PDA

View Full Version : HOF Debate


Archive
01-14-2009, 08:25 AM
Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>Hey guys,<br><br>I really did enjoy the thread on whether or not Jim Rice should have made the HOF. I was looking at the current HOFers and scratched my head at a few prior inductees. I know I am a little younger (27), but even taking into account the era that these guys played in I think there are a few players that should absolutely not be in the HOF. In my opinion to be a Hall of Famer you have to be considered &quot;Great&quot;, not very good, or just above average.<br><br>Here is my list of guys you shouldn't have gotten in based on stats with regards to their era:<br><br><br>Should not be in the HOF: Red Ruffing, Phil Rizzuto, Eppa Rixey, Fred Lindstrom, Jesse Haines, Enos Slaughter, Ted Lyons, Bill Mazeroski, <br><br>Borderline: Robin Roberts, Red Schoendienst, Kirby Puckett, Hal Newhouser, Jim Rice, Gary Carter, Waite Hoyt<br><br>Please let me know if I am out of line, and give me your thoughts. You guys know a lot better then me.<br><br>Thanks - Rob

Archive
01-14-2009, 10:56 AM
Posted By: <b>macboube</b><p>Disagree about your take on Rizzuto. Also, can't believe one could look at Puckett as borderline. I am still in shock about the dude that thinks Al Oliver is getting snubbed. Al Oliver?

Archive
01-14-2009, 11:20 AM
Posted By: <b>Jimmy</b><p>Well,<br><br>I am from the Boston area and think Rice should not have made it, I am glad he did, his numbers are good. I jut think they spent too much time with him over the years. The process should only take a few years to be selected<br><br>Jimmy

Archive
01-14-2009, 11:30 AM
Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>Grr...<br><br>First...Rice is Hodges in reverse. If not for Fenway, Rice would have mediocre stats. If not for Hodges in the Coliseum and early Dodger Stadium he would have much better stats.<br><br>Joshua

Archive
01-14-2009, 11:38 AM
Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>Rob,<br><br>This is a familiar topic that pops up on this forum every year at about this time. Personally, I enjoy the debate, although it can get a bit contentious. I'd add Dave Bancroft, Joe Gordon and Ross Youngs, among others, to the list of borderline inductees. On the flip side, I have actively campaigned for the induction of Minnie Minoso and Ron Santo. But I believe the biggest issue here is the inclusive versus exclusive argument. Many folks on this board argue there should be not more, but less Hofers. Others, probably the minority (I fall into this category), would like to see more inductees. Ultimately, I would just like to see positions (where are all the 3rd basemen?) and eras (1960s and 1970s) better represented in Cooperstown. I know there were a lot of great and HOF-deserving players who played in the 1920s and 1930s, but I find it hard to believe they were any better than those who played in the 1960s and 1970s, when batting averages and ERAs were so much lower (which makes it difficult to simply compare stats). I'll just feel a whole lot better if they put Minoso and Santo in while they're still alive ...

Archive
01-14-2009, 11:40 AM
Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I rate Puckett higher than some do as he was a great center fielder and a good clubhouse leader. Comparing his batting statistics alone isn't enough. That he was a team leader on two Minnesota Twins (of all teams) World Series Championships helps his case. Of note, at the time he was playing, he was regularly ranked amongst the best players in the game by sportswriters-- and they were looking at the same batting statistics we are. The sportswriters liked the batting statistics on their own, but ranked Puckett high because they considered him the do-it-all all around package. Look at it this way, if Puckett had the same batting statistics but was a marginal fielder, sloppy base runner and had the clubhouse personality of Albert Belle, he would have been a much worse baseball player, and contemporary sportswriters certainly wouldn't have ranked him so high. <br><br>Now, pure personality-wise, Puckett was perhaps the most liked players by fans and sportswriters-- in a poll, he was ranked as adorable than fluffy kittens and more desirable for a baby sitter than Mary Poppins-- and that likely give him an extra, unfair bounce at voting time.

