Ok....what 3 pre-war HOF'ers would you boot out? [Archive]

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:03 PM

Posted By: DaveIf you had to pick three that would have to get out of the Hall....who and why? Mine...partly discussed in another thread that spurned this one... 1. Miller Huggins...Only 1400 career wins as a manager...won 3 World Series..but look at the team he had! 2. Roger Bresnahan....this one has already been discussed as well...borderline, in today's world he doesn't get in. 3. This one may cause a stir....Addie Joss....great pitcher, great record..but it was only 9 years...was this a sympathy pardon?? Ok..welcome to take shots now... Dave

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:10 PM

Posted By: barrysloateDave- while I am not answering your question directly, I have long felt, somewhat tongue in cheek, that there are too many people in the Hall and they should start paring it down. It could be like spring cleaning, where they go through the room with all the plaques and start yanking them off the wall and tossing them in the trash bin. Get it back down to the 50-75 greatest players of all time. Now that would be a real Hall of Fame.

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:12 PM

Posted By: DaveI thought i'd eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich before going to a foot long meatball sub... Although I guess I could pick 40 names and piss everybody off ....ha ha

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:14 PM

Posted By: barrysloateDave- sorry, but you lost me there. What about peanut butter and jelly (try cashew butter, I eat it almost every day)?

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:16 PM

Posted By: peter chaoBarry, Since this the Net54 forum we need controversy in order to maintain our reputation. I say keep all of the Hall of Famers. The real reason for the Hall is to preserve the history of baseball. Even the borderline Hall of Famers help reproduce the history of baseball and should be kept. Peter

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:16 PM

Posted By: Joe D.the Hall is an honor for a person and his family. It is a welcoming into a select fraternity. How can you possibly take something like that away? I think it would be terrible.

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:20 PM

Posted By: Brian LindholmeGeorge Kelly Dave Bancroft either Tony Perez or Don Sutton or Rick Ferrell or Joe Sewell or many others...

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:20 PM

Posted By: DaveI respectfully disagree. Although it will never happen (taking players out), if for some reason they ever did and Huggins and Wallace for example were removed, do you really think Miller Huggins great great great grandson would be that grief stricken?

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:21 PM

Posted By: DaveAll decent choices...but to make it harder...keep the choices all pre-war....ha ha

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:24 PM

Posted By: MVSNYCobviously no person in the hall is going to get "booted"...i think the way to handle it going forward is to really tighten-up the door, and let in only a handful from the current & future eras...only the MOST dominent players (i.e. clemens, pujols, etc)... think about this: the first year for the Hall (1936) they only inducted 12 people (out of the already 1,000's that had played up until then)...it must be very very selective going forward or else, before you know it, we will have 500+ people in there...

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:25 PM

Posted By: DaveBancroft may be a very good choice looking at it.

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:26 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI admit what I said was partly tongue in cheek...you can't really throw people out. But I do have two points to make: You can't put Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner in the same group as Bobby Doerr and George Kell (and Kell needs to brush up his driving skills, too). Also, there are so may people in the Hall that generations from now, when the number surpasses 300 and then 400 members, I think most of the players will become a total mystery. It's simply too many people in one group if each of these people is supposed to stand out. Who is going to know Dave Bancroft or Eppa Rixey fifty years from now?

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:26 PM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)Dave, you're pretty close on that one... I don't think that the "Huggins" and Scott auctions would close down either! Pick three.... Tinkers, Evers... (but keep Chance), need one more... my gawd... there are soooooo many to chose from. Hey, wait a minute, I can't kick out Tinkers to Evers or the price of that T202 (Tinkers, Evers - center panel - Chance) card would drop like a rock... Wait a minute, I have a lot of those border line HOFers in my collection. We can't do that. The value of my colletion (and many others would go down). We need to elect MORE players that are borderline or less. Let me look over my "commons / Non- HOF" box of cards and see who needs to be elected.... <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:26 PM

Posted By: Joe D.yes I do think it will effect the family. If Miller Huggins was your great great grandfather wouldn't you be proud that he is a hall of famer? and be upset if someone was trying to take that recognition away? Also - what does it say to the new inductees.... "We think you are worthy of this honor now.... but we may change our mind at some point - and deem that you are not Hall of Fame Caliber... oh and by the way... welcome." or to the living HOFers? "Check the paper each year... your greatness may be stripped from you - our opinion may just change.... so, enjoy it while it lasts" That is not how you honor a person for any achievement in life... and quite frankly I think it would work to destroy the Hall of Fame.

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:30 PM

Posted By: DaveValid points...and I don't think you ever have to worry...the day they start kicking people out of the Hall pigs will fly and I'll be wearing a bra.

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:39 PM

Posted By: MVSNYCsorry, it was brought to my attention that i was thinking of the 1939 innuagural ceremony when the first 12 (or so) players were grouped together for a photo...the very first class was merely 5 players, which helps to illustrate my point even more... <a href="http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/first5/default.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/first5/default.htm</a> Ruth Cobb Matty Wagner Johnson wow.

