Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />Off the top of my head I can only think of Paul and Lloyd Waner as a HOF brother act. Is there another one. How about HOF father and son. <br /><br />There's also another phoenomena that seems to appear. When there's a father or son who is so much better, then it appears the other will be sleighted. An example would be Barry and Bobby Bonds, although a good argument can be made that Bobby is on the cusp, he'll never get in because Barry just overshadows him.<br /><br />An argument was made that Dom Dimaggio should be in the Hall, I would say he'll never get in because he was overshadowed by Joe. <br /><br />Let me have your thoughts.<br /><br />Peter

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>that if there is a HOF candidate that is "on the bubble" so to speak, that he would be slighted(spelling?) just because he comes up short in comparison to his HOF family member. He should be elected or rejected on his own merits, I would think/hope.<br /><br />The Neikro brothers would be the only other set of high-quality family members that comes to my mind as possibile entrants, with over 500 combined career wins. But Joe would have to stand on his own, and he fell short.<br /><br />I mean, I don't think Barry Bonds really made any voters re-consider his father after the son's rise to prominance...that wouldn't make any sense, really....to say that Bobby couldn't get in because he fell short in comparison to his son, decades later....<br /><br />is that what you meant, Peter? I'm not sure I got the jist of your question, now that I am sitting here writing! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Bruce Babcock</b><p><img src="http://homepage.mac.com/thurber51/.Pictures/1930s/R312Waner+.JPG"><br /><br />Here's a card (R312) with both Waners.<br /><br />The Dean brothers were a pretty good combination too. 49 combined wins in 1934.

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Harry and George Wright are in the HOF.

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>Father and Son Lee and Larry McPhail are both in the HOF<br /><br />Regards<br />Rich

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jason,<br /><br />I think that Bobby Bonds would get serious consideration from the Veteran's Committee if it wasn't for Barry. <br /><br />I really don't think it's prejudice. It's probably a subconscious thing. Out of 50,000 major leaguers there are so few in the HOF.<br /><br />Voters just think it's really just the select few in the Hall. It just isn't possible to have two in the same family.<br /><br />Look at Ken Griffey, Sr., a key member of the Big Red Machine, I would be very surprised if the Veteran's Committee will take him seriously.<br /><br />Peter

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>I don't think either Bobby Bonds or Griffey Sr., while fine players, are even close to being worthy of HOF consideration and I imagine their sons have little or nothing to do with that shared perception.

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Josh Adams</b><p>Guys, and dolls, <br /><br /><br />Peter, what's your evidence for your assertion?

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Let's examine Bobby Bonds numbers carefully, in his case he has been overshadowed by both Mays and Barry. Quite a number of Giants fans have commented that when Bobby played right field and crossed over to center he looked quite a bit like Willie.<br /><br />So he was an outstanding outfielder. His only real weakness as a player was he struck out too often, otherwise, I consider him a predecessor to Rickey Henderson. The near ideal lead-off hitter who got on base had good speed and some pop in his bat. Why isn't he given serious consideration for the Hall.<br /><br />Also, it has already been noted that it took some players a long time to get into the Hall because they were overshadowed by better players during that era. <br /><br />A case in point is Richie Ashburn. Normally, guys who get on base a lot and have a line drive stroke are favored by the Hall of Fame. And we all know that he still holds a number of fielding records for centerfielders, why did it take so long for him to get into the Hall.<br /><br />I'll take a wild guess and say it is because of Willie, the Mick and the Duke. Three better center-fielders from the same era.<br /><br />Peter

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Josh Adams</b><p>Huh?

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Josh,<br /><br />Did I lose you. All I'm saying is that when it comes to the best of the best, it is our tendency to say that lightning can't strike twice. In other words, it's not possible to have two Hall of Famers in the same family.<br /><br />Peter

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Josh Adams</b><p>Oh, that's what you meant. <br /><br />Thanks.