Archive
01-14-2009, 11:40 AM
Posted By: <b>jay wolt</b><p>Joshua - Disagree about Hodges getting penalized in L.A.<br>He played only 4 years in L.A. and had 12 seasons in <br>the smaller Ebbets Field in Brooklyn, although 1 season <br>was just 2 at bats.<br>I think Hodges should be a HOFer as his collective effort<br>as a player and skipper of the '69 Mets championship make<br>a solid HOFer

Archive
01-14-2009, 11:41 AM
Posted By: <b>Michael Steele</b><p>I would take Puckett off of that borderline list. Can't argue with the others on your list. I am happy Rice is in but taking 15 years proves he is borderline at best. I might add Gossage to the borderline list because if he is in then Lee Smith should be in and it did take Gossage awhile to get in.<br><br>Edit for spelling

Archive
01-14-2009, 11:47 AM
Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>Arguments could be made regarding Puckett for sure, and I can't really disagree. His stats are all too comparable to guys that aren't in the HOF...Mattingly, Hernandez, etc.. <br><br><br><br>I feel if the HOF is going to allow closers to get their due then Gossage should be in, although the closer list should be short.<br><br><br><br>Fingers, Ecksersley, Sutter, Gossage I think all should be there. And eventually you can throw in Mariano Rivera and probably Hoffman. Smith compiled some great numbers, but is he really a HOFer?<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

Archive
01-14-2009, 12:04 PM
Posted By: <b>Phil</b><p>Arguing that Rice's numbers were better because of Fenway Park is a little off......I remember watching Rice growing up and can't tell you how many times he dented the Green Monster with a screaming line drive than he hit a long pop-up that made it over the Monster. Rice was really a great line-drive hitter and I would argue that the Green Monster actually hurt his HR totals way more than it helped them.

Archive
01-14-2009, 12:13 PM
Posted By: <b>Dean H</b><p>My brother-in-law and I have this discussion quite often. I'm more of a believer that the HOF should be very exclusive and if a player does not make it in by the 3rd or 4th time then are they really deserving? But my brother-in-law thinks that many players are penalized by the media and many 70's players are unfairly compared to later players that might have been chemically enhance. I know that is another debate all together. It's tough and I do see arguements on both sides. Still I would like the HOF to be more exclusive. To me a player is an abvious HOF or not. Shouldn't be too much grey area although in reality there is.

Archive
01-14-2009, 12:28 PM
Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>The point (which, obviously, someone missed), was that if Jim Rice is in the HOF, then why keep out Al Oliver, Ron Santo, and a half dozen other borderline candidates, many of whom are more deserving than Rice. Not that Oliver, Santo etc. belong in the HOF.<br><br>And I stand by the comment -- I am quite certain that, wherever Al Oliver was when he heard Rice made it, his acid reflux got a little worse (just a little).

Archive
01-14-2009, 12:31 PM
Posted By: <b>quan</b><p>phil,<br><br>memory can be a little hazy or selective. rice's home split was 374/546/920 at fenway, away he was 330/459/789. so while at home he was respectable, on the road he was mashing like juan rivera, bubba trammel, and chad tracy. while he had more pa/abs on the road, his hits/runs/2b/3b/hr/rbis etc total were all higher at home. and the most telling stat, his batting average when ball in play (babip) was .340 at home and .296 on the road. so those line drives you said that hit the green monster robbing him of hrs, would've more likely been flyouts anywhere else.<br><br>i agree with some sentiment out there that rice picked up more votes/steam when modern stat metrics were thrown in the face of these old time baseball writers and they stuck it right back by making an example of rice and voting him in.<br><br><br>

Archive
01-14-2009, 12:34 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>If Kirby Puckett is &quot;Borderline&quot; then the same can be said of Sandy Koufax.

Archive
01-14-2009, 12:40 PM
Posted By: <b>quan</b><p>puckett career was cut short due to a tragic injury, and i think that helped him more than anything to get into the hall. with his expected decline and borderline number up to that point i don't think he would've gotten in or could've limped his way to 3000 hits.<br><br>he was nowhere the hitter like koufax was the pitcher or just totally dominated the league the way koufax did.

