Baseball Hall of Fame Vote

[ctownboy]

Scotfandango,

Dave Concepcion played against better competition (African-Americans and actual relief pitchers instead of former starters with dead arms), played for great teams that won World Series, was a better hitter and probably a better defensive Short Stop than Rizzuto and look how much HOF love he has received.

Using Baseball Reference's black ink and gray ink tables for offense and how they relate to how a player stacks up against HOF players, Concepcion scores higher than Rizzuto. Using their comparison of players in general, Concepcion compares to better players than Rizzuto.

If you think Baseball Reference puts too much weight towards the offense then remember that Concepcion and Larry Bowa were the two best defensive Short Stops in the NL until Ozzie Smith came along.

Again, if Concepcion had played in NY and accomplished these things, we would be talking about him as a Hall Of Famer now. But because we are talking about a Latin player who played in Cincinnati during the 1970's and 1980's instead of a guy from NY in the 1950's (who also had a long broadcasting career and a Money Store commercial to keep his name, face and voice in the public eye) we are not doing that.

In short, if people are using the number of World Series rings Rizzuto won (on teams that I think Dickey, DiMaggio, Ruffing, Gomez, Mantle, Berra and Ford, among others, had a LOT more to do with than Rizzuto) or how he was the GLUE for those teams (where in the HOF rules is that stated as a criteria and how many other players could that be used as a reason for their inclusion in the HOF?) then, to me, that means Rizzuto is NOT a Hall Of Fame player. Either that or there are OTHER players out there who should be getting looked at or talked about for the HOF that currently aren't.

Finally, why isn't Ted Simmons or, better yet, Joe Torre NOT being talked about as Hall Of Famers? Both put up great offensive stats as Catchers and Torre had a long and productive career as a Manager (guiding the Yankees to numerous World Series and winning rings to boot).

I have an anti-NY bias because I see too many players as being overhyped just BECAUSE they played for the Yankees (and now the Red Sox) when if they played for another team and did the same things they would be overlooked or their accomplishments put down because they didn't do them in NY.

David

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

Scotfandango,

Dave Concepcion played against better competition (African-Americans and actual relief pitchers instead of former starters with dead arms), played for great teams that won World Series, was a better hitter and probably a better defensive Short Stop than Rizzuto and look how much HOF love he has received.

Using Baseball Reference's black ink and gray ink tables for offense and how they relate to how a player stacks up against HOF players, Concepcion scores higher than Rizzuto. Using their comparison of players in general, Concepcion compares to better players than Rizzuto.

If you think Baseball Reference puts too much weight towards the offense then remember that Concepcion and Larry Bowa were the two best defensive Short Stops in the NL until Ozzie Smith came along.

Again, if Concepcion had played in NY and accomplished these things, we would be talking about him as a Hall Of Famer now. But because we are talking about a Latin player who played in Cincinnati during the 1970's and 1980's instead of a guy from NY in the 1950's (who also had a long broadcasting career and a Money Store commercial to keep his name, face and voice in the public eye) we are not doing that.

In short, if people are using the number of World Series rings Rizzuto won (on teams that I think Dickey, DiMaggio, Ruffing, Gomez, Mantle, Berra and Ford, among others, had a LOT more to do with than Rizzuto) or how he was the GLUE for those teams (where in the HOF rules is that stated as a criteria and how many other players could that be used as a reason for their inclusion in the HOF?) then, to me, that means Rizzuto is NOT a Hall Of Fame player. Either that or there are OTHER players out there who should be getting looked at or talked about for the HOF that currently aren't.

Finally, why isn't Ted Simmons or, better yet, Joe Torre NOT being talked about as Hall Of Famers? Both put up great offensive stats as Catchers and Torre had a long and productive career as a Manager (guiding the Yankees to numerous World Series and winning rings to boot).

I have an anti-NY bias because I see too many players as being overhyped just BECAUSE they played for the Yankees (and now the Red Sox) when if they played for another team and did the same things they would be overlooked or their accomplishments put down because they didn't do them in NY.

David

+1

The Yankees would have been a third place team without "Glue" Rizzuto.

[byrone]

Interesting CBC article about Larry Walker.