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:39 PM

Posted By: barrysloateJoe- of course they will never kick anybody out who is already there. But I do think the Hall is getting too big and there are too many names that may not hold up to the test of time. Like I said, take your grandson there in 25 years and ask him what he thinks of Frank Selee's plaque. His eyes are likely to glaze over.

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:41 PM

Posted By: Brian LindholmeThere has been some discussion in the past about honoring current HOFers with a special designation like "inner circle" or "Golden Hall member". To the points made about the future of the HOF when there could be 400 members, with the special designation, your Babe Ruths wouldn't be crowded into the same bunch as Gary Carter and Chick Hafey. I agree that there shouldn't really be anyone thrown out, but the elevated status might make for some interesting voting! Brian L familytoad

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:44 PM

Posted By: DarrenKeep the number at 100 and for someone to get in someone must be voted out.

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:44 PM

Posted By: DaveAnd nobody as of yet has disagreed with my Joss statement? Hmm.

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:47 PM

Posted By: peter chaoGuys, Didn't Frank Selee play basketball. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> No, but the fact that we do not know all the biographical details of the different Hall of Famers is what helps preserve the mystery of baseball. We all become more inquisitive when wonder about why Joe Tinker is in the Hall of Fame. Then presto, you find out that it helps to have a poem written about you. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Peter

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:53 PM

Posted By: Joe D.I am sure it would never happen. I just wanted to point out why it should not ever happen. The thread does make for fun hypotheticals... although I can't bring myself to name any names <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:54 PM

Posted By: MVSNYCdave- maybe you are confused with some other "Joss"...but Addie Joss' stats are pretty impressive, even if it was only 9 years...he had one of the lowest ERA's in history...goto baseball-reference.com and check out his wins, complete games, and ERA each season...wow.

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:54 PM

Posted By: Jason L...and me without my Captain America tie on! I think it is fair to say that the HOF is in danger of hurting itself: 1) Dante Bichette received votes...the voting process is problematic 2) The HOF Induction weekend has become an ever increasingly important business to the local community/economy...what would happen if no one was elected one year? or 2-3 years in a row? So you have local incentive to put someone in every year...conspiracy theories abound... 3) Who knows Eppa Rixey NOW, never mind in 50 years!? The ever-present fight is to present interesting lessons in history...that is what they are there for... and 4) Dante Bichette received votes I don't think anyone should ever be reomved, or even re-categorized into subsets, like Golden Members (where's Austin Powers?), because that will simply serve to detract from how important it is to place the players within the context of their eras and contemporaries...I found the Bresnahan discussion to be very informative, because while his stats aren't great on an absolute basis, I was surprised to see how important he was for his time! but seriously, the Dante Bichette thing is troublesome...

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:56 PM

Posted By: Brian LindholmeDave, I guess I should have mentioned that kicking out Addie Joss would be a terrible decision ! My avatar would indicate that he is one of my favorites. He wouldn't be one of my "inner circle" members, but he's right behind Nap Lajoie as my favorite HOF pre-war player. Of course, someone out there may idolize George Kelly or Fred Lindstrom as their favorite players of all-time, so there is no disrespect to anyone intended. So Dave, would you mind picking another player to kick out so that I don't have to buy a E107 Lajoie, scan it and create a new avatar...thanks !!lol Brian L fmailytoad

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:56 PM

Posted By: warshawlawAddie Joss did get a sympathy vote because he died suddenly and young, but he was HOF caliber. Same with Ross Youngs.

Archive

02-22-2007, 01:59 PM

Posted By: BrettJust off the top of my head : Tinker, Evers and Marquard.

Archive

02-22-2007, 02:01 PM

Posted By: barrysloateHere's an idea: how about taking all the players already inducted, and divide the hall into two sections: 1) The Hall of Greats 2) The Hall of Somewhat Greats <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

02-22-2007, 02:03 PM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)Joss deserves to be in - less than a 2.00 ERA with a pretty good winning percentage (160-97, .623%). It's hard to knock someone who was a dominating player but was cut down in the prime (right after his 31st birthday) of his life. I remember when I was a kid I kept a list of players that I figured deserved to be in the HOF. Joss was at the top of that list. Finally, in 1978 they enshrined him. If ever there was a 9 year player that deserved to be in the HOF, it was Joss.

Archive

02-22-2007, 02:03 PM

Posted By: Justin1. Morgan Bulkeley, first NL president, had a very short tenure and really only go the position by pure luck. My understanding is that the initial NL owners drew straws to pick who would get what position. 2. Candy Cummings, a very good NA pitcher, who alledgedly invented the curveball, but tons of evidence contradicts this. 3. Tommy McCarthy, had a couple really good seasons in a great offensive era, supposedly invented inside baseball, but again I don't think he deserves sole credit.