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>If David Eckstein were to record Bobby Bonds' career statistics, he would unquestionably be in the HOF. But whereas Eckstein is the consummate overachieving scrappy and hustling ballplayer, Bobby Bonds, justly or unjustly, was percieved of as being somewhat of a slacker. Bobby's rise coincided with my rising interest in baseball. I watched him play many times as both a Giant and an Angel during my youth. He was looked upon as an underachiever by many fans. I personally watched him sitting on the bench on numerous occassions, smoking a cigarette and appearing disinterested in the game (I have the same image of Dave Parker). Even as a youngster, I heard other second-hand tid-bits about him, which I'm hesitant to mention here, that brought up concerns about his personal character. Once he left the Giants (traded for Bobby Murcer), he kept getting traded until he had nothing left in the tank. Even though he was by far the Angels' best position player, they traded him just a year later. He was certainly an extremely talented player, but there were always questions he wasn't playing up to his potential, not the kind of stuff HOF voters like to hear ... <br />

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>Josh, get with the program--sheez.<br /><br />The better questions are: <br /><br />Who had darker eyes, Paul or Lloyd Waner?<br />Did Dizzy Dean really play dizzy? If so, how did he avoid getting hurt?<br /><br />And perhaps the best:<br /><br />What does this have to do with prewar/vintage card collecting?<br />

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>At a point late in the 1975 season both Jim and Gaylord Perry had career records of 215-174.

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>To get back on the vintage track, Christy and Henry Mathewson had a combined won-loss record of 373-189<br /><br />Max

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p>Bill and Rube Foster are half-brothers

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>Bobby Bonds was a career .268 hitter with only one season batting over .300 [.302 in 1970.] He only had 2 seasons with over a 100 RBI and his career on base percentage of .353 is not very good for a leadoff hitter. Add that to his 1757 strikeouts [as compared to his 1886 hits] and you have a non-Hall of Famer no matter who he's related to.<br /><br />Guys, it's rumored Brooks and Frank Robinson are second cousins twice removed.<br><br>Frank

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Hit .291 for his career with less than 200 HR. I don't think this is an Oedipal situation here.

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>Frank, I wouldn't put Bobby Bonds in the HOF but pointing out that he had only two 100 RBI seasons and then pointing out that he was frequently a leadoff hitter is a bit unfair. How many leadoff hitters drive in 100 runs? Also, in the context of the offensive era he played in and in comparison to other leadoff men of the period Bonds' OBA of .353 is pretty good. To name just a few that were considered stars in their time: Davey Lopes, Bert Campaneris, Willie Wilson, Mickey Rivers, Ralph Garr and even HOFer Lou Brock all had lower OBAs than Bonds. <br /><br />Had he not flamed out in his early 30's I'd say he would no doubt deserve to be in the Hall.<br /><br />Howard<br /><br />

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>And if my grandmother had balls, she would have been a ballplayer...<br /><br />Bonds was not good by any standard. He is what I consider a passable player.<br /><br />Anyway...it took Ashburn so long because he was overshadowed by Willie, Mickey, and the Duke. It was also because he played on several horrible teams (with the exception of the Whiz Kids) he almost never had a winning season. <br /><br />Richie was a spectacular fielder and a decent hitter and absolutely deserved to be in the Hall. Heck, he should be in twice for being a great broadcaster as well.<br /><br />Joshua

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Ray</b><p>Rick Ferrell and his brother Wes Ferrell were another great brother combo.<br /><br />Rick made it in, but Wes fell short. While Wes may have not been HOF material, he was a great player just the same. As a pitcher, he had a .601 winning percentage, won 20 or more games his first four seasons, won 25 games in 1935, and won nearly 200 games total. He also finished his career with a solid .280 average and a few HR records for pitchers.