He should have more Hall of Fame consideration

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/ml...me-ballot.html

"It’s clear by looking at Walker’s production over 17 seasons that his numbers stack up with anyone in the Hall.

He won three batting titles, seven Gold Gloves, the National League MVP in 1997 and boasted a lifetime on-base-plus slugging percentage of .965, which is higher than 45 of the 64 outfielders currently in the Hall including Reggie Jackson and Dave Winfield. His .565 slugging percentage also ranks 13th all-time.

“When you look at a guy like Larry Walker and think of the best all-around players from his era, who’s better? Barry Bonds, maybe,” said Glew. “He hit 49 home runs when he won the NL MVP award [and drove in 130]."

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by byrone

Interesting CBC article about Larry Walker.

He should have more Hall of Fame consideration

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/ml...me-ballot.html

"It’s clear by looking at Walker’s production over 17 seasons that his numbers stack up with anyone in the Hall.

He won three batting titles, seven Gold Gloves, the National League MVP in 1997 and boasted a lifetime on-base-plus slugging percentage of .965, which is higher than 45 of the 64 outfielders currently in the Hall including Reggie Jackson and Dave Winfield. His .565 slugging percentage also ranks 13th all-time.

“When you look at a guy like Larry Walker and think of the best all-around players from his era, who’s better? Barry Bonds, maybe,” said Glew. “He hit 49 home runs when he won the NL MVP award [and drove in 130]."

Huge Larry fan...I completely agree. I never really bought into the whole Colorado factor.. I think it's a lame excuse.

[BleedinBlue]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Huge Larry fan...I completely agree. I never really bought into the whole Colorado factor.. I think it's a lame excuse.

What? No Colorado factor? Here are Larry's home and road splits for his career. This includes his MTL and STL days but come on, the road hitter is a marginal all-star. The Home hitter is a HOFer.

Home Away
Games 986 1002
At Bats 3429 3478
Runs 789 566
Hits 1193 967
2B 268 203
3B 39 23
HR 215 168
RBI 747 564
BA 0.348 0.278
OBP 0.431 0.37
SLG 0.637 0.495
OPS 1.068 0.865

[abothebear]

I don't remember if this was mentioned, but I wonder if the strike has worked against the late 70s - 80s guys whose careers were winding down in the early 90s? Morris, Whitaker, Trammell, Murphy, Raines. The strike clouded their retirements, or made a clean break between their greater career narrative and their last couple below average years. A cursory review reveals almost no players (apart from the milestone achievers) who retired between 93 and 97 to have been selected to the HOF. Carlton Fisk, Ozzie Smith, and Kirby Puckett being exceptions (Fisk debuted in '69 so he doesn't quite fit the category, Puckett's selection was emotionally expedited, and Smith actually performed consistent to his career his last season and did not fade (this is where his bland career offensive numbers actually worked in his favor, there is no fading when you are bad already). Perhaps this is a coincidence, or perhaps it is not unusual anyway.

For a similar reason I think it was a big mistake, historically speaking, for Pujols to go to another team. He has divided his legacy into two halves, and one of them aint going to be pretty. If he stayed in st. louis his career narrative would seemlessly wane and people would get it, and appreciate it. Now he has set up career two to be an inevitable disappointment. The only way he will be able to sew his two career halves together is if he wins a couple world series championships for the Angels in the first few years.

Getting back to Jack Morris, I understand why people don't think Jack should be in. And it doesn't bother me that he isn't in. But I would like to see him get in.

A few posts back someone said saying he is the best of the 80's is and arbitrary thing and doesn't mean anything. While I agree with this statement as he described it, I don't think people are using that statement in that way. At least that is not how I use it. I use it as a shorthand to represent the end of that particular era in baseball. Morris's career was pretty much the last 15 years of the pre-strike - pre juiced ball/juiced bodies era. His career should be judged in relation to his peers and by the judgement of his peers. And I think a strong case can be made for him by those measures.

[ctownboy]

abothebear,

You bring up a good point about the different years there were work stopages in baseball. Some players lost the equivalent of a season (or maybe two) because of the different strikes from the 1970's to the 1990's.

As far as 1981 is concerned, Dave Concepcion had a career year as far as offense goes (116 OPS+). He was an All Star, won the Silver Slugger Award and finsihed fourth in the MVP balloting.

