyer was a dependable RBI / cleanup hitter in 1964... but he falls a bit short of what I think of as Hall standards. I think Molina will get in, I'm definitely a Molina fan, but I'm thinking he's right at the threshold and needs a bit more...

It's not little league soccer where everyone plays, everyone is included, everyone gets to play a lot, everyone gets a gold star, and everyone gets a trophy. There's already a couple of dozen that I think should have never gone in, and that's realistically unfixable. Let's not compound that by adding more sow's ears to what should have been only silk purses.

Please you want to put in middling older players and ignore more modern studs. That’s one of baseballs biggest problems over romanticizing the past and over criticizing the modern era and present day. Why it’s no longer the number one sport it’s fans are annoying as hell.

[cammb]

The moody blues

[packs]

The problem with Lefty O'Doul is the problem with Buck O'Neil. They made significant contributions, but their contributions do not fit within the parameters of the way hall of fame voters are instructed to cast their votes. Of course, Curt Schilling is a case in point that many of the voters don't care.

I don't believe this to be true for O'Doul. The Japanese / MLB / Asian pipeline is new and ever evolving but I don't think MLB ever gets to see talents like Ichiro, Hideki Matsui, or Ohtani without O'Doul.

[ThomasL]

A good point in why O'Doul and more so O'Neil should be in the Hall of Fame is if you are truly exercising the "character" clause to eliminate and not vote for people...then you should also be using it in selecting people like Buck O'Neil and putting them in.

[G1911]

I'm not sure what Garvey did to win games that does not appear in the stats. I'd be interested to hear from the Garvey side specifics here, what the available stats are not accounting for. What am I, specifically, missing by looking at his stats?

As far as I can tell, Garvey's OPS numbers are more hurt by the fact that he was not good at getting on base. His power is not that great for a 1B, but it's not that bad either. His on bae is bad. .329 is straight up terrible for a player in HOF discussion. He did not walk, he hit into a lot of double plays, his power is mediocre. And he did this while he played the least important defensive position and the strongest offensive production positions.

He got a lot of hits because he hit .290-.300 and never walked. It's not really a good thing that he got a few more hits than some other guys in far more at bats. He should get some points for playing 160 games a year (consistently showing up like that certainly is a bonus to a team), but his annual hit totals are not because he was a super star contact hitter (.294), it's because he had a huge number of at bats because he player 160 games and never walked.

For many reasons, I do not trust the advanced defensive statistics to be very accurate for past players, so I will leave that out of it.

[rats60]

I'm not sure what Garvey did to win games that does not appear in the stats. I'd be interested to hear from the Garvey side specifics here, what the available stats are not accounting for. What am I, specifically, missing by looking at his stats?



Drove in runs. If you have 2nd and 3rd with two outs, do you want your star to try to draw a walk or try to get a hit? Garvey hit .373 in those situations. You win by scoring the most runs not by drawing the most walks.
Garvey was clutch at getting big hits, driving in runs and winning games. OBP is for losers. How many World Series has Mike Trout led his team too?

I don't understand the obsession with drawing walks. You don't make an out, but now you are asking a worse player to get a hit to drive in runs and win the game. Pitchers intentionally walk batters to do exactly the same thing. That should tell you how little value a walk can have.

[G1911]

Drove in runs. If you have 2nd and 3rd with two outs, do you want your star to try to draw a walk or try to get a hit? Garvey hit .373 in those situations. You win by scoring the most runs not by drawing the most walks.
Garvey was clutch at getting big hits, driving in runs and winning games. OBP is for losers. How many World Series has Mike Trout led his team too?

I don't understand the obsession with drawing walks. You don't make an out, but now you are asking a worse player to get a hit to drive in runs and win the game. Pitchers intentionally walk batters to do exactly the same thing. That should tell you how little value a walk can have.

The logical issues here should be immediately apparent.

1) If driving in runs is what matters, how is a player supposed to drive in runs if getting on base is irrelevant and "for losers"?

2) The only way to score a run without first getting on base is to hit a home run, which Garvey was not very good at either. So this doesn't seem to help his case.

3) No player has single handedly taken his team to a championship title. By the standard of winning games, backups on the Yankees are some of the very best players of all time and Ted Williams sucks. Does this make sense?

4) There is a very strong correlation and causation between A) getting on base and B) runs being scored by that players team because it is a pre-requisite for the vast majority of runs scored in any time period of the game. A home run with the bases empty is the only way to score without first being on base.

5) If getting on base is "for losers" and Garvey's lack of home run power is also not a problem, then there appears to be literally no offensive standard of production to be a hall of famer.

6) If by driving in runs we mean RBI's are the key metric, then getting on base cannot be for "losers" as a players RBI's come from his teammates getting on base.

7) If we completely ignore the direct contradiction in 6, and say RBI's is what matters even though getting on base is irrelevant and for losers, Garvey ranks 109th with dozens of non-HOF players ahead of him. Reuben Sierra, Garret Anderson, Chili Davis, Carlos Lee, and other legends of the game rank ahead of him. I guess we better elect all of them.

8) If RBI rate or productivity is what matters, Garvey fares even worse. He is 109th in RBI's, but 85th in all time at-bats, and many of those ahead of him were leadoff hitters not in an RBI position. He doesn't appear to actually be very good at driving in runs either.

Mike Trout's a loser, Charlie Silvera is great. On-base is for losers, home runs are irrelevant, driving in runs is king even though that can't possibly happen without players getting on base or hitting home runs. There may be a rational argument for Steve Garvey. This is obviously not it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Drove in runs. If you have 2nd and 3rd with two outs, do you want your star to try to draw a walk or try to get a hit? Garvey hit .373 in those situations. You win by scoring the most runs not by drawing the most walks.
Garvey was clutch at getting big hits, driving in runs and winning games. OBP is for losers. How many World Series has Mike Trout led his team too?

I don't understand the obsession with drawing walks. You don't make an out, but now you are asking a worse player to get a hit to drive in runs and win the game. Pitchers intentionally walk batters to do exactly the same thing. That should tell you how little value a walk can have.

If pitches are not in the strike zone, the hitter's chance of success goes WAY down even if he's Ted Williams. This is why it's better to take the walk than to swing at ball four. As for the benefits of walks in general, read Bill James' analysis of substituting a batter who walked every time for Babe Ruth's best season. The team did better with the walker.

[rats60]

The logical issues here should be immediately apparent.

1) If driving in runs is what matters, how is a player supposed to drive in runs if getting on base is irrelevant and "for losers"?

2) The only way to score a run without first getting on base is to hit a home run, which Garvey was not very good at either. So this doesn't seem to help his case.

3) No player has single handedly taken his team to a championship title. By the standard of winning games, backups on the Yankees are some of the very best players of all time and Ted Williams sucks. Does this make sense?

4) There is a very strong correlation and causation between A) getting on base and B) runs being scored by that players team because it is a pre-requisite for the vast majority of runs scored in any time period of the game. A home run with the bases empty is the only way to score without first being on base.

5) If getting on base is "for losers" and Garvey's lack of home run power is also not a problem, then there appears to be literally no offensive standard of production to be a hall of famer.

6) If by driving in runs we mean RBI's are the key metric, then getting on base cannot be for "losers" as a players RBI's come from his teammates getting on base.

7) If we completely ignore the direct contradiction in 6, and say RBI's is what matters even though getting on base is irrelevant and for losers, Garvey ranks 109th with dozens of non-HOF players ahead of him. Reuben Sierra, Garret Anderson, Chili Davis, Carlos Lee, and other legends of the game rank ahead of him. I guess we better elect all of them.

8) If RBI rate or productivity is what matters, Garvey fares even worse. He is 109th in RBI's, but 85th in all time at-bats, and many of those ahead of him were leadoff hitters not in an RBI position. He doesn't appear to actually be very good at driving in runs either.