Archive

02-22-2007, 02:05 PM

Posted By: peter chaoAdam, Addie Joss should not be in the Hall. It was a strong sympathy vote that got him in. Addie was still pitching well when he passed away, there were many ballplayers that wanted to attend his funeral, but the major league owners refused to cancel ballgames. Addie became a symbol for major leaguers that wanted to be treated as equals instead of chattel. Although Addie Joss' numbers were exceptional, they were not exceptional for that era...quite unlike Sandy Koufax whose numbers were outstanding for his era. After all of the above has been said, I would still want Addie Joss to be in the Hall. Peter

Archive

02-22-2007, 02:15 PM

Posted By: E, DanielIn Aussie Rules football we have it, where people associated with the game in a particularly significant way may be enshrined to the Hall of Fame, and then within that are individuals so special in their traits that they can be given the designation "Legends". Only a tiny number have been given the honor - 18 I think, and you really need to be a once in a generation kind of player or coach to be considered. <a href="http://www.afl.com.au/Season2007/Awards/HallofFame/Legends/tabid/855/Default.aspx" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.afl.com.au/Season2007/Awards/HallofFame/Legends/tabid/855/Default.aspx</a> Daniel <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1172096455.JPG">

Archive

02-22-2007, 02:32 PM

Posted By: Dave WilliamsOff the top of my head, 3 worthy candidates Tommy McCarthy Lloyd Waner Bid McPhee Not to mention a whole flock of folks who played between 1920 and 1940 like Jesse Haines (even as a Cardinal fan, he is no HOF'er), Hack Wilson, Travis Jackson.

Archive

02-22-2007, 02:46 PM

Posted By: AnonymousThe baseball hall of fame is so prestigous compared to other pro sports hall of fames partly because it has been relatively strict. There currently isnt an accepted format of what qualifies a person to be a hall of famer. Now ofcourse theres going to be the greatest players of all time, and there's going to be some that may be seen as borderline. But cmon, no one thinks that all hall of famers are equal, just cause theyve become hall of famers. The hall is stricter then many give it credit for. There are some outstanding baseball players who for one reason or another will never be hall of famers. Go ahead and rank the players and set up tiers to place them in but overall its worked out pretty well

Archive

02-22-2007, 02:51 PM

Posted By: DaveI dont have any doubt Addie Joss was probably one of the most talented pitchers in his era. I just find it really tough to put someone in with nine years of service. He may very well have pitched five more years and won another 100 games or pitched 10 more years and won another 175 games and easily have been in...but, he didn't. If he was that worthy why was it 1978 until he got in, 60 some odd years after he died? To me...if you don't get in until 60 years after your death..your borderline. The people that voted Joss in weren't the same people that watched him pitch...they were all dead...and for whatever reason chose not to include him in thier time period.

Archive

02-22-2007, 02:53 PM

Posted By: JustinI think most of the the criticism the HOF gets is based upon the selections of the 40's and 50's(and to lesser extent the 60's) when a lot of cronyism and nostalgia was taking place. Because no guidelines were in place to define a worthy HOFer, many players were elected based on fond recollections rather than cold hard stats. It's gotten much better recently, but the mistakes of the past still cause problems.

Archive

02-22-2007, 03:03 PM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)Dave, I thought that the criteria for enshrinement was 10 years of ML service. I may be wrong because the Negro Leaguers have 0 years of ML service. Please, I'm not saying they are not deserving so lets not go there... I just always thought that players were supposed to have 10 years of ML service.

Archive

02-22-2007, 03:09 PM

Posted By: peter chaoDave, Most of the questionable Hall of Famers have come through the Veterans Committee and Bill James writes an interesting book called, "Politics of Glory" discussing the politics of that committee through the years. The new Veterans Committee understands that prior committee nominations have been less than stellar and seem intent on limiting future Veterans Comittee admitees. We shall see. Peter

Archive

02-22-2007, 03:17 PM

Posted By: steveThe Hall of Fame is kinda like a museum. A museum sometimes gets rid of the old to bring in better material. No more Mr. Nice Guy with the Veteran's Committee. If you don't make it in the regular elections, thats it, period.

Archive

02-22-2007, 03:54 PM

Posted By: Eric BK M Landis , Comiskey, and Barry Bonds, just in case.

Archive

02-22-2007, 04:05 PM

Posted By: peter chaoEric, Long before steroids became a household topic. Barry already had 3 or 4 MVPs, there are many in the Hall without a single MVP, and all players with 3 MVPs (that are eligible) are in. Presently, he also meets the moral character requirements for the Hall. Barry's a shoo-in. Peter

Archive

02-22-2007, 04:37 PM

Posted By: john/z28jd I think the big problem is that people put too much merit into the Hall of Fames choices but very few knowledgable people(if any) agree with them. I enjoy the Hall for what it is,a museum,but as definitive word of who's the best players all-time theyre an absolute joke. I dont let it bother me,i do my research and i come to my own conclusions. Because the Hall is already watered down i see no problem including more players from the past so their history isnt forgotten. If they dont want to let someone like Don Mattingly in now to tighten up standards its not comparable to not voting in someone like Tony Mullane because we have no footage of Mullane,just old stories passed down thru generations. 200 years from now people will know how Don Mattingly stood in the batters box but they wont know Mullane threw from a pitchers box back in the day. Mattinglys legacy is preserved while Mullane's is forgotten despite the numbers he put up which could all be changed by a little common sense and a bronze plaque So to answer the original question,there isnt a player pre any war who id even remotely consider removing

Archive

02-22-2007, 04:46 PM

Posted By: Chris CountsSince booting HOFers would never go over with baseball fans, I believe the only realistic and fair thing to do is put in every player that is clearly better than someone already in there at his position. So because Fred Lindstrom and George Kell are in there, you have to induct Ken Boyer, Stan Hack and Ron Santo, who were simply better players. Wally Schang was much better than Ray Schalk, so he gets in. Minnie Minoso and Tony Oliva were better than half the HOF outfielders, many of whom padded their stats during the 1920s. As an example of how absurd the HOF is, consider the parallel careers of Lefty Gomez and Lon Warnecke. They have virtually the same career numbers — during virtually the same years — and yet nobody is calling for Warnecke's induction or Gomez' boot ...