Oh yeah, the Reds also had the BEST record in baseball that year but DIDN'T make the Play Offs because of the strike. The owners decided that the best thing to do would be to have the winners of each half of the season to go to the Play Offs.

If the Reds had made the Play Offs that year, it is possible that they could have won the World Series. If they had, then Concepcion would have ANOTHER ring on his career resume and, according to the Phil Rizzuto supporters, that would have helped him as far as his HOF argument goes.

David

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

Scotfandango,

Dave Concepcion played against better competition (African-Americans and actual relief pitchers instead of former starters with dead arms), played for great teams that won World Series, was a better hitter and probably a better defensive Short Stop than Rizzuto and look how much HOF love he has received.

Using Baseball Reference's black ink and gray ink tables for offense and how they relate to how a player stacks up against HOF players, Concepcion scores higher than Rizzuto. Using their comparison of players in general, Concepcion compares to better players than Rizzuto.

If you think Baseball Reference puts too much weight towards the offense then remember that Concepcion and Larry Bowa were the two best defensive Short Stops in the NL until Ozzie Smith came along.

Again, if Concepcion had played in NY and accomplished these things, we would be talking about him as a Hall Of Famer now. But because we are talking about a Latin player who played in Cincinnati during the 1970's and 1980's instead of a guy from NY in the 1950's (who also had a long broadcasting career and a Money Store commercial to keep his name, face and voice in the public eye) we are not doing that.

In short, if people are using the number of World Series rings Rizzuto won (on teams that I think Dickey, DiMaggio, Ruffing, Gomez, Mantle, Berra and Ford, among others, had a LOT more to do with than Rizzuto) or how he was the GLUE for those teams (where in the HOF rules is that stated as a criteria and how many other players could that be used as a reason for their inclusion in the HOF?) then, to me, that means Rizzuto is NOT a Hall Of Fame player. Either that or there are OTHER players out there who should be getting looked at or talked about for the HOF that currently aren't.

Finally, why isn't Ted Simmons or, better yet, Joe Torre NOT being talked about as Hall Of Famers? Both put up great offensive stats as Catchers and Torre had a long and productive career as a Manager (guiding the Yankees to numerous World Series and winning rings to boot).

I have an anti-NY bias because I see too many players as being overhyped just BECAUSE they played for the Yankees (and now the Red Sox) when if they played for another team and did the same things they would be overlooked or their accomplishments put down because they didn't do them in NY.

David

I agree completely. Torre should've been in as a player...He'll get in as a MGR, but I hope that doesn't stop people from pursuing him as a player as well.. A strong case can be made for Ted Simmons. I wouldn't mind seeing him get in(but I'd be ok if he doesn't). Conception should eventually get in. If all goes well, I think it would be fitting to see the two Venezuelan #13 shortstops get in together. Imagine if the BWAA voted in Vizquel, and Veterans voted in Conception the same year. I think that would be a great thing.. Now before anyone jumps down my throat about Vizquel. He's a no brainer in my books.. Arguably one of the two best defensive SS's in history(Smith may or may not have been better), 2800+ hits, 400+ SB's, and a leader both on and off the field. According to Baseball-reference his top 8 "similar batters" in order are- Luis Aparicio, Rabbit Maranville, Ozzie Smith, Bill Dahlen, Dave Conception, Luke Appling, Pee Wee Reese, and Nellie Fox. Everything about Omar screams Hall of Fame...

[Robextend]

It is a great debate because we all have our own standards and definition of "hall of famer".

I don't consider Larkin, Dawson, Rizzuto, etc...hall of famers. To me they are in the same boat as McGriff, Dale Murphy, Al Oliver, Raines, etc...

Compare Ted Simmons stats to the greatest catchers of all time and tell me why he didn't get any consideration for the HOF. Doesn't make sense to me.

[ctownboy]

robextend,

Replace Thurman Munson with Ted Simmons on those mid-1970's Yankees teams and Simmons is a Hall Of Famer.

Simmons was in the majors at a younger age than Munson and had a longer career and still his OPS+ is higher than Munson's (117 to 116). Sure, if he had lived, Munson could have put up a few more good seasons to raise his OPS+. However, if Munson had played as long as Simmons did, it is also likely that he would have had a drop off in production and his OPS+ would have fallen.