Mike Trout's a loser, Charlie Silvera is great. On-base is for losers, home runs are irrelevant, driving in runs is king even though that can't possibly happen without players getting on base or hitting home runs. There may be a rational argument for Steve Garvey. This is obviously not it.

You clearly didn't read my post. If you think your star player's job is to get on base and not drive in runs, your team is never going to win anything. If you can't count on your best player to drive in runs, who is going to do it? Ted Williams is 15th all time in RBIs, how you can come up with Ted Williams sucks out of my post?

[Peter_Spaeth]

You clearly didn't read my post. If you think your star player's job is to get on base and not drive in runs, your team is never going to win anything. If you can't count on your best player to drive in runs, who is going to do it? Ted Williams is 15th all time in RBIs, how you can come up with Ted Williams sucks out of my post?

Ted took a huge amount of criticism from the press and fans for taking walks though. His philosophy was the one I articulated above -- he wasn't likely to have much success swinging at pitches out of the strike zone. His philosophy -- taught to him by Hornsby -- was get a good pitch to hit.

[Yoda]

Dale Murphy had 2 MVPs and hit for serious power. Don't understand what is holding him back?

[G1911]

You clearly didn't read my post. If you think your star player's job is to get on base and not drive in runs, your team is never going to win anything. If you can't count on your best player to drive in runs, who is going to do it? Ted Williams is 15th all time in RBIs, how you can come up with Ted Williams sucks out of my post?

It comes from when you said "OBP is for losers. How many World Series has Mike Trout led his team too?" Ted Williams, the career OBP record holder, led his team to 0 World Series titles. Maybe if Ted had gotten on base less, the Sox would have won one and broken the curse decades earlier.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Dale Murphy had 2 MVPs and hit for serious power. Don't understand what is holding him back?

He didn't quite have the career stats.

[Mike D.]

He didn't quite have the career stats.

Murphy had the low batting average at only .265 and with under 400 HR.

One interesting thing with Murphy is that he played in parts of 18 seasons, collecting 46.5 WAR. If you look at his WAR7, intended to measure peak value, Murphy’s is 41.2.

What does that suggest? A guy with a awesome peak, but not much longevity in terms of production. Just the kind of guy who “felt like a hall of famer”, but who’s career stats make him a borderline candidate.

So, that’s cool. :)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Murphy had the low batting average at only .265 and with under 400 HR.

One interesting thing with Murphy is that he played in parts of 18 seasons, collecting 46.5 WAR. If you look at his WAR7, intended to measure peak value, Murphy’s is 41.2.

What does that suggest? A guy with a awesome peak, but not much longevity in terms of production. Just the kind of guy who “felt like a hall of famer”, but who’s career stats make him a borderline candidate.

So, that’s cool. :)

To put that in context, I believe Mookie Betts has already surpassed him in WAR.

[G1911]

Murphy was a significant player for 7 years (120 OPS+), and the rest of his career was about a league average bat to below. Traditional and Sabrmetric stats get him about right, I think. He was done contributing at age 31. I don't think he's a HOFer without electing a lot of other guys who were really good for 7 years too. He would hardly be the worst selection, but I see his case as being built more on nostalgia than math, which always makes me suspicious. I would vote no, but wouldn't consider him a ridiculous choice or anything.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Murphy was a significant player for 7 years (120 OPS+), and the rest of his career was about a league average bat to below. Traditional and Sabrmetric stats get him about right, I think. He was done contributing at age 31. I don't think he's a HOFer without electing a lot of other guys who were really good for 7 years too. He would hardly be the worst selection, but I see his case as being built more on nostalgia than math, which always makes me suspicious. I would vote no, but wouldn't consider him a ridiculous choice or anything.

I think McGriff is much more deserving than Murphy, for example, but agree the world wouldn't end.

[Mike D.]

Agree Murphy being inducted wouldn’t keep me up at night.

I mean Baines WAR was only 38.7, and WAR7 only 21.4. Plus, he played forever.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Agree Murphy being inducted wouldn’t keep me up at night.

I mean Baines WAR was only 38.7, and WAR7 only 21.4. Plus, he played forever.

He has to be the most underserving electee in recent memory. Obviously some personal politics there.

[G1911]

McGriff, I just don't understand. If we are going to keep out the steroid guys who had the video game stats (I'm fairly agnostic on this), then how can we keep out guys who were a notch below but consistently excellent, top tier players like McGriff? He's a no brainer "Yes!" vote in my book unless we want almost nobody but Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey representing power hitters of the 90's. I thought he would take some time to get in, but I am surprised by his vote totals being about ~20% most of the years he was on the ballot. He capped at only 39% his final year. I hope the Era committees eventually fix this mistake.

Baines keeps me up at night. That was just a horrible selection any way you look at it. Almost anyone else on that ballot would be a better choice.

[Mike D.]

He has to be the most underserving electee in recent memory. Obviously some personal politics there.

Clearly…the interesting thing is that it harkens back to the bad old days of the vets committee…you know, before the HOF got bad. :rolleyes::D

McGriff seems solid and likely to make it eventually - if he does, do we need to re-examine guys like Will Clark, Hernandez, and Olerud? And do Votto and Helton go in too?

[Peter_Spaeth]

McGriff, I just don't understand. If we are going to keep out the steroid guys who had the video game stats (I'm fairly agnostic on this), then how can we keep out guys who were a notch below but consistently excellent, top tier players like McGriff? He's a no brainer "Yes!" vote in my book unless we want almost nobody but Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey representing power hitters of the 90's. I thought he would take some time to get in, but I am surprised by his vote totals being about ~20% most of the years he was on the ballot. He capped at only 39% his final year. I hope the Era committees eventually fix this mistake.

Baines keeps me up at night. That was just a horrible selection any way you look at it. Almost anyone else on that ballot would be a better choice.

I think Vizquel will make it and I don't think he necessarily should. Longevity stats, never a top player, although he did seem to always torture the Red Sox. I guess McGriff is a product of small market teams and always being just a step below the superstars. But are players like Dawson, Perez, Cepeda that much better than McGriff?

[G1911]

Clearly…the interesting thing is that it harkens back to the bad old days of the vets committee…you know, before the HOF got bad. :rolleyes::D

McGriff seems solid and likely to make it eventually - if he does, do we need to re-examine guys like Will Clark, Hernandez, and Olerud? And do Votto and Helton go in too?

I think Keith Hernandez and John Olerud are clear No's, though they were very good players and Olerud in particular is very underrated.

Will Clark is a real candidate. Sabrmetrics has been very kind to him, 56.5 WAR, 137 career OPS+, and he finished above .300. His relative lack of home runs for a 1B in the home run era hurts him. He does not 'feel' like a HOFer, but he's really not a bad pick.

Helton cleared 60 WAR, 133 OPS+ both of which account for the extremely favorable conditions he player in. He too is borderline to me, I suspect he will eventually make it.

Votto I would vote for at this point, 7 OBP crowns, 147 OPS+. A couple more years of good-not-great production would really help his counting stats.

Other 1B:
Mattingly is a real candidate, but just like Murphy. Short peak that was very good but not historically great, and so I think he falls short.

Hodges is a good candidate, his OPS+ is a bit low at 120, he has some counting stats, the connection to a mythologized team, and I think his managing works to his credit too, leading the 1968 Mets is worth a lot, taking a team that shouldn't go that far all the way is a credit to a manager. I am surprised he is not in, but I would probably not vote for him purely on his career as a 1B, he's hall of very good to me.

I think Carlos Delgado should have gotten serious consideration. I think I end up at "No" for him, but he should not have fallen off the ballot immediately his first year and I think merited a serious discussion. 138 OPS+, 473 dingers. His WAR is slaughtered by his defense.