Archive

02-22-2007, 05:01 PM

Posted By: peter chaoChris, The proper way to look at the HOF is to look at it as an honor. Once the honor has been bestowed it looks awful cheesy to take the trophy away. But at the same time even if a player is clearly better than someone that is currently in the Hall the player should not be automatically picked for the Hall of Fame. The reason for this is admission to the Hall is not something which is earned, it is an honor which the Hall bestows on some and not others who may be equally deserving. Peter

Archive

02-22-2007, 05:30 PM

Posted By: JustinI totally agree that it would be inappropriate to boot people out of the Hall of Fame. But I also don't think every comparable player who isn't in the Hall should be put in to compensate for past mistakes. I would love to see Harry Stovey, Sherry Magee, Bobby Mathews, Roger Maris, Stan Hack, among others in the Hall, but electing old dead ballplayers en masse doesn't accomplish anything really.

Archive

02-22-2007, 05:37 PM

Posted By: anthony2 halls in one building... Hall of Fame...for the obvious and Hall of honorable mention...for the so-so guys who are not quite the hall of fame material...maybe this hall could take over the women's league, who needs that??? (just kidding, dont freak out!)

Archive

02-22-2007, 06:08 PM

Posted By: Chris CountsPeter, I agree that the HOF should be an honor. Unfortunately, I believe it's more of an exclusive country club. And now that its members are the "Veterans' Committee," its members are now its gatekeepers. And as long as guys like Minnie Minoso, Ron Santo and Tony Oliva are sitting on the outside looking in, there will always be guys like me ranting and questioning the HOF's credibility. An honor, it seems to me, is bestowed upon someone who is deserving of its recognition. After looking at all the evidence, can you honestly tell me Minnie is less deserving than Chick Hafey, Ross Youngs or Fred Lindstrom, who just happened to be teammates of Frankie Frisch when he was running the Veterans' Committee? I'm not advocating putting them all in at once, but lately the number of players has slowed to a trickle. Think about it — Bill Mazeroski is now voting on Ron Santo's HOF plight. Who would you rather have on your team? I believe baseball should be honoring its illustrious past. It's good for the game, the fans will love it, and it's the right thing to do ...

Archive

02-22-2007, 07:49 PM

Posted By: denniscompleted 234 of 260 games started pitched 2 no hitters, one a perfect game lifetime era 1.88, 2nd all time pitched 7 one hitters,9 less than 2 hit games was a record till broke by bob feller in 1948 most similiar pitcher of era: ed walsh 2 other short career pitchers comparable to joss(160-97)....dizzy dean(150-83) & sandy koufax(165-87)

Archive

02-22-2007, 07:52 PM

Posted By: DarrenI like the idea of adding legendary status to some members, eg the Babe, Ty, Matty , WJ, Lou, etc.

Archive

02-25-2007, 12:22 PM

Posted By: PaulIf I could only pick three, I'd kick out Morgan Bulkeley, Tommy McCarthy, and George Kelly. But very close behind would be Harry Hooper, Rick Ferrell, Red Schoendienst, Phil Rizzuto, Eppa Rixey, Red Faber, Roger Bresnahan, Tinker-Evers-Chance, Travis Jackson, Chick Hafey, Bucky Harris, and probably several more that aren't coming to mind right away.

Archive

02-25-2007, 12:25 PM

Posted By: barrysloatePaul- please don't kick out McCarthy until my auction ends. Thank you <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

02-25-2007, 12:39 PM

Posted By: BobJohnny Evers out??? Unbelievable. The Human Crab was a helluva player and one of the best minds in the game in the early 1900's. Never mind that he helped drive the Cubs to their world championships, he was the force behind the Miracle Braves WS year in 1914. A great fielder, very good hitter and even though by all accounts he was a pain in the ass to be around, a deserving HOFer. He and Cocky Collins and Nap Lajoie were arguably the best 3 second sackers of the first 25 years of the 20th century.

