PDA

View Full Version : Hall of Fame


Archive
09-15-2001, 08:18 AM
Posted By: <b>Kevin Cummings</b><p>Is it just me or do you read the new rules for Hall of Fame election by the Veterans' Committee to mean that there will be NO veterans or Negro Leaguers elected in 2002? That means no 19th century stars elected for two straight years. And the rules now call for veterans elections every other year! I think the 19th century stars are going to get screwed BIG TIME!<BR><BR><BR><a href="http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterans/index.htm" target=_new>http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterans/index.htm</a>

Archive
09-15-2001, 01:44 PM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p>I posted about this on the old board, because my collection focuses only on Hall of Famers and I try to look ahead and predict who will get in.<BR><BR>If the new Veteran's Committee stays in place, I think we have seen the end of ANYBODY getting in the Hall of Fame who did NOT play after 1950. I say this because there are hardly any Hall of Famers alive who played before then, and they now have a very strong voice in selecting who gets in.<BR><BR>The old Hall of Famers ALL have agendas (like Ted W. trying to get Dom Dimaggio in), so I think they will continue to lobby for their cronies but will ignore anyone who played before them.

Archive
09-15-2001, 01:52 PM
Posted By: <b>Kevin Cummings</b><p>You might never be able to get a deal from a seller any longer on a "potential" Hall of Famer who might have been very iffy in the past since they will be voting on a PUBLISHED ballot. EVERYONE will know EXACTLY what 25 - 30 players are up for election and the sale prices of their cards will rise because of it, even if only temporarily.

Archive
09-15-2001, 02:52 PM
Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>...has an cfqual and opposite reaction. If the baseball powers that be do something you don't like, wait a year, and they'll overrcorrect.<BR><BR> Julie

Archive
09-15-2001, 03:57 PM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p>I just finished reading "Politics of Glory," and if nothing else he shows that the Hall of Fame is very good at making a profit. Thus, what interest do they have in adding someone from the 19th century when NO additional fans will show up in Cooperstown because of his induction??? I honestly think that the end has finally come for anyone who played BEFORE 1950. I thikn the attitude of the voters is going to be: "Those old players have had AT LEAST 50 years to get elected and have NOT made it yet, so they must NOT be deserving." The ONLY way this would change would be if someohw one of the older players was publicly "romanticized" in some way (a la Field of Dreams, etc.)

Archive
09-15-2001, 04:15 PM
Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p>Well -- I think that too many "borderline" Hall of Famers have been elected in the past 10 - 20 years, so if the standard is unreasonable tight for a decade or so, I think it will stop the flow of complaints of the Hall of Fame being too "watered down". <BR><BR>There have just been too many weak elections in the past years to really justify having such an "easy" standard. It will be nice to have one or two people elected per year -- all with stellar stats without being a questionable election (i.e. Buddies on the Veterans' Committee).

Archive
09-15-2001, 06:57 PM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p>Having said all of this, let's talk about who MIGHT make it in the near future from those players who are NOT vintage but who are no longer playing:<BR><BR>Ozzie Smith (I say yes)<BR>Eddie Murray (I say yes)<BR>Andre Dawson (I say yes)<BR>Dennis Eckersley (I say yes)<BR>Wade Boggs ( I say yes)<BR>Paul Molitor (I say yes)<BR>Lee Smith (I say maybe, but I would vote no)<BR>Ron Santo (I say maybe, but I would vote no)<BR>Gary Carter (I say maybe, but I would vote no)<BR>Allen Trammel (I say no and would vote no)<BR>Frank White (I say no and would vote no)<BR>Don Mattingly (I say no and would vote no)<BR>Dale Murphy (I say no but would vote yes)<BR>Jim Rice (I say no and would vote no)<BR>Dwight Evans (I say no and would vote no)<BR>Jim Kaat (I say no and would vote no)<BR><BR>Any others I am forgetting?? Any other opinions??

Archive
09-15-2001, 07:37 PM
Posted By: <b>Kevin Cummings</b><p>In my mind, the only HOF first ballot certainties are Paul Molitor and Wade Boggs. I think Eddie Murray's attitude will keep him out for a while (payback is a bitch, isn't it?).<BR><BR>If you want to keep "watered down" candidates out of the Hall, relief pitchers are at the top of my list. The save statistic is ridiculous.