[G1911]

I think Vizquel will make it and I don't think he necessarily should. Longevity stats, never a top player, although he did seem to always torture the Red Sox. I guess McGriff is a product of small market teams and always being just a step below the superstars. But are players like Dawson, Perez, Cepeda that much better than McGriff?

I agree, it looks Vizquel will make it. I don't think he should, even though I loved watching him in the 90's and he was as favored player for his highlight defensive plays. During his prime, he was the fourth or fifth best SS in the American League, and never felt like a Hall of Famer, which both Sabrmetric and traditional stats agree with.

McGriff and Lofton have been really hurt by playing for so many small market teams.

I would put McGriff above Perez and Cepeda, even though coming from Giants country my bias is towards Cepeda. McGriff seems a clear "over the line, bottom third of the Hall but well merited by the selection standards they have consistently applied" to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't see Helton. I think Walker just made it despite the Coors Field thing but I don't see it happening twice.

I don't see Will Clark, to me quintessential Hall of Very Good.

Hernandez and Olerud, no way, agree with you. I don't even understand the support for Hernandez.

Delgado, yeah, interesting case, so is Beltran. Both feel like Dawson to me.

Votto, meh, not even 2000 hits yet, not feeling the love. He doesn't do very well on Baseball Reference metrics either.

[Mike D.]

With 70 WAR and 434 career homers, I think Beltran makes it. Not first ballot or anything, but he’ll get in.

[Peter_Spaeth]

With 70 WAR and 434 career homers, I think Beltran makes it. Not first ballot or anything, but he’ll get in.

He may get punished a bit for the scandal, but yes.

[G1911]

I don't see Helton. I think Walker just made it despite the Coors Field thing but I don't see it happening twice.

I don't see Will Clark, to me quintessential Hall of Very Good.

Hernandez and Olerud, no way, agree with you. I don't even understand the support for Hernandez.

Delgado, yeah, interesting case, so is Beltran.

Votto, meh, not even 2000 hits yet, not feeling the love.

I think Helton will end up in, only because of Larry Walker. I think he will get elected his tenth year or by an era committee at some point.

Beltran never 'felt like' a Hall of Famer to me, but his counting stats accumulated to where I thought his career value was going to put him in. No idea what happens now that his career ends in scandal. Will be interesting to see. I thought Lance Berkman from that Astro's team deserved a serious look as well, not saying he should be a yes but he merited much more than 1.2% of the vote and immediately disappearing from the ballot. Sabrmetrics have been kind to him as well.

Votto is heavily benefited by Sabrmetrics and walking constantly. As more and more of the writers adopt this mindset, I think he will end up making it assuming he doesn't hang on too long and kill his career rate stats. 18th in War, 9th in WAR 7, 15th in JAWS among 1B with everyone higher in the HOF, active or a steroid guy. I'm okay with him getting in, I'd probably vote for him on the strength of his OPS and On Base crowns.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think Helton will end up in, only because of Larry Walker. I think he will get elected his tenth year or by an era committee at some point.

Beltran never 'felt like' a Hall of Famer to me, but his counting stats accumulated to where I thought his career value was going to put him in. No idea what happens now that his career ends in scandal. Will be interesting to see. I thought Lance Berkman from that Astro's team deserved a serious look as well, not saying he should be a yes but he merited much more than 1.2% of the vote and immediately disappearing from the ballot. Sabrmetrics have been kind to him as well.

Votto is heavily benefited by Sabrmetrics and walking constantly. As more and more of the writers adopt this mindset, I think he will end up making it assuming he doesn't hang on too long and kill his career rate stats. 18th in War, 9th in WAR 7, 15th in JAWS among 1B with everyone higher in the HOF, active or a steroid guy. I'm okay with him getting in, I'd probably vote for him on the strength of his OPS and On Base crowns.

His productive career seems to have ended at age 33. He's already been hanging around doing very little for 4 years IMO. Counting numbers still matter to some extent and at a little over 300 HR and probably a little over 2000 hits when all is said and done, doesn't feel like an obvious HOFer to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Even with Coors, Helton did very little after age 30.

[Mike D.]

He may get punished a bit for the scandal, but yes.

Perhaps, but I’m not sure this scandal has that much staying power, as the fired managers (beyond Beltran) both got re-hired a year after being banned.

[ThomasL]

IMO - Helton and Votto are easy HOFers

McGriff is right on that line of HOF and HOVG

Now if we are throwing out names of personal favorites that need a little more consideration...he's probably a HOVG guy but I loved Michael Young.

[Peter_Spaeth]

On the pitching side, surprised Pettite so far has gained so few votes.

[Mozzie22]

I don't see Helton. I think Walker just made it despite the Coors Field thing but I don't see it happening twice.

I don't see Will Clark, to me quintessential Hall of Very Good.

Hernandez and Olerud, no way, agree with you. I don't even understand the support for Hernandez.

Delgado, yeah, interesting case, so is Beltran. Both feel like Dawson to me.

Votto, meh, not even 2000 hits yet, not feeling the love. He doesn't do very well on Baseball Reference metrics either.


Keith Hernandez is the greatest defensive first baseman in MLB history. Period.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Keith Hernandez is the greatest defensive first baseman in MLB history. Period.

I won't argue with that but it doesn't seem to have persuaded many people as he never got more than about 10 percent of the vote.

[Kzoo]

I personally believe that if Lou Whitaker played for the Yankees his whole career, like he did for the Tigers, he would have already been in. His career WAR of 75.1 is higher than Ryne Sandberg and Roberto Alomar who played during the same era. A career batting average of .276 isn't great and another World Series title with that core group of mid 80's Tigers would have benefitted his argument, as well.

[HistoricNewspapers]

His home park was one of the toughest to hit home runs in. So what you are saying is if he played for the Braves and had exaggerated HR numbers, he would be a HoFer.

The game is decided by who scores the most runs, not who hits the most HRs or what team has the highest OPS. Garvey did what it took to win games, not impress want to be Statisticians.

Garvey's biggest unsung attribute is that he played every game and didn't take days off against tough pitchers to save his percentages. Guys like Willie Stargell and McCovey in the second half of their careers routinely sat against left handers on their days off and that helped save their percentages.

In Garvey's case, he 'suffered through' the 1 for 4 against the tough RH pitcher instead of taking the day off and passing the 0 for 4 onto the backup that would be playing in his stead.

So in that sense, Garvey did help his team win more than his stats show.

However, your premise on walks is pretty flawed, especially since half of your at bats come with nobody on base and walking in those cases is every bit as good as a single. Walks have about 2/3 the value of a single when you take into account ALL the situations, including men on.

Garvey did however do a good job hitting with men on base, and there is some merit for him getting a hit with men on instead of passing it to a lesser hitter behind him...if indeed there was a lesser hitter behind him.

However, some hitters are soo good that the pitchers simply will not let the hitter get any good pitches to hit, and swinging at those pitches will simply play into the pitchers hand. So they walk a lot more than everyone else. That is a good thing. The bad thing is if the management is dumb enough to not get a good enough hitter or two behind them to take advantage of that rare ability to hit for power AND get on base at an elite level. Garvey was not elite like that.

What is the case then if the hitter behind Garvey is just as good as him, and then he is passing it to the next hitter who now has MORE guys on base to hit? Those walks would take on even MORE value then. SOme years Garvey had some good hitters behind him where giving them more scoring opportunities would have helped win more, not less. Some years he had much lesser hitters behind him, but I don't think he ever had putrid hitters behind him. Certainly not like players who were batting 7th or 8th in the NL where the walks truly do mean less.

[G1911]

I personally believe that if Lou Whitaker played for the Yankees his whole career, like he did for the Tigers, he would have already been in. His career WAR of 75.1 is higher than Ryne Sandberg and Roberto Alomar who played during the same era. A career batting average of .276 isn't great and another World Series title with that core group of mid 80's Tigers would have benefitted his argument, as well.