Archive

03-03-2007, 09:43 AM

Posted By: peter chaoChris, Guys, Even if 3 prewar guys were going to get kicked out of the Hall, that doesn't mean the Veteran's Committee shouldn't be nominating new Hall of Famers. This new Veteran's Committee has overreacted to the nomination of Bill Mazeroski into the Hall. For the last 6 years they have nominated nobody in 3 elections. It's pathetic. You can't tell me guys like Hodges, Santo, Kaat and Joe Torre aren't deserving. Joe Torre should really go in as a catcher, but some day he could be equally deserving as a manager. Peter

Archive

03-03-2007, 10:20 AM

Posted By: PaulI don't think the new committee has overreacted. What has happened is that the entire structure of the committee has changed. The old committee was a group of 12 guys who met together. They could decide AS A GROUP what to do. If they thought three guys should get in one year and zero guys the next, they could do that. More importantly, if one persuasive member of the committee felt that George Kelly belonged, he could persuade his colleagues in person, and perhaps even offer to support Rube Marquard in exchange. The new committee does not meet together. They don't decide anything as a group. They vote as 90 or so independent people. This makes it much harder to vote anybody in, even without a conscious decision by all 90 members to make election harder. It's just the nature of the system. 90 people won't agree on anything unless they all meet together and come up with a plan of whose turn it is this year. Actually, I shouldn't say that they won't agree on anything. They'd vote in Ruth, Mays, etc. But we are now dealing with candidates who are right on the borderline. Some may be deserving, but they are still on the borderline. And to get 90 people to agree on which borderline candidate to elect this year without coordinating their votes in advance is real tough.

Archive

03-03-2007, 10:41 AM

Posted By: MikeWI felt the need to interject that Addie Joss had exceptional numbers for ANY era. Sandy Koufax did as well - but 60's baseball was deadball too. I think both Joss and Koufax deserve to be there because, despite them pitching in deadball eras... they were one of the best pitchers in it. Just because a player has big offensive stats in a juiced era or great pitching stats in a dead era doesn't mean they aren't great. Now, if they had crappy stats - it probably means they are crappy players. Also, the Joss not being elected until 60 years post his death... that statement is a little misleading because we all know that NOBODY was elected until 1939 anyhow. That is nearly 30 years of not even being considered. All that said... I too agree the Hall is oversaturated, but Joss would not be in my hypothetical discussion on one of the members to be tossed.

Archive

03-03-2007, 10:47 AM

Posted By: peter chaoPaul, With the current Veteran's Committee it's pretty clear that somebody like Addie Joss would never be nominated. You would think that because they only vote every two years that they would work harder towards developing some type of consensus instead of voting in a vacuum. Peter

Archive

03-03-2007, 11:01 AM

Posted By: warshawlawThe disquiet I have with the current veterans committee, which I think many share, is that many of the voters are ignorant when it comes to the history of the game. I've met a number of HOFers. Some are, shall we say, less than striking in the brains dept. I'd venture to say that most of us know more about baseball history than most of the HOFers who vote on the nominees. The old system was cronyist, but it had the advantage of including people who cared about the result and were interested enough to learn and participate. The new system doesn't ensure that outcome at all. I still think there needs to be a veterans system. Many of us could name multiple players from various eras who should be in the Hall of Fame. Count Mullane comes right to mind, as would several of the guys on the ballot this year who didn't make it. I think the Academy Awards for the less "sexy" categories are decided on a better approach. Any Academy member can vote for best picture, etc., but if they want to vote for documentary or foreign film, they have to go to a special screening to become eligible to vote. In that way, the people who are not interested in the category aren't allowed to vote on it just because there is a box on the ballot. Seems to me that the vote for the veterans committee should be limited to HOF writers, sportscasters, executives, and a group of volunteer players. That way you get the real observers of the game and the players who are interested enough to volunteer and to learn the history, instead of anyone who is alive.

Archive

03-03-2007, 03:26 PM

Posted By: Mike1.Babe Ruth 2.Hank Aaron 3.Ted Williams

Archive

03-03-2007, 04:58 PM

Posted By: peter chaoMike, Barry would probably get rid of Hammerin Hank and Teddy Ballgame but probably keep the Babe. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Peter

Archive

03-03-2007, 05:12 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI think if you were rating players purely on the basis of numbers, Hank could arguably be #1 all-time. So no, Hank stays. He's in the pantheon. Williams too!

Archive

03-03-2007, 05:51 PM

Posted By: jay behrensCobb - because he was a racists and suspected murderer Wagner - cuz he bow legged. Can't have those types in there either Mathewson - you aren't supposed to be smart AND a ball player Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

03-03-2007, 06:06 PM

Posted By: AnonymousHere are the most questionable ones to me: Pioneers/19th Century (?) - M. Bulkley (really it was Hulbert who did what Bulkely was originally credited with) Hulbert finally got in a few years ago. Candy Cummings (almost certainly did NOT invent the curve ball) his stats are lame too. Tommy McCarthy -- there are many better 19th century outfielders not in the HOF (e.g. Tiernan, Ryan, Stovey, O'Neil, Browning etc) 20th cent. players: in no real order: Lindstrom, Marquard, Haines, Hafey, Geo. Kelley, Chesbro (1 great year), Bancroft, Stonewall Jackson, R. Ferrell (his brother was a better candidate), Schalk (not throwing the 1919 series is not a good reason and his stats are quite weak); Pennock.