Archive
09-15-2001, 09:45 PM
Posted By: <b>WWolter</b><p>I think there are a few no-brainers on the list. Ozzie Smith is a no brainer, and I feel that Gary Carter should be in as well. If you compare his numbers to Fisk's, he should be in. I think the greatest injustice towards potential hall of famers is Dale Murphy. If anyone deserves to be in the hall of fame he is the one. Like Ozzie, Murphy has won numerous awards for community service,fund raising,etc.. He is one of the nicest guys around, and he was hitting 40 hrs a year when that meant something. As far as relievers are concerned, Gossage and Sutter deserve to be in. They were saving games when it meant coming in in the 5th or 6th inning.

Archive
09-16-2001, 07:53 AM
Posted By: <b>Kevin Cummings</b><p>I'm not a huge Ozzie Smith fan. I really think he's a borderline case. His stats aren't any better than Larry Bowa's or Roy McMillan's for God's sake! I don't think either of them belong in the Hall of Fame.<BR><BR>And you deserve to be in the Hall of Fame for your "on the field" accomplishments. There are probably lots of guys as nice as Dale Murphy, but with crummier statistics. If they were nicer than Dale Smith, would that mean they are more deserving of the Hall than he?<BR>Sorry - he's out.

Archive
09-16-2001, 08:18 AM
Posted By: <b>WWolter</b><p>I agree with you in the fact that Ozzie Smith doesn't have the offensive numbers that others may, but 13 gold gloves? I know what your gonna say, what about Jim Kaat etc... Like him or not he deserves it. Dale Murphy is a two time MVP, multiple gold gloves, like a seven or eight time all-star, not to mention the fact he's a hell of a guy. With some of today's numbers his may not be as impressive, but he isn't even coming close in the ballot. This won't win me any points either, but I feel Mattingly deserves more consideration. I realize he didn't play as long as many, but neither did Puckett.<BR> best regards,<BR> Wade

Archive
09-16-2001, 01:48 PM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p>The way baseball is going now, 500 home runs is NOT even going to guarantee entrance in the Hall of Fame in a few years!! It used to be that 400 was a magic number (except for Kingman), but now that can be accomplished by anybody with a bat.<BR><BR>On the flip side, 250 wins is NOW the equivalent of 300 wins in the past. Clemens and Maddux are probably the only ones with 250, and even they may not get to 300 (although they probably will in a few years).<BR><BR>Ozzie Smith is just like Aparicio and Mazeroski (great fielders who made the HOF on their fielding)...but BOTH of them were selected by the OLD veteran's committee. If Ozzie doesn't get selected by the writers, he may be left out.<BR><BR>Then again, since he was so well liked, I bet Ozzie gets in before Murray (as Kevin pointed out earlier).

Archive
09-16-2001, 02:43 PM
Posted By: <b>john</b><p>anyone who has over 500 homers and 3000 hits should be an automatic induction,regardless of how he treated the media....ozzie smith should be in because he is regarded as the best fielding shortstop ever and his hitting stats are very comparable to Luis Aparicio...as far as Dale Murphy,i think his BA is too low,and his amount of great years are low, basically from 82-87,dont forget he was batting in the 220's in his prime years 32-33,and did nothing after that,those arent hall of fame stats to me,i think Dwight Evans and Jim Rice should go in before him(no im not a red sox fan)...i feel Jim Kaat is under rated too for the simple fact that if he won 17 more games he would have been in probabaly 2nd ballot but he relieved in over 250 games in his career,which obviously took away from his win total,how many 300 game winners relieved that many times(ill give you a hint,its 0),plus throw in the 16 gold gloves...Along with Tommy John,and Bert Blyleven too if they had only 12 an 13 more wins respectively,they wouldve been in already,im sure they lost at least that many each from blown saves...my rant for the day,John

Archive
09-16-2001, 03:15 PM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p>So what about Andre Dawson?? Will he make it in?