Archive
01-14-2009, 12:44 PM
Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>I think Puckett is defnitely borderline:<br><br>He mainly played in a hitters era and only had 3 seasons each of more then 100 runs/rbi. 207 career HR, 134 career SB, 2304 hits. Only won 1 batting title. Yea I know his career was cut short and he won a couple of titles and played a great CF, but are those really HOF numbers????

Archive
01-14-2009, 12:47 PM
Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>&quot;mashing like juan rivera, bubba trammel, and chad tracy ...&quot;<br><br>That's hilarious. I agree Rice is a borderline candidate. But the again, I'm one of those guys who support borderline candidates. By the way, in a move that received just about no press, Rivera just signed a three-year deal with the Angels after hitting just .246 with 12 homers. He'll never make it to Cooperstown, but he's making it to the bank!

Archive
01-14-2009, 12:47 PM
Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>Dan, <br><br>Funny you should mention Koufax. In a 12 year career he had 4 seasons that were HOF worthy. But boy... those 4 seasons!

Archive
01-14-2009, 12:56 PM
Posted By: <b>Phil</b><p>Back to the argument that Rice &quot;benefitted&quot; by hitting at Fenway for his career. If it was such a &quot;benefit&quot;, why did he only hit 54% of his career HRs at home and 52.5% of his RBIs at home...........not much of a home park &quot;benefit&quot;.

Archive
01-14-2009, 01:17 PM
Posted By: <b>JB</b><p>I will agree on two points:<br>There are many players in the Hall that don't really deserve to be there, and i also agree if it takes more than five tries to get you in you probably were a questionable candidate.

Archive
01-14-2009, 04:39 PM
Posted By: <b>Pcelli60</b><p>I recently met a gentleman who has lived his entire life in Brooklyn (86) and was a die hard Dodger fan. He told me that Pee Wee Reese was good, but nobody back-in-the-day thought him Hall of Fame caliber..Gil Hodges, on the other hand, was of that caliber..But lets face it, and lets be honest. If Hodges was black or Hispanic he would be in the hall..<br>I guess someone has to pay for that part of the past. Its a shame its a stand-up guy like Gil...

Archive
01-14-2009, 05:15 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter</b><p>Now that Rice is in, I believe Tim Raines and Andre Dawson should both be in. Both starred in Montreal and I think that is the biggest thing hurting their chances whereas Rice played in Boston. I do not believe Raines or Dawson used any steriods and were dominant players in their era and both deserve to be in the HOF.

Archive
01-14-2009, 06:10 PM
Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>It is my belief that perception often trumps reality in evaluating Hall of Famers. A comparison between Minnie Minoso and Gil Hodges perfectly illustrates this point. The two played during the same era and had careers roughly equivelant in length. Minoso played 12 seasons as a regular and was a 9-time all-star; Hodges was a 6-time all-star in 14 seasons ...<br><br>At various pounts in his career, Minoso led his league in hits (once), total bases (once), doubles (once), triples (3 times), sacrifice flies (twice), stolen bases (3 times) and hit-by-pitches (an amazing 10 times!). He was also came in second place (one time each) for batting average, on-base average, OPS, slugging average, RBIs, doubles, extra base hits and three times was the runner-up in stolen bases. He also won three gold gloves.<br><br>Hodges, to the contrary, who played most of his career in a much better hitting park (Ebbets Field versus Comiskey Park), led his league in sacrifice flies (twice) and was a runner-up (one time each) in home runs and RBIs. He was also a three-time Gold Glove winner. <br><br>Although Hodges hit twice as many home runs (370 to 186), knocked in more runs (1274 to 1023), and walked more (943 to 814), Minoso was better in batting average (.298 to .273), on-base percentage (.389 to .359), runs (1136 to 1105), doubles (336 to 295), triples (83 to 48), hit-by-pitches (a remarkable 192 to 25) and stolen bases (205 to 63). Minoso did all this playing in far weaker line-ups. And by the way, he was baseball's first star who was BOTH African-American and Hispanic (alot of good that did him!). If he had been white, his career would have started a couple years earlier, giving him at least a couple years to pad his already Cooperstopwn-worthy stats.<br><br>My point is that there are far more people pushing Hodges for induction than are pushing for Minoso. And Hodges, even though he hasn't made it, annually receives more votes. Sure, leading the '69 Mets to a title was an accomplishment, but there are a lot of one-hit wonder managers in baseball history. The bottom line was that Minoso was a better player.<br><br>For anybody who doubts my perception versus reality theory, do the same comparison with Lefty Gomez (hands-down HOFer) and Lon Warnecke (his name NEVER comes up in HOF discussions). They played during the same years and had virtuallty the same stats. After looking at the numbers, I find it impossible to argue that Gomez was any better than Warnecke ...<br><br>I'd write a book on this subject, but Bill James already did it. It's a great read, by the way ...