Archive

03-03-2007, 06:23 PM

Posted By: Mark LutzMisunderestimated, You show great discernment in your list---but I'm not so sure about a couple 20th century names. First, without the Knight of Kennet Square, do the Yankees win all those pennants and series games? He won some classic games for them. Besides, the Writers put him in---he is off limits. In addition, it seems to me that the Giants of 1921-24 must have had a few Hall of Fame calibre players on them---how else would they set the record for consecutive National League pennants? so if you boot out Beauty Bancroft and George Kelly--those teams would have only 2 hall of famers: Youngs and a young Frisch. That doesn't seem right. Maybe they should put in a few more, like Heine Groh, Irish Meusel, and Artie Nehf.

Archive

03-03-2007, 07:15 PM

Posted By: AnonymousI guess I'm not all that keen on putting players in the HOF for what their teams accomplished. All the players you mentioned were certainly good but if you check their stats its difficult to justify them in the HOF. The Giants are grossly over-represented because the Fordam Flash basically ruling the Vet. Committe and put it lots of guys he played with. ALos I think Groh was probably better than some of the ones who did get in (at least career wise). I'm probably a bit hard on Pennock. But he pitched for some of the best hitting teams ever I don't think he made that big a difference. If you examine his pitching numbers next to the rest of the HOF pitchers they are inadequate. He wasn't ever that dominant winning 20 games only twice and his lifetime numbers don't make it up his lifetime ERA was barely better than the league average. He was voted into the HOF in 1948 -- soon after his untimely death. Now that I think of it I guess Chief Bender doesn't really belong either. Alot of what ij ust wrote applies to the famous cubs troika as well, I guess. However,I think Evers and Chance have more to recommend them than simply their place on the Cubs. Also the hitting numbers in the 1900's were generally much weaker than the 1920's. And the Cubs 1906-10 were probably better (for their time) than the Giants of the early 1920's.

Archive

03-03-2007, 07:27 PM

Posted By: peter chaoGuys, Get a hold on yourselves, you've already gotten rid of about a third of the HOF. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Peter

Archive

03-03-2007, 07:48 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldEasy for me to name 3. 1. Kirby Puckett 2. Gary Carter 3. Effa Manley (but I'd change that for a pre-emptive boot for Pete Rose). Sorry, Jay, I didn't read the question very well.... KP and GC aren't pre WW2. and EM wasn't a player. But those 3 belong out WAY BEFORE anyone starts booting out pre WW2 players. I got so excited about booting folks out that I couldn't read.

Archive

03-04-2007, 05:57 AM

Posted By: Sean CoeThree that should never have been voted in imo: Hafey, Ferell, Marquard.

Archive

03-04-2007, 06:43 AM

Posted By: jay behrensI didn't know Puckett and Carter played before WW2. Guess I need to add them to my list players I need for my player set. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

03-04-2007, 07:15 AM

Posted By: howardJohnny Evers was a fine player but to make a HOF case for him you have to give him too much credit for intagibles such as being smart or fiery or a team leader. Was he THE driving force behind the Miracle Braves in 1914? I don't think so. I doubt he was responsible for Dick Rudolph and Bill James having seasons way beyond their career norms. They also had Rabbit Maranville at SS who also has been credited with being the driving force behind the team. Yes, Evers won the MVP (with Maranville a close second and Ruldoph and James not far behind) but there are plenty of players who won the award that either did not deserve them or were not HOF caliber players or both (O'Farrell and Peckinpaugh come to mind). The fact that he and Tinker and Chance were all elected in the same year tells me that if a certain poem had never been written Evers never would have gotten in the Hall. I don't think he is the worst of the players in the HOF, by the way. I think I would go with Lloyd Waner.

Archive

03-04-2007, 08:06 AM

Posted By: Mark LIf I had to expel 3 I suppose I'd pick Ferrell, Hafey and Lindstrom. From what I've read, contemporary witnesses agreed that Evers was the veteran leader of the Miracle Braves. When both he and James were sidelined for part of the season in 1915, there were no more miracles. As for the poem, it may have been the driving force at the time but I still think that a solid case could be made for both Evers and Chance. But poetry can't be the only cause of their celebrity. Yeats and Auden could have written volumes about other Cub double play combinations, say, Charlie Hollocher, Zeb Terry, and Fred Merkle, and it wouldn't put them any of them any closer to Cooperstown.

Archive

03-04-2007, 08:34 AM

Posted By: howardIt's not remarkable that Evers was considered the veteran leader of the team as he was their oldest player. But that is not the same thing as driving a team to the pennant. The value of veteran leadership is debatable. Joe Girardi and Darren Erstad are credited by some as being veteran leaders of championship teams. In my opinion this does not make them great it makes them overrated. Yes, Hollocher, Terry and Merkle would likely not be HOFers if a poem had been written of them. But I'd bet that if Harry Steinfeldt was included in the poem he would be in the Hall today with Tinker, Evers and Chance.

Archive

03-04-2007, 08:36 AM

Posted By: Peter ThomasTo excluded Joss because he died before his 10th year would be cruel. When Williams was shot down in Korea, if he had been killed or disabled, would he be excluded because he had played only 9-1/2 years? 39,40,41,42,46,47,48,49, 1/2 of 50 & 51. Joss is an upper tier HOF member. There are however many marginal members who had long somewhat above average careers and piled up lots of stats against somewhat diluted tallent, who really do not belong in the HOF. I think that there should be a review process, 30 to 50 years after election, to confirm membership in the Hall of Fame or movement to a "Hall of Achievement".