Archive
09-16-2001, 04:26 PM
Posted By: <b>john</b><p>i think if Dave Parker didnt make Andre Dawson wont,they are both very similar players with overall career stats,very similar,both were national league all-star,outfielder who both won a few gold gloves,both hit for power,and each won one mvp,i think Parkers drug problem probably hurt his chances,while playing for the Expos for most and losing teams(cubs,marlins,except for 89,which he batted .105 in the playoffs) will hurt him.Parker was part of both the PIRATES teams of the 70's that were good and the A"s of the late 80's that were in the w.s. 3 times(2 yrs)....for borderline HOF'ers that seems to be important..and just the fact that im a Pirates fan,it would make me mad if Dawson made it,and Parker gets barely any consideration,check out their stats,they are very similar players

Archive
09-17-2001, 09:22 AM
Posted By: <b>Kevin Cummings</b><p>He's definitely got the stats - no doubt about it. <BR><BR>But let's not forget that it's the BASEBALL WRITERS that vote on the recently retired players. Unlike Will Rogers, Eddie Murray never met a writer he didn't hate, so unless I miss my guess, they'll return the favor and make him sweat a little bit.

Archive
09-19-2001, 04:20 PM
Posted By: <b>Scott Forrest</b><p>I think Mattingly will make it, and so will all the others you predicted. Murphy might and the rest are 'no's. I would like to see Frank Howard in - I still remember that Malto-meal commercial where it looked like he was hitting a golf ball out of the park.

Archive
09-19-2001, 09:16 PM
Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>I agree about the players you say don't deserve to be in the HOF. However, I don't think O. Smith deserves to be in. If he does then does Omar Visquel when he retires. I also don't think that Dawson belongs in there. When he played I never thought of him as one of the top players in the game. How about guys who are playing now as likely candidates. I would say the following are all very likely: Gwynn, Piazza,Maddux, Clemens,P. Martinez, R. Alomar,McGwire, Sosa,Bonds,R. Johnson, Henderson, Bagwell, IRod and probably that hanger-on in Baltimore Ripken. Then you have all the young stars like Jeter,ARod, Rivera,Garciaparra?,etc. Lot of HOFers here. By the way you left a really good candidate off your list who I think deserves serious consideration---Albert Belle.

Archive
09-20-2001, 12:26 AM
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>If Vizquel plays as long as Smith does his stats are going to be better then Smiths,he'll only be behind in stolen bases,but Vizquel is the all-time leader in fielding pct. for sortstops .983,he was before this year started,and all hes done this year is put up a .990 pct,so if Smith goes in Vizquel definitely should,so maybe they should just leave Smith out and put Vizquel in...but i think both will make it,shortstop is the most important defensive position and putting the 2 best def. shortstops in the hall of fame isnt gonna make the hall any worse just because they have average hitting stats,everyone will know theyre there because of their glove...both are highly comprable to Luis Aparicio,and i havent heard anyone say he doesnt belong in,and Aparicio himself said Vizquel is a future hall of famer

Archive
09-20-2001, 12:54 AM
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Mark Mcgwire is probably the most over rated player,hes going to make the hall based only on homeruns,if you take away 100 homers from him and add 500 hits and 20 points to his batting avg,he would be almost as good as Fred McGriff,and he barely gets a mention as a possible hall of famer....take away 100 homers and add 300 hits,200 stolen bases,and an mvp award,a 40-40 season and a world series ring,and hes as good as Jose Canseco,and he barely gets a hall mention...im not saying hes not a hall of famer,but look at his stats,hes no better then either one of those guys,just shows you how over-rated homer runs are,hes had some pretty bad seasons,hes gonna make the hall with 9 rob deer-like years out of 14 seasons....my rants over,sorry about that

Archive
09-20-2001, 07:22 AM
Posted By: <b>WWolter</b><p>I see what your saying about McGwire, but you can't "take away" stats. Take away 2000 hits from Tony Gwynn etc... If your going to take away from Big Mac, you have to add to Big Mac-3 full years of injury that he would have hit 50 hrs each year. Hr totals should not be the only criteria for H.O.F induction, but it is a sad reality. All of that being said, add 150 hr's to what McGwire has now and he is at 720 or so. That is a deffinate.