Somewhat ironically, Whitaker’s being a Tiger is now probably an asset. “Trammel’s in, Whitaker should be too” will, I think, now end up putting him in.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Garvey's biggest unsung attribute is that he played every game and didn't take days off against tough pitchers to save his percentages. Guys like Willie Stargell and McCovey in the second half of their careers routinely sat against left handers on their days off and that helped save their percentages.

In Garvey's case, he 'suffered through' the 1 for 4 against the tough RH pitcher instead of taking the day off and passing the 0 for 4 onto the backup that would be playing in his stead.

So in that sense, Garvey did help his team win more than his stats show.

However, your premise on walks is pretty flawed, especially since half of your at bats come with nobody on base and walking in those cases is every bit as good as a single. Walks have about 2/3 the value of a single when you take into account ALL the situations, including men on.

Garvey did however do a good job hitting with men on base, and there is some merit for him getting a hit with men on instead of passing it to a lesser hitter behind him...if indeed there was a lesser hitter behind him.

However, some hitters are soo good that the pitchers simply will not let the hitter get any good pitches to hit, and swinging at those pitches will simply play into the pitchers hand. So they walk a lot more than everyone else. That is a good thing. The bad thing is if the management is dumb enough to not get a good enough hitter or two behind them to take advantage of that rare ability to hit for power AND get on base at an elite level. Garvey was not elite like that.

What is the case then if the hitter behind Garvey is just as good as him, and then he is passing it to the next hitter who now has MORE guys on base to hit? Those walks would take on even MORE value then. SOme years Garvey had some good hitters behind him where giving them more scoring opportunities would have helped win more, not less. Some years he had much lesser hitters behind him, but I don't think he ever had putrid hitters behind him. Certainly not like players who were batting 7th or 8th in the NL where the walks truly do mean less.

It's hard enough to hit pitches on the corners. When pitches are outside the strike zone, the pitcher has a HUGE advantage if the batter swings. Walks may be unglamorous, but hitters who lay off pitches out of the strike zone even when a hit would be much better than a walk are a huge asset. This is a key premise of SABRmetrics.

[KCRfan1]

Steve Garvey is the poster child for what is wrong with WAR. All Garvey did was get hits drive in runs and win games. From 1974-1984 Garvey led his team to 5 National League Championships and 1 World Championship. He committed no errors for a whole season and supposedly had a negative dWAR. 10x AS, 4 GG, MVP and 2 x NLCS MVP. He is absolutely a HOFer.


+1

Garvey was nails in the post season too.

[ejharrington]

Curt Schilling, Keith Hernandez, and Ross Barnes are my top 3.

[doug.goodman]

Plus, he played forever.

Which means he was doing something right for a long time...

[doug.goodman]

The game is decided by who scores the most runs, not who hits the most HRs or what team has the highest OPS. Garvey did what it took to win games, not impress want to be Statisticians.

And FUTURE want to be statisticians, using as yet unheard of stats at that...

[G1911]

Walks, on base, home runs, slugging percentage. the stats being used against Garvey were known in his time.

WAR doesn’t think he was great too, but I’m not using that against him. There are a lot of first basemen with better old stats than Garvey, some of which have already been highlighted.

I’d still love to see a logical argument for Garvey using any math, old or new. Surely there is a decent case to be made since he has quite a bit of support.

He performed well in the post season, he gets points for showing up every day and playing 162 games which I frankly think is underrated and works to his benefit. The problem is why he is better than dozens of other players with similar batting stats? Why should he leapfrog numerous players with better stats, old and new, to merit HOF induction?

[doug.goodman]

It's funny timing on this conversation, and that I didn't edit my post to be less player specific, because I meant my comment to be more of a general comment.

Night before last I had a conversation with a fellow baseball fan and said "I'm a Garvey guy, he's the entire reason I've been a Dodger fan since I was 10 years old, but sadly, I don't see him as a hall of famer, he's right there on the steps, but I can't let him in."

Sorry Steve, I still love you.

[Bram99]

Colavito.

Had the same career numbers as Gil Hodges despite playing in pitchers' parks (so his career OPS+ is a lot higher).

I love this post. Don't knock the Rock! Rocky is still alive and well and I would expect that it galls him to see guys like Baines, Ted Simmons, Tim Raines, Larry Walker have gotten in.

[Bram99]

I personally believe that if Lou Whitaker played for the Yankees his whole career, like he did for the Tigers, he would have already been in. His career WAR of 75.1 is higher than Ryne Sandberg and Roberto Alomar who played during the same era. A career batting average of .276 isn't great and another World Series title with that core group of mid 80's Tigers would have benefitted his argument, as well.

Well if Whitaker is in, Randolph is right there too. It's a slippery slope. And I am not saying Randolph should be in...

[Mike D.]

Which means he was doing something right for a long time...

There is a balance between greatness and longevity when looking at hall of fame, for sure.

But does being “above average” for a long time make you a hall of famer? In the case of Baines and him mostly being a DH with some time in the OF, the lack of awards and recognition, times leading the league, etc…simply suggest “no”.

[Bram99]

Allie Pierce Reynolds. The Super Chief.

The ace of the staff for a team that won 5 consecutive World Championships in the golden age of baseball (early 1950's). Won 6 world series. 6X all-star. ERA title. 2x strikeout title. 7-2 record in World Series games with 3 saves as well. 137 complete games, 36 shutouts. 2 no hitters in 1952. 182-107 record plus 48 saves. WAR is lower than most pitchers in HOF, but taht doesn't include post-season where he shined.

Traded for by the Yankees from the Indians for another HOF player (Joe Gordon) because one of the greatest hitters in the history of the game (Joe DiMaggio) wanted him on his team rather than having to face Allie.

A bit shorter career than most HOF pitchers. Career cuth short a bit after struggling through his last two seasons with back and knee pain due to a team bus that crashed into a bridge.

To show how well he was thought of in his time, check out the 1961 Fleer All-time Greats set which includes the Super Chief.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Walks, on base, home runs, slugging percentage. the stats being used against Garvey were known in his time.

WAR doesn’t think he was great too, but I’m not using that against him. There are a lot of first basemen with better old stats than Garvey, some of which have already been highlighted.

I’d still love to see a logical argument for Garvey using any math, old or new. Surely there is a decent case to be made since he has quite a bit of support.

He performed well in the post season, he gets points for showing up every day and playing 162 games which I frankly think is underrated and works to his benefit. The problem is why he is better than dozens of other players with similar batting stats? Why should he leapfrog numerous players with better stats, old and new, to merit HOF induction?

The argument really stems from memory and perception. Those of us who followed the game at the time, for better or worse, thought of Garvey as a superstar, fueled probably by the many 200 hit seasons and All Star selections, the All-American image and charisma (until that imploded), and his apparent clutch hitting ability. He surely was portrayed that way. And people weren't thinking SABRmetrically. I doubt anyone was thinking, man Garvey doesn't walk. Classic example of a player who suffered for the evolving understanding of statistics.

[doug.goodman]

Classic example of a player who suffered for the evolving understanding of statistics.

That was the point I was trying to make (generally, not specifically about Garvey).

Thanx for Peter for wording it better than I was able to.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ah yes, I remember it well.

http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2012/03/12/trouble-in-paradise/

[tod41]

Eh, he was mostly a 1B as early as 1972.

And Garvey compares favorably to who? In 1977, one of his best years, he was middle of the pack in OPS+ among 1B. His contemporaries also included Tony Perez, Willie McCovey, and others. Heck, Bill Robinson outhit him.

The fact that Jason Thompson - a guy "you have to search and find" had a higher OPS+ than Garvey speaks volumes about Garvey being "dominant".