Archive

03-04-2007, 09:00 AM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred) Published: New York Evening Mail (July 10, 1910) These are the saddest of possible words: "Tinker to Evers to Chance." Trio of bear cubs, and fleeter than birds, Tinker and Evers and Chance. Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble, Making a Giant hit into a double- Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble: "Tinker to Evers to Chance." Here's something to strengthen the Harry Steinfeldt case for the HOF: These are the saddest of possible words: "Tinker or Steinfeldt to Evers to Chance ." Quad of bear cubs, and fleeter than birds, Tinker or Steinfeldt and Evers and Chance. Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble, Making a Giant hit into a double- Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble: "Tinker or Steinfeldt to Evers to Chance." Lets get ole Harry inducted now....

Archive

03-04-2007, 09:06 AM

Posted By: barrysloateWhat on earth does "Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble" mean?

Archive

03-04-2007, 09:20 AM

Posted By: Todd SchultzAddie's numbers were exceptional. As someone mentioned, it is unfair to say he wasn't elected to the Hall until 68 years after his career was over. Not only did the Hall not exist for a good chunk of that time, but when it was created, the rules required 10 years of service to be eligible---that is, until the rules were changed in late 1977. Addie went in the next year, his first year of eligibility.

Archive

03-04-2007, 09:24 AM

Posted By: barrysloateClemente was another player who got special consideration, not having to wait the required five years to get in.

Archive

03-04-2007, 09:41 AM

Posted By: warshawlawlook at the hair on the T206; you can't kick out Batman.

Archive

03-04-2007, 09:51 AM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)Barry, From Wikipedia: See also Khorugv, sometimes translated as Gonfalon In Anglophone tradition it is a seldom-used word, kept alive by baseball historians due to its presence in a poem called Baseball's Sad Lexicon. The poem was written by Franklin Pierce Adams, a New York Giants fan and sportswriter for the New York Evening Mail. The poem first appeared in the July 18, 1910, edition of the paper. It was about the 1908 pennant race in which the Chicago Cubs won the National League pennant, beating out the Giants in dramatic fashion after a "boneheaded" play by Fred Merkle. The poem contains this phrase... Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble ...which in plain English means that the Chicago Cubs of that year continually spoiled the Giants' chances (or "burst their bubble" as people say nowadays) for the pennant which is emblematic of the league championship.

Archive

03-04-2007, 11:02 AM

Posted By: peter chaoPete, Todd I disagree with both of you. Addie Joss should not be in the Hall. His numbers were not exceptional for the times. Yes, he won 20 games several times, but that was during the time there were 30 game winners. Also, his ERA was low, but that was during the dead ball era when everybody's ERA was low. Not comparable to Sandy Koufax at all. Sandy's numbers were exceptional for his era. Not only that the Dodgers were winners. Without Sandy and Don Drysdale, the Dodgers would have been in the second division. Let's say that Nolan Ryan pitched only the first ten years of his career and then got injured because of a line drive to the pitcher's mound. Would he have been a Hall of Famer. Probably not. In the same way Addie Joss is not a HOF. Peter

Archive

03-04-2007, 11:03 AM

Archive

03-04-2007, 11:42 AM

Posted By: howardGood one, Judge!

Archive

03-04-2007, 12:00 PM

Posted By: barrysloateThanks Fred. I looked up "gonfalon" in my Webster's and it wasn't listed. It's as antiquated as "whilst".

Archive

03-04-2007, 12:42 PM

Posted By: AnonymousJoss belongs -- or if he doesn't about 15 other pitchers have to go too. He led the league in ERA twice and wins once and his lifetime era 1.89 is the 2nd best ever. Even adjusted for his era his ERA is the 12th best. I would rate him as a pitcher with a short but great career behind Koufax but ahead of Dizzy Dean -- I would also rate Caruthers ahead of Dean. Nolan Ryan conversely is a Hall of Famer based on some rather staggering lifetime numbers put up over an exceptionally long career -- especially strikeouts. Joss is more deserving than several Pitchers(among others): Chesbro, Bender, Marquard, Haines, Pennock and Hoyt from the pre-war period.

Archive

03-04-2007, 12:47 PM

Posted By: AnonymousFor the statheads. Note that Joss has the top W+H/IP all-time (Walks plus Hits allowed per-inning) -- one of the stats currently in vogue. <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jossad01.shtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jossad01.shtml</a>

Archive

03-04-2007, 01:30 PM

Posted By: NickMDave Bancroft, Rick Ferrell, Chick Hafey, Waite Hoyt, Travis Jackson, Rube Marquard, Herb Pennock, and Joe Tinker all go. Nick

Archive

03-04-2007, 02:13 PM

Posted By: HalI looked this up in Wikipedia. A gonfalon is a type of pennant. The Wikipedia article explains that the phrase means that the Cubs continually spoiled the Giants' chances (burst their bubble) for the pennant.