Archive
01-14-2009, 06:23 PM
Posted By: <b>Mark L</b><p>Mazeroski won eight Gold Glove Awards, had a career .983 fielding percentage, led the National League in assists nine times, and holds the major league career record for double plays by a second baseman. He was simply amazing on the field. Bill James once wrote that &quot;Bill Mazeroski's defensive statistics are probably the most impressive of any player at any position&quot;. I therefore respectfully request that he be allowed to stay as a guest of the Veterans' Committee.

Archive
01-14-2009, 06:31 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter</b><p>Andre Dawson was a 7 time all star, won the MVP and was 2nd in MVP voting twice, 8 gold gloves, 4 silver sluggers, 2774 hits, 438 home runs and 314 stolen bases. Dawson should have been voted in ahead of Rice. Dawson is 65th all time in runs produced.<br><br>Tim Raines was a 7 time all star, .294 career batting average, 2605 hits (71st all time), 808 stolen bases (5th all time), and over 1500 runs scored (49th all time). Raines is 89th all time in runs produced. Raines 84.7% stolen base success is the highest in MLB history for anyone with at least 300 stolen bases (ahead of Brock, Henderson, etc.).

Archive
01-17-2009, 10:02 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Quite a number of really poor Hall of Famers haven't been mentioned: Tommy McCarthy, Harry Hooper, Rick Ferrell, Roger Bresnahan, Travis Jackson, George Kelly, Bid McPhee. These guys all have to go.<br><br>I would not consider Robin Roberts borderline. He clearly belongs. <br><br>It shouldn't come as a surpise that many people would consider Jim Rice borderline. He just barely made it in his 15th year. By definition, he is borderline. That doesn't mean that he does not belong. He's just right at the edge, at least in the opinions of the voters.

Archive
01-17-2009, 11:31 PM
Posted By: <b>John H.</b><p>The guy that sticks in my craw more than any other is Don Drysdale. He simply does not belong in Cooperstown. He made it on the basis of a couple of big years, his name association with Koufax, and the fact that he pitched in LA. Milt Pappas has very similar statistics but nobody's clamoring for Milt's induction. Bill James goes into great depth on the Drysdale case in his book &quot;What Ever Happened to the Hall of Fame?&quot;.<br><br>Kirby Puckett belongs. He was a great all-around player for all 12 years of his career and he played a key role on two World Series champions. He was also quite possibly the most popular player in the game. There is nothing missing on his resume. <br><br>Bruce Sutter was a shaky choice. If Sutter's in, there's a lot of closers, and pitchers in general, that should also get in.<br><br>I would rather keep borderline guys out of Cooperstown than let them in. I would hate for the Baseball HOF to become anything like the Hockey HOF.

Archive
01-17-2009, 11:50 PM
Posted By: <b>Fred C</b><p>How about a player that won 6 HR titles in 7 years and missed a triple crown by 9 points (finishing second for the batting title that year). Impressive numbers but he's not exactly HOF worthy but some might think the 6 HR titles is enough. I really enjoy the debates about who should and shouldn't be in the HOF. At least you wont find any sane people arguing about the first five inductees.