Not true. He played 1B in 72, before Garvey was a starter. He played amost exclusively in OF in 73 and 74. Not a valid comparison to Garvey.

[Tabe]

Not true. He played 1B in 72, before Garvey was a starter. He played amost exclusively in OF in 73 and 74. Not a valid comparison to Garvey.

He was a 1B for 6 of the 8 years from 72 to 79. How is that not "mostly a 1B"?

[Tabe]

Drove in runs. If you have 2nd and 3rd with two outs, do you want your star to try to draw a walk or try to get a hit? Garvey hit .373 in those situations. You win by scoring the most runs not by drawing the most walks.
Garvey was clutch at getting big hits, driving in runs and winning games. OBP is for losers. How many World Series has Mike Trout led his team too?

.

If Garvey was so great at driving runs, why did he drive them in at a rate 12% lower (91 per 162 vs 103 per 162) than Trout despite hitting 4th while Trout hits 2nd & 3rd? If Garvey was such a tremendous winner, why didn't he win more than 1 World Series? Why didn't he ever win one during a full season? Why are you blaming Trout for not winning a title in his first 9 seasons when it took Garvey 12 to win one?

As for Trout, maybe his not winning has something to do with playing for teams like the 2019 Angels that just barely missed being the first team to have no one throw 100 innings.

[timn1]

I agree Tommy John should be in the conversation for the nearly 300 wins, but for the surgery????? Did he do the surgery on himself?


And Steve Garvey? Really? Retrosheet.org has him -6.1 in BFW (Batter/Fielder Wins) - admittedly it's a harsher measure than WAR, but even Baines is +13.7 by that same measure. Trout is +54.3 in half a career.

I would like to see Tommy John get in not only for the nearly 300 wins, but also for the surgery that bears his name. I also like seeing Vada Pinson getting some love in this thread. When I first started taking baseball seriously as a player (maybe 6th grade?), my dad borrowed an instructional video from the coach at the high school where he taught. It had Vada Pinson going through various hitting drills. He's been an under-the-radar favorite of mine ever since.

[egri]

I agree Tommy John should be in the conversation for the nearly 300 wins, but for the surgery????? Did he do the surgery on himself?


And Steve Garvey? Really? Retrosheet.org has him -6.1 in BFW (Batter/Fielder Wins) - admittedly it's a harsher measure than WAR, but even Baines is +13.7 by that same measure. Trout is +54.3 in half a career.

There has been a push to induct Dr. Frank Jobe, who developed and performed that surgery.

[Mark17]

There has been a push to induct Dr. Frank Jobe, who developed and performed that surgery.

But not Canseco's pharmacist.

How is surgically altering a pitching arm praised, while chemically altering muscle tissue is banned? What, really, is the difference when it comes to using modern medicine to gain a competitive advantage?

[Peter_Spaeth]

But not Canseco's pharmacist.

How is surgically altering a pitching arm praised, while chemically altering muscle tissue is banned? What, really, is the difference when it comes to using modern medicine to gain a competitive advantage?

Has anyone ever questioned Koufax' regime of cortisone (steroid) injections?

[Mark17]

Has anyone ever questioned Koufax' regime of cortisone (steroid) injections?

It's a slippery slope, isn't it?

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's a slippery slope, isn't it?

I guess people would say John and Koufax underwent procedures to "cure" something wrong whereas Bonds et al were simply seeking to enhance performance but were healthy?

[Mark17]

I guess people would say John and Koufax underwent procedures to "cure" something wrong whereas Bonds et al were simply seeking to enhance performance but were healthy?

Maybe for Koufax, but when guys can throw harder after having Tommy John surgery, I don't think that point holds.

Bonds could say his substances "cured" his insufficient muscle mass and relative lack of power.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Maybe for Koufax, but when guys can throw harder after having Tommy John surgery, I don't think that point holds.

Bonds could say his substances "cured" his insufficient muscle mass and relative lack of power.

People always defend and distinguish amphetamines, but if they didn't improve performance, why did guys use them?

[HistoricNewspapers]

The argument really stems from memory and perception. Those of us who followed the game at the time, for better or worse, thought of Garvey as a superstar, fueled probably by the many 200 hit seasons and All Star selections, the All-American image and charisma (until that imploded), and his apparent clutch hitting ability. He surely was portrayed that way. And people weren't thinking SABRmetrically. I doubt anyone was thinking, man Garvey doesn't walk. Classic example of a player who suffered for the evolving understanding of statistics.

Sabermetrics are not what has kept Garvey out. When Garvey was up for election, it wasn't the sabermetric stats/voters that kept him out. He was being voted on during a time when the old school measurements were the deciding factor.

272 home runs just wasn't good enough for a corner position player. Several 200 hit seasons was certainly considered, but ending up with less than 3,000 hits and zero batting titles, those 200 hit seasons lost their luster a little, and weren't enough to make up for the non elite power.

He simply did not have the old school type counting stats and/or leaderboard stats to get in.

Garvey's peak wasn't good enough to overcome that. For example, Guys like George Foster and Greg Luzinski have hitting peaks that were as good or better better than Garvey's during that time. Pedro Guerrero has a better hitting peak too, though he was hurt a little more often.

[Mark17]

People always defend and distinguish amphetamines, but if they didn't improve performance, why did guys use them?

Some people feel they need a cup of coffee to start the day. Chemically or psychologically, maybe it helps them get going.

[HistoricNewspapers]

From 1975-1981 George Foster's averages per 162 games are:

.297 BA
38 HR
126 RBI
99 Runs scored
149 OPS+

Garvey's best 7 year run 1974-1980:
.311 BA
24 HR
106 RBI
88 Runs scored
130 OPS+

Cecil Cooper best 7 year run 1977-1983
.316 BA
26 HR
109 RBI
99 Runs Scored
137 OPS+

Kent Hrbek 1984-1990
.288
30
102
86
134 OPS+

Seems those arguments about Garvey being a run producer belong to someone else. Foster has him beat in old school measurements and sabermetric measurements during their peaks that happened at basically the exact same time. Cooper has him beat too.

Garvey's peak isn't that special and there are guys who are not in the HOF that have just as good or better peaks. Foster and HRbek are also both two time WS champions.


Dwight Evans is really the player from that era that has the best case to be inducted.

[darwinbulldog]

Some people feel they need a cup of coffee to start the day. Chemically or psychologically, maybe it helps them get going.

And what, after all, is psychology if not chemistry?

[Mark17]

And what, after all, is psychology if not chemistry?

Exactly.

If a pill makes you more alert - allowing you to make decisions a split second quicker, how is that not performance enhancing? I would argue that faster reaction time aids a hitter more than additional muscles.

[Peter_Spaeth]

And what, after all, is psychology if not chemistry?

But is chemistry cause or effect?

[Knoxy24]

Dave Parker was solid at the plate and in the field....others would include

Keith Hernandez
Gary Sheffield

[Peter_Spaeth]

Dave Parker was solid at the plate and in the field....others would include

Keith Hernandez
Gary Sheffield

Sheffield has the PED problem, right?
Parker is another one of those guys who, to me anyhow, seemed better at the time than the metrics showed in hindsight.

[Tabe]

Maybe for Koufax, but when guys can throw harder after having Tommy John surgery, I don't think that point holds.

A huge part of the increased velocity is that the arm is actually in better shape because of all the rehab the pitcher does. It's grueling rehab and the player ends up in much better shape (all over) if they do it correctly, hence added velocity.

[Tabe]

Has anyone ever questioned Koufax' regime of cortisone (steroid) injections?

I forget if it was here or over on the PSA boards but someone made a post basically detailing that Koufax was a PED user by pretty much every definition of the word.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I forget if it was here or over on the PSA boards but someone made a post basically detailing that Koufax was a PED user by pretty much every definition of the word.