Archive

03-08-2007, 09:14 AM

Posted By: peter chaoGuys, Dizzy Dean is barely Hall of Fame material, but he did have that monster 1934 season so he's in. But Addie Joss never had that overwhelming season or seasons he should be out. Peter

Archive

03-08-2007, 09:54 AM

Posted By: peter chaoGuys, I wanted to qualify my prior statement about Dizzy Dean's monster 1934 season. Dizzy as a member of the Gas House Gang won 30 games in that year. My personal bias is that if a ballplayer has a short career and make it into the Hall of Fame, he better have a couple of seasons where he absolutely is the best. For example Dizzy Dean in 1934 and 1935. Or Sand Koufax for a 5 year period. For a lengthy career it isn't that important to have monster seasons, it's possible to get in when you simply hit the cumulative numbers. For instance, Nolan Ryan and Phil Niekro. Peter

Archive

03-08-2007, 10:05 AM

Posted By: Jason Lthe 8 umpires that are in the HOF. There is no way that anyone who is supposed to be invisible on the field (and have no impact on the game as it is played) should be enshrined in the HOF. makes no sense. boot them all out. that's my just 4 cents (my input is in nominal terms, not adjusted for inflation)

Archive

03-09-2007, 09:42 AM

Posted By: peter chaoGuys, In the Politics of Glory, Bill James brings up that the movement to get Addie Joss into the Hall of Fame didn't start in earnest until after Dizzy Dean got in. This makes sense in a way because Dizzy also had a short career and people started looking twice at Addie's career. However, through the politics of the Veteran's Committee the rules were changed for Joss so that he could get around the 10 year requirement. It should have never happened, you should never bend the rules to allow a borderline candidate to get in it makes no sense. It makes sense to bend the rules for an exceptional candidate like Roberto Clemente, but not for a borderline candidate. Addie Joss in his time was not an exceptional pitcher whereas Dizzy Dean was in his time. Peter

Archive

03-09-2007, 10:04 AM

Posted By: Chris CountsPeter, I'm glad you brought up Bill James' book. It's a must-read for anyone who believes that induction into the Hall of Fame is a true measure of a player's greatness ... James, by the way, believes Minnie Minoso is the most deserving eligible player not in the HOF ... he also believes there is no evidence Pete Rose bet on his own games, but that's another story ...

Archive

03-09-2007, 10:05 AM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)Peter, With all due respect, do you really believe that Addie Joss was not exceptional? His lifetime ERA isn't something that was made up. Do you think that Dizzy Dean is more deserving that Addie Joss? Dean had a few good seasons strung together, I wouldn't count his 20-18 season as dominating. Dean was to the word exceptional at his best as Denny McClain was to the word exceptional in his prime. I don't see people beating down the doors to have Denny enshrined. Look at Denny's lifetime stats, he wasn't that bad and he kind of paralleled Dizzy. Denny was the last 30 game winner in either NL or AL. The last person to win 30 games before Denny was Dizzy Dean (34 years before). In the 34 years before Dizzy won thirty games there were no less than 14 seasons where the league leader won 30 games and that doesn't count the also rans that won 30 games. Dizzy's 30 game season, although spectacular, was not exceptional. If you take away his 30-7 season Dizzy doesn't stand a chance for the HOF. Take away his 30-7 season and the lifetime win% drops from .644 to .612 (not bad, but Denny had a lifetime win% of .590). I'm not trying to make a case for Denny McClain I'm just using him as an example. Denny was good in his day though. Dizzy was pretty good in his prime and so was Addie Joss. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

03-09-2007, 10:15 AM

Posted By: peter chaoFred, I do think Dizzy Dean is more deserving than Addie Joss, perhaps not by much but still enough to warrant entrance into the Hall of Fame. Also at the same time Addie Joss was good but not good enough to warrant the Hall of Fame to bend their rules. Denny McLain will never get serious consideration because his lifetime numbers are inadequate and also unlikely to fulfill the moral character standard. Peter

Archive

03-09-2007, 10:17 AM

Posted By: George DreherSomeone in this thread suggested that Joe Sewell doesn't belong in the Hall. My only question is: When will we see someone go an entire season and strikeout a total of 3 times again? He did that twice. If I'm not mistaken he also had a season when he only struck out 7 times. The guy went 115 games without a strikeout. He played 14 years with over 7000 at bats and only struck out a total of 114 times in his entire career. How many times does Ichiro strike out a season? More than 50 I'm sure.

Archive

03-09-2007, 10:30 AM

Posted By: John Kalafarski Maybe I'm the only one with this take: there seems to be something very mean spirited about trying to figure out who should be thrown out of the Hall of Fame. I'd rather consider the question of who could be added. By the way, I think Dizzy Dean is in partly because of his work doing his radio show and baseball play-by-play: a loveable ambassador of the game.

Archive

03-09-2007, 01:21 PM

Posted By: howardThe movie version of Dean's life, "The spirit of St. Louis", was released in 1952 and the following year he was elected to the Hall of Fame. Perhaps if "The Addie Joss Story" had been made ten or twenty years after his death Joss would have had an easier time with the voters.