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Ray,<br /><br />Actually, there are people who think that Wes Farrell was a better Hall of Fame candidate than Rick. But since Rick is already in the Hall, Wes will not get serious consideration.<br /><br />Peter

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>"Actually, there are people who think that Wes Farrell was a better Hall of Fame candidate than Rick. But since Rick is already in the Hall, Wes will not get serious consideration."<br /><br />You have yet to identify ONE shred of evidence in support of this wild theory of relativity, for lack of a better word, and you insist on ignoring the evidence to the contrary.<br />

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>But I could have sworn that Dick Thompson, who is writing a biography of the Ferrell family -- for it's even more than Wes and Rick, told me that Wes should be in the HOF and Rick should not be.<br /><br />I don't know about what evidence pro and con, but in this case I agree with Pete totally.<br /><br />Rich

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Peter,<br /><br />I love it..."Theory of Relativity"...how appropriate. Hey, I'm not Bill James. I'm just a net54 forum member shooting the breeze on a Tues. morning talking about baseball. <br /><br />I guess my most solid piece of evidence doesn't concern relatives. It had to do with Richie Ashburn. Why did it take him so long to get Hall of Fame recognition, and then I'm extrapolating the argument to include relatives.<br /><br />The Rick and Wes Farrell situation is also interesting. Why isn't Wes Farrell getting serious consideration for the Hall.<br /><br />Peter<br />

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>He was 193-128 with a 4.04 ERA. He just isn't a hall of fame caliber pitcher, period.

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Actually, the presence of Lloyd Waner is evidence contrary to my theory. Here's a borderline guy that was admitted to the Hall even though his brother (who was more qualified) was already in.<br /><br />Peter

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Precisely.

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>You always have to consider players relative to their time. Somewhere in another universe Lou Whitaker and Alan Trammell would be in the HOF but because of the timing of their career and what transpired offensively just as soon as they finished, they won't make the Hall; yet I honestly believe that you can make a pretty damned good case for both of them to be in the Hall.<br /><br />Rich

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Trammell has a better argument than Whitaker, although I believe both will get in eventually.<br /><br />Peter

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>Trammell and Whitaker had incredibly similar careers [both had 2300+ hits]with the same team [Tigers]over the same timespan [roughly 1977-95]. In a way, they kind of cancel each other out. If one gets it, the other deserves to get in as well. <br><br>Frank

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>If she had balls...very clever. I'm sure granny had mad game. But I'm not sure what you mean that Bobby Bonds "was not good by any standard". He is rated as very good or better by just about every sabermetric measure that has been thought up and he was considered a star by contemporary observers. He was frequently among the league leaders in the "standard" categories of HRs, SBs, Runs, slugging and even RBIs a couple of times.<br /><br />

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p><img src="http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s120/bcbgcbrcb/WanerLloyd.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s120/bcbgcbrcb/WanerPaul-1.jpg">

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>Howard,<br />I am familiar with his sabermetric stats but they must be used during his playing days. When compared to nearly any other era, he falls well short of HOF status. Bobby was great for several years, but so was Kevin Mitchell, Debs Garms, etc.<br /><br />For 10 years of his career, Bobby was a star. Then nothing...the only stat he registers a top ten career lead in is strikeouts.<br /><br />He is most comparable according to baseballreference.com to <br />Ron Gant (910) <br />Reggie Smith (888) <br />Reggie Sanders (887) <br />Jack Clark (884) <br />George Foster (883) <br />Shawn Green (878) <br />Fred Lynn (875) <br />Roy Sievers (868) <br />Dick Allen (866) <br />Bobby Murcer (864)<br /><br />Not a great list of HOFers although many stars and almost-HOFers.<br /><br />Sorry, Bobby does not qualify as a HOFer but as mediocre star he certainly qualifies.<br /><br />Joshua

Paul and Lloyd Waner and others...
 

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>Since I did not say that Bonds should be in the HOF there is no need to apologize. My post was in response to your writing that Bonds was not good by any standard. In your followup post, however, you say that he was great for several years and a star for ten years, so we are now in agreement.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Howard