If Bonds, Clemens and Canseco had been more likeable people, you wonder if the whole perception would be different. See example of Big Papi.

[Mike D.]

If Bonds, Clemens and Canseco had been more likeable people, you wonder if the whole perception would be different. See example of Big Papi.

I think being likable helps...that's why Pettite gets some HOF love and some others don't.

On Ortiz...I just don't put "leaked positive for something on an anonymous test before there was real testing" in the same category as "positive test after when testing became a thing".

Plus, of note...all the "good" part of Ortiz's career came AFTER testing was put in place.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think being likable helps...that's why Pettite gets some HOF love and some others don't.

On Ortiz...I just don't put "leaked positive for something on an anonymous test before there was real testing" in the same category as "positive test after when testing became a thing".

Plus, of note...all the "good" part of Ortiz's career came AFTER testing was put in place.

Look at his HR totals up to age 26.

https://sports.cbslocal.com/2016/05/27/david-ortiz-ped-steroid-red-sox/

[molenick]

There are two (at least two) ways to look at this. I don’t really like the "this [bad selection] is in and this guy was better so he should be in" approach. I call this the "Baines and Haines Problem". There are hundreds of pitchers better than Jesse Haines that are not in the Hall (at least according to Baseball Reference rankings), but that doesn't mean they all should be in. I like the "Magee Method" where there is a player you can make a reasonable argument is the best at his position not in the Hall.

I am not smart enough to determine what "best" means so I will just present for your consideration the highest ranked player at each position (as per Baseball Reference) eligible for the Hall who is not tainted by either accusation or proof of steroid or HGH use. Pete Rose and Joe Jackson are not eligible so they are not included below, nor are active players (since they are not eligible yet).

c Thurman Munson (Joe Mauer ranks higher but has not been retired for five years)
1b Todd Helton
2b Bobby Grich
ss Bill Dahlen
3b Scott Rolen
lf Sherry Magee
cf Kenny Lofton (Carlos Beltran ranks higher but has not been retired for five years)
rf Dwight Evans
sp Jim McCormick
rp Bobby Shantz

The last one was a surprise to me but Shantz pitched in 537 games and started 171, so I guess he qualifies as a relief pitcher. However, over 25% of his career WAR came from his MVP season as a starter. After him is Tom Gordon, who was also both a reliever and starter (890 games, 206 starts) but whose WAR was more evenly distributed. After him is Firpo Marberry, who I was surprised to see had about the same game splits as Shantz (551 games, 186 starts) and who I think is the best candidate of the three.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I have never understood how Grich gets so high up in those WAR/JAWS ratings. Here are his other Baseball Reference metrics.


Something does not add up for me.


Black Ink
Batting - 8 (355), AverageHOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink
Batting - 40 (784), AverageHOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 42 (504), LikelyHOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 32 (305), AverageHOFer ≈ 50


And even more telling:
Similar Batters
1.Toby Harrah (908.6)
2.Brandon Phillips (898.2)
3.Jay Bell (894.8)
4.Bret Boone (892.6)
5.Jhonny Peralta (884.1)
6.Asdrubal Cabrera (883.7)
7.Chase Utley (882.6)
8.Sal Bando (879.9)
9.Ian Kinsler (876.1)
10.Travis Fryman (871.6

[Mike D.]

Look at his HR totals up to age 26.

https://sports.cbslocal.com/2016/05/27/david-ortiz-ped-steroid-red-sox/

Right, and if steroids were something you took and you became good at baseball your entire career, it'd be concerning. But since they don't work that way, I see it as "the good part of his career came when testing was in place, and he never tested positive for anything".

I mean, I know they tested "randomly", but you know guys like Ortiz and the other HR guys got tested more than the 160 pound utility infielders.

Now Manny...don't get me started on that sad story.

[Mike D.]

The last one was a surprise to me but Shantz pitched in 537 games and started 171, so I guess he qualifies as a relief pitcher. However, over 25% of his career WAR came from his MVP season as a starter. After him is Tom Gordon, who was also both a reliever and starter (890 games, 206 starts) but whose WAR was more evenly distributed. After him is Firpo Marberry, who I was surprised to see had about the same game splits as Shantz (551 games, 186 starts) and who I think is the best candidate of the three.

Yeah, I wish BB-R wouldn't list relievers with a significant number of starts on the list...it really skews things. It also really shows just how amazing Mariano Rivera was, with only 10 career starts (in his rookie year, when he had a 5.51 ERA).

I think the next pure reliever to get elected is Billy Wagner. I think Joe Nathan may eventually get in, as well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Right, and if steroids were something you took and you became good at baseball your entire career, it'd be concerning. But since they don't work that way, I see it as "the good part of his career came when testing was in place, and he never tested positive for anything".

I mean, I know they tested "randomly", but you know guys like Ortiz and the other HR guys got tested more than the 160 pound utility infielders.

Now Manny...don't get me started on that sad story.

3 percent of his career offensive output through age 26. Doesn't look good.

[Mike D.]

3 percent of his career offensive output through age 26. Doesn't look good.

I see that...but are we to assume he started using steroids and just never got caught?

I wish whatever NY writer leaked that he was on the list had the decency to let us know what he tested positive for.

[Tabe]

On Ortiz...I just don't put "leaked positive for something on an anonymous test before there was real testing" in the same category as "positive test after when testing became a thing".



Neither Bonds nor Clemens ever failed a test administered by MLB.

[Ricky]

Big Papi looks the same today as he did when he played, unlike say McGwire, who looks like he shrunk.

[Ricky]

Neither Bonds nor Clemens ever failed a test administered by MLB.

But Bonds’ head grew two hat sizes….

[Mike D.]

Neither Bonds nor Clemens ever failed a test administered by MLB.

That's true...but there's some pretty good public evidence that they used, including what, when, and how.

But maybe the point should be just that we simply do not know who did what and when, and how much it affected their careers.

Did guys like Raffy and Manny only use late in their careers, or for many years? Does it matter? And let's not forget, when they finally started testing, more pitchers tested positive than hitters. What an era....maybe we just need to stop playing "morality police" and just elect the best players of that era.

[Peter_Spaeth]

That's true...but there's some pretty good public evidence that they used, including what, when, and how.

But maybe the point should be just that we simply do not know who did what and when, and how much it affected their careers.

Did guys like Raffy and Manny only use late in their careers, or for many years? Does it matter? And let's not forget, when they finally started testing, more pitchers tested positive than hitters. What an era....maybe we just need to stop playing "morality police" and just elect the best players of that era.

I'm not sure it holds up to analysis, but I would still keep out Sosa and Palmeiro. I think my gut tells me those guys were just OK players without cheating whereas Bonds and Clemens and possibly McGwire were HOF caliber anyhow. Hard to know what to make of guys like Ortiz who I really like but strongly suspect, and strongly suspect he wasn't that great without. Manny, just no clue.

[Tabe]

That's true...but there's some pretty good public evidence that they used, including what, when, and how.

But maybe the point should be just that we simply do not know who did what and when, and how much it affected their careers.
This is true. My list of suspected users is a lot longer than most. I'm in the Ken Caminiti & Jose Canseco camp that says a big percentage was using.

[JollyElm]

Jeff frickin' Kent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on now!!!!!!!!!!!

Pardon my outrage, but...
How the hell is the all-time leader in RBIs and HRs for a second baseman NOT a first ballot HOFer??????????????????? He was a run scoring monster at a position that's not noted for knocking guys in!!! He had 1,500 RBIs as a second baseman!!! He won an MVP!!! And he's going to drop off the ballot? Why, because the ridiculous sportswriters don't like him?? Boo f_cking hoo!!!!!! What a joke!!!