Archive
09-20-2001, 09:06 AM
Posted By: <b>joe coal</b><p>what i meant was if basically is whats more important,if a guy hits 550 home runs and scores 1200 runs and has 1400 rbi's for their career is that better then a guy who hits 450/1200/1400 but is much better in other categories? appearantly it is according to the people who vote for the hall,he isnt helping is team score anymore then the other guy,and someone like mcgwire on the basepaths cant be a help,he runs like Ron Hassey!...and as far as giving a guy credit for time he missed due to injury,canseco has been on the disabled list 12 times compared to mcgwires 9 times during their careers...or best example might be tommy john,he missed the end of one season,and then the whole next year with his famous arm injury,that now has a surgery named after him,and he missed that time in is prime,why couldnt they just credit him 12 wins for that time lost,he average 15 wins,the 3 yrs before and the 3 years after the injury,so its safe to say he would of had 12 wins in 1+ seasons,that woud have put him over 300,and we would be calling him hall of famer Tommy John ... but why reward a guy for getting injured? isnt he doing his team harm when hes injured,he is taking up payroll and forcing them to play somebody they werent planning on who might not be ready for the majors or might not be good enough to start...might be hard to believe but i actually like McGwire,just because of the home runs probably <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> John

Archive
09-20-2001, 12:26 PM
Posted By: <b>Kevin Cummings</b><p>Come on - Ron Hassey ran <b>much better than</B> Mark McGuire! He had more stolen bases and a shorter career! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
09-20-2001, 01:37 PM
Posted By: <b>joe coal</b><p>i think it was phil rizzuto when i was watching the yankees,and hassey hit one into the gap for a double,he ( or whoever) said "there goes hassey turning another triple into a double"...since then hes been a popular reference among my family that was watching that game,whenever somebody does something slow,,,,i read in the sporting news during his last years,that hassey was voted the slowest player in baseball! what an honor

Archive
09-20-2001, 02:05 PM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p>If you just add 400 home runs to Hassey' totals...<BR><BR>then Big Ron is in the Hall of Fame!!!

Archive
09-21-2001, 03:25 PM
Posted By: <b>Vognar Julie</b><p>Best won-lost percentage iof all time....

Archive
09-21-2001, 04:02 PM
Posted By: <b>john</b><p>his 286 wins has to count for something,caruthers is a good choice along with other 19th century pitchers jim mccormick 264 wins,charles buffington 230,will white 227wins/2.06 era.....according to the book i have,caruthers has the 5th highest winning % ever with guys over 100 wins,spud chandler 717,whitey ford 690,dave fultz 690,don gullett 686,caruthers 682...the only problem with caruthers i think is his short career,he only pitched 9 years(he played outfield 1 year),but he was good none the less....im sure if the people on this board voted for the hall,it would definitely look alot different for the better

Archive
09-21-2001, 05:06 PM
Posted By: <b>john</b><p>while looking for his yearly pitching stats,i got 3 different win/loss totals for him(217-101,218-99,217-98) but i noticed he really only had 7 full seasons,including a 17-17 record..taking into consideration the hall of fames 10 yr minimum season played,he really doesnt belong,but he could be grouped with addie joss,who only had 8 full seasons and part of another before he died,makes you wonder why they picked joss and not caruthers?....caruthers was an outfielder too,and when the mound got moved to 60ft6inches from the plate,caruthers couldnt pitch because of a sore arm and platooned in outfield with david fultz who ironically has the 3rd highest winning % for a pitcher,after 1893,caruthers played minor league baseball till 1898,could you imagine a guy nowadays,having 217 wins by the age of 29,and spendng the rest of his career as a minor league outfielder? unreal! John

Archive
09-21-2001, 08:17 PM
Posted By: <b>Kevin Cummings</b><p>Well, I think the thread got so long we wound up back at the issue that I started this whole topic with - 19th century stars are going to get <b><u>screwed</u></b>!<BR><BR>P.S. I have to put a plug in for one of my favorite 19th century pitchers, too - Gus Weyhing!