And save me the stupidity of advanced theoretical stats to pretend he doesn't belong. We all watched him play and know what a stud he was. On any all-time greats baseball team, he would be playing second base.

Oh, and Dave Parker.

[Econteachert205]

Jesse Tannehill’s career stats deserve a serious look.

[TexasLeaguer]

Wes Ferrell.
6 time 20 game winner and the best hitting pitcher of all-time by a wide margin.

[darwinbulldog]

Wes Ferrell.
6 time 20 game winner and the best hitting pitcher of all-time by a wide margin.

How wide?

[TexasLeaguer]

How wide?

Yeah obviously Ruth, but I guess I hadn't been paying attention to Ohtani. He's already got 78 HR? What a beast. I remember seeing a clip of him hitting a ball through the stadium roof in Japan. So maybe Ferrell is the third best hitting pitcher ever...

[Jason19th]

I have never understood how Grich gets so high up in those WAR/JAWS ratings. Here are his other Baseball Reference metrics.


Something does not add up for me.


Black Ink
Batting - 8 (355), AverageHOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink
Batting - 40 (784), AverageHOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 42 (504), LikelyHOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 32 (305), AverageHOFer ≈ 50


And even more telling:
Similar Batters
1.Toby Harrah (908.6)
2.Brandon Phillips (898.2)
3.Jay Bell (894.8)
4.Bret Boone (892.6)
5.Jhonny Peralta (884.1)
6.Asdrubal Cabrera (883.7)
7.Chase Utley (882.6)
8.Sal Bando (879.9)
9.Ian Kinsler (876.1)
10.Travis Fryman (871.6


Two factors explain Grich’s war vs other metrics

1. 16.8 of his war is from defense

2. He was very consistent. Never had a bad year and never had a crazy good year. Therefore he was always valuable but didn’t lead the league in much

[Tabe]

Two factors explain Grich’s war vs other metrics

1. 16.8 of his war is from defense

2. He was very consistent. Never had a bad year and never had a crazy good year. Therefore he was always valuable but didn’t lead the league in much

Also the fact that 2B was not exactly an offensive position during Grich's career. He had a lot of 13 homer, 50 RBI seasons that just don't look all that impressive.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Also the fact that 2B was not exactly an offensive position during Grich's career. He had a lot of 13 homer, 50 RBI seasons that just don't look all that impressive.

Maybe the numbers don't support me but I would rather have Jeff Kent or Chase Utley in the Hall than Grich. Whitaker too.

[perezfan]

Maybe the numbers don't support me but I would rather have Jeff Kent or Chase Utley in the Hall than Grich. Whitaker too.

I like Grich a lot, but also prefer Kent and Utley over him for the Hall. I would put Whitaker on a par with Grich. I prefer a smaller HOF, but would not mind if all four of them eventually got in. Some of the recent inductees would bug me more than all 4 of those second baggers getting in.

[MacDice]

Buck ONeil

[Mike D.]

I like Grich a lot, but also prefer Kent and Utley over him for the Hall. I would put Whitaker on a par with Grich. I prefer a smaller HOF, but would not mind if all four of them eventually got in. Some of the recent inductees would bug me more than all 4 of those second baggers getting in.

I think it comes down to offense vs. defense, peak vs longevity, with a touch of era/recency bias. That being said, looking at Utley and Kent’s raw numbers, they do feel more like HOFers. I honestly think all four belong.

My borderline personal 2B case is Pedroia. Borderline WAR total, but pretty much done at 33 due to injury. Strong rate stats for the position, ROY, MVP, WS wins, great defense, and a fun “gritty underdog gamer” vibe.

[Kutcher55]

I think it comes down to offense vs. defense, peak vs longevity, with a touch of era/recency bias. That being said, looking at Utley and Kent’s raw numbers, they do feel more like HOFers. I honestly think all four belong.

My borderline personal 2B case is Pedroia. Borderline WAR total, but pretty much done at 33 due to injury. Strong rate stats for the position, ROY, MVP, WS wins, great defense, and a fun “gritty underdog gamer” vibe.

Pedroia needed a couple of more years. If that dirtball Machado hadn't Ulf Samuelson'd him, he would have been a HOFer.

[molenick]

Here's another "team" for your consideration. These are the (non-steroid/HGH) players at each position who got the highest percentage of votes in a given year but who are not in the Hall (the number is their single highest %). This was based on looking at roughly the top 100 players at each position and clicking on the ones I thought were good candidates for the list, so I may have missed someone. Since Baseball Reference does not show the recent Veteran's Committee voting, these totals are not included. My understanding is that, among others, Bill Dahlen came close one year. If I can find a list of all those ballots I will update the team.

I found the recent VC results and have added them below. Only one position was changed but some players did get a higher % from the VC.

Dick Allen would be ahead at 1b or 3b depending on what you consider him. He had more games at 1b but had more WAR at 3b (at least that's how I interpret Baseball Reference ranking him under 3b).

C Elston Howard 20.7
1b Gil Hodges 63.4
2b Jeff Kent 32.4
ss Omar Vizquel 52.6 (Dahlen 62.5 VC)
3b Scott Rolen 52.9
lf Minnie Minoso 21.1 (56.3 VC)
cf Andruw Jones 33.9
rf Tony Oliva 47.3 (68.8 VC)
sp Curt Schilling 71.1
rp Billy Wagner 46.4
1b/3b Dick Allen 68.8 VC

The only player on both of my lists is Scott Rolen. He does have a good combination of "advanced" stats and traditional stats (over 300 HRs, five 100+ RBI seasons) and was a 7-time All-Star and 8-time Gold Glove winner. The ballot will be less crowded soon (Schilling, Bonds, and Clemens only have one year of eligibility left) so I'm thinking he will get in one day.

If you consider the VC voting, Dahlen is also on both lists.

[Yoda]

How wide?

Don Newcombe swung a pretty good bat. The Dodgers used to use him as a pinch hitter.

[molenick]

I think Ferrell edges him out, but Red Ruffing was also a good hitter who was often used a pinch hitter.

[SD]

Pedroia needed a couple of more years. If that dirtball Machado hadn't Ulf Samuelson'd him, he would have been a HOFer.As a fellow Sun Devil I love DP. But he's no HOF.

Pedroia was 34 when that happened and would of barely gotten over 2k hits if he remained healthy to play into his 40s. He Batted over 300 5 of his 12 healthy seasons & truly only played 150+ games 5 times in 14 years.

Even in 08 when he got the mvp, it was controversial (.326 /17hr/83 rbi). Morneau got robbed that season & Rodriguez had 62 saves that season which was more deserving.

His 51.6 war is impressive but there are 45 position players with a WAR better than Pedroia’s 51.6 who are not in the Hall call. 7 of them are 2nd baseman. Grich, Whitaker, Randolph, Kent, Utley, Cano & Kinsler.

Watch the video, Machado's cleat pops up from hitting the bag, barely touches Pedroia who is in a bad defensive fielding position. Taking a throw from from SS behind 2b instead of in front of it is little league stuff. Machado was in his base path which is his right. Aggressive within your right and dirty are too different things.

Want to see an intentionally dirty slide, watch Utley obliterate Miguel Tejada 2 feet from the bag in 2015.


Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[RayBShotz]

I didn't study the whole thread and don't know if Albert Belle was mentioned.
During his 9-10 year run he was as dangerous and productive a hitter as anyone in MLB.
Career cut short by debilitating injury and wasn't exactly beloved by the Press but Albert could rake.
Take a look at his stats from the strike season. Can you just imagine where that season would have finished amongst the others from the era.
RayB

[SD]

I didn't study the whole thread and don't know if Albert Belle was mentioned.

During his 9-10 year run he was as dangerous and productive a hitter as anyone in MLB.

Career cut short by debilitating injury and wasn't exactly beloved by the Press but Albert could rake.

Take a look at his stats from the strike season. Can you just imagine where that season would have finished amongst the others from the era.

RayB

94 the last of the Kevin Mitchell years. Him, Griffey, Belle, Thomas and Bagwell where hitting HRs and high BA.

Lofton stealing bases any time he wanted and getting hits like no ones business.

But no one was as hot as Tony and his .394 average. K'd only 19 times in 475 PA. That's 2 weeks for Javy Baez.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[h2oya311]

I'm not sure it holds up to analysis, but I would still keep out Sosa and Palmeiro. I think my gut tells me those guys were just OK players without cheating whereas Bonds and Clemens and possibly McGwire were HOF caliber anyhow. Hard to know what to make of guys like Ortiz who I really like but strongly suspect, and strongly suspect he wasn't that great without. Manny, just no clue.

Amazing how quickly everyone "forgot" about Palmeiro. He was on crappy Baltimore and Texas teams but he had probably the second smoothest left handed swing (behind only Griffey, Jr.) of all time. Maybe you're right about him being just "okay" without the 'roids, but I don't think so.

It's hard to argue with 3,000+ hits, 550+ HRs and 1,800+ RBIs. Oh, and did you know that he walked more than he struck out for his career? A career .371 OBP ain't too shabby.

You know how many players are on the exclusive 3k hit and 500 HR club? Only 6. Aaron, Mays, E. Murray, ARod, Pujols, and Palmeiro. That's rarified air there, my friends.

[Mike D.]

As a fellow Sun Devil I love DP. But he's no HOF.

Pedroia was 37 when that happened and would of barely gotten over 2k hits if he remained healthy to play into his 40s. He Batted over 300 5 of his 12 healthy seasons & truly only played 150+ games 5 times in 14 years.

Well…no. Pedroia is 37 NOW.

[Kutcher55]

As a fellow Sun Devil I love DP. But he's no HOF.

Pedroia was 37 when that happened and would of barely gotten over 2k hits if he remained healthy to play into his 40s. He Batted over 300 5 of his 12 healthy seasons & truly only played 150+ games 5 times in 14 years.

Even in 08 when he got the mvp, it was controversial (.326 /17hr/83 rbi). Morneau got robbed that season & Rodriguez had 62 saves that season which was more deserving.

His 51.6 war is impressive but there are 45 position players with a WAR better than Pedroia’s 51.6 who are not in the Hall call. 7 of them are 2nd baseman. Grich, Whitaker, Randolph, Kent, Utley, Cano & Kinsler.

Watch the video, Machado's cleat pops up from hitting the bag, barely touches Pedroia who is in a bad defensive fielding position. Taking a throw from from SS behind 2b instead of in front of it is little league stuff. Machado was in his base path which is his right. Aggressive within your right and dirty are too different things.

Want to see an intentionally dirty slide, watch Utley obliterate Miguel Tejada 2 feet from the bag in 2015.


Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

These are solid points and appreciate the perspective. He would have been an interesting case if he had been able to carry on for a few more years. Regarding Machado's slide, certainly debatable but I still feel it was dirty especially in consideration of his pattern of behavior throughout his career, including a very dirty moment in the 2018 WS.

[Tabe]

I just watched the Machado slide and it's basically nothing. Pedroia's positioning is fine, Machado's leg pops up and he spikes Pedroia. Doesn't even really make strong contact with Pedroia's leg. I'm seeing online descriptions saying that Pedroia's knee "buckled" and so on - nope. He got spiked, his leg popped up, and then he went down. If it truly ended his career, it's an amazingly innocuous play for that to happen on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbAYcXPhIUE

[Mike D.]

Pedroia did have existing knee issues, which I’m sure didn’t help. For what it’s worth, Pedroia didn’t seem to think the slide was dirty.

Maybe it’s my Red Sox tinted glasses, but if I squint, I see an injury shortened career that may have had enough peak without the benefit of longevity. Think Kirby Puckett (he had a shorter career but similar WAR).

[howard38]

As a fellow Sun Devil I love DP. But he's no HOF.

Pedroia was 37 when that happened and would of barely gotten over 2k hits if he remained healthy to play into his 40s. He Batted over 300 5 of his 12 healthy seasons & truly only played 150+ games 5 times in 14 years.

Even in 08 when he got the mvp, it was controversial (.326 /17hr/83 rbi). Morneau got robbed that season & Rodriguez had 62 saves that season which was more deserving.

His 51.6 war is impressive but there are 45 position players with a WAR better than Pedroia’s 51.6 who are not in the Hall call. 7 of them are 2nd baseman. Grich, Whitaker, Randolph, Kent, Utley, Cano & Kinsler.

Watch the video, Machado's cleat pops up from hitting the bag, barely touches Pedroia who is in a bad defensive fielding position. Taking a throw from from SS behind 2b instead of in front of it is little league stuff. Machado was in his base path which is his right. Aggressive within your right and dirty are too different things.

Want to see an intentionally dirty slide, watch Utley obliterate Miguel Tejada 2 feet from the bag in 2015.


Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk
Pedroia is 37 now.

[SD]

Pedroia is 37 now.Yes, thank you, corrected above.

Kinsler, Utley, Rollins, Pedroia are all similar players with good arguments. Pedroia being the best of the bunch in my opinion.

It's very unlikely Pedroia would have played another 5 years. If he did could he have put up Sandberg type of numbers? Probably not. I feel like thats the bottom line of what it would have taken to get in.

That being said, was Pedroia better then Bobby Doerr who is in? I have heard this argument from Boston fans in the past. I'd say no where close.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[Mike D.]

That being said, was Pedroia better then Bobby Doerr who is in? I have heard this argument from Boston fans in the past. I'd say no where close.

It’s an interesting comparison.

By WAR, they’re close…with a fraction of one WAR separating them (BBR version).

Doerr had about 1,250 more PA. Both were effectively done by age 33, with Doerr getting an earlier start.

Doerr had a .288/.362/.461 line with a .823 OPS and 115 OPS+

Pedroia had a 299/.365/.439 line with an .805 OPS and 113 OPS+

So, I’d probably give Doerr and edge, but it’s not THAT far off.

[Mike D.]

Of note, WAR is a counting stat…so when I see Kinsler with 2.2 more WAR than Pedroia, but with 1,500 plus more plate appearances, that doesn’t scream “better” to me. A look at their raw numbers, rate stats, etc seems to back that up.

[SD]

Of note, WAR is a counting stat…so when I see Kinsler with 2.2 more WAR than Pedroia, but with 1,500 plus more plate appearances, that doesn’t scream “better” to me. A look at their raw numbers, rate stats, etc seems to back that up.Fun fact, Pedroia beat out Kinsler at SS when both where at ASU, causing the latter to transfer to Mizzou.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[egri]

That being said, was Pedroia better then Bobby Doerr who is in? I have heard this argument from Boston fans in the past. I'd say no where close.


I agree. While they both had injury-shortened careers, Doerr also lost a year and change due to the war. He was drafted in August 1944 and didn't return until 1946.

[Mike D.]

I agree. While they both had injury-shortened careers, Doerr also lost a year and change due to the war. He was drafted in August 1944 and didn't return until 1946.

The fact that Doerr debuted at 19 and was a major league regular is super impressive.

[Mike D.]

Fun fact, Pedroia beat out Kinsler at SS when both where at ASU, causing the latter to transfer to Mizzou.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

That is an interesting one…I hadn’t heard that. Thanks for sharing!

[h2oya311]

Fun fact, Pedroia beat out Kinsler at SS when both where at ASU, causing the latter to transfer to Mizzou.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

Fun fact - I played in a father-son fantasy football league with Pedroia 2 years ago. We did a live draft so I got to hang with him for a few hours. He had just had knee surgery and was popping pills every half hour. He took Tom Brady.