No, I don't believe in the idea that just because a guy played for the Yankees (or Red Sox) and put up good, but not great, stats for their career that they should some how get a HOF boost for it.

David

[Robextend]

Simmons closest contemporaries that are in the HOF are Bench, Fisk and Carter. Simmons had more hits, a higher batting average, more doubles and more RBI then all of them as well as being an 8 time all-star.

[ctownboy]

robextend,

Ted Simmons info From baseball-reference:

Gray Ink Batting - 95 (238), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 124 (110), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 44 (116), Average HOFer ≈ 50

Similar Batters

1. Miguel Tejada (855)
2. Alan Trammell (831)
3. Carlton Fisk (819) *
4. Joe Torre (818)
5. Gary Carter (818) *
6. Lou Whitaker (817)
7. Barry Larkin (805) *
8. Yogi Berra (805) *
9. Joe Cronin (804) *
10. Ryne Sandberg (791) *

Six of Simmons ten comparables are IN the HOF. Do the same comparison for Phil Rizzuto and see what happens.

Oh, I am sorry, that is right, Rizzuto played in New York, for the Yankees, won a bunch of rings and had Ted Williams around to influence the HOF voters.

David

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

Sure, if he had lived, Munson could have put up a few more good seasons to raise his OPS+. However, if Munson had played as long as Simmons did, it is also likely that he would have had a drop off in production and his OPS+ would have fallen

Here's the dirty little secret about Thurman Munson:

He was 1 step from being washed up when he passed away. Any semblance of power was gone from his game (3 HRs in 97 games in 1979, 6 in 154 in 1978). He hit .288 in 1979 was it was obvious he was slowing down and was just about finished. If he had lived, he likely would have played through about 1981, put up another 12 HRs (tops), and 300 hits. And he still would have been short of HOF'er credentials.

Tabe

[howard38]

.

[ctownboy]

howard38,

1) Concepcion playing against better competition has nothing to do with Rizzuto missing playing time because of WW II. It has EVERYTHING to do with black ball players NOT being allowed to play Major League baseball during the first half of Rizzuto's career.

2) Who is to say that Rizzuto would have put up better numbers if he would have played baseball instead of going into the military? Back then the rules weren't as stringent, as far as safety goes, so there is always the possibility that Rizzuto could have been at Second Base waiting for a throw from Joe Gordon and a runner does a barrel roll into Rizzuto when trying to breakup a Double Play and Rizzuto tears knee ligaments and can never play again.

Now, I give more credence to the idea that Ted Williams missed out on putting up better stats because of the years he missed due to military service because A) he was a better hitter and B) he played the Outfield and had less chance of being involved in a collision and getting hurt.

3) According to Ted Z, who is a self proclaimed Rizzuto fan, Rizzuto was the lead off hitter for the Yankees from 1949 to 1955. If this is true, then it means he had guys like DiMaggio, Mantle and Berra batting behind him. Yet, during those five or six years, Rizzuto scored 100 or more Runs only twice. Furthermore, Ted Z said he was a good hitter. Yet, again, during that time period, he had 150 or more Hits only twice.

Now, if you look at Concepcion's stats and career, here is what you will find.

1) For the first four years he was in the Majors, he was not an everyday player.

2) Once he became an everyday player, he hit at the bottom of the order. Just imagine what his stats would have looked like if Sparky Anderson had moved him to the top of the order and he had had Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench, Tony Perez and George Foster batting behind him?

Nope, I look at their stats, the teams they played on and the competition they faced and say that Concepcion was a better player and deserves to be in the HOF more than Rizzuto does.

Now, if you think neither deserve to be in the HOF that is fine.

David

[ValKehl]

Thomas Boswell's (he's the very-long-time baseball writer for the Wash. Post) column in today's newspaper re Larkin, Bagwell and the PED candidates is a good read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...8oP_story.html
Val

[ctownboy]

kcohen,

"In the Rizzuto v Conception debate, I find the contention that the latter played against superior competition to be highly questionable."

Really? I will ask you then, who do you think was a better Short Stop, Phil Rizzuto or Ernie Banks?

Most people would say Banks.

But, even if a guy like Banks were available to play from 1941 until 1947, he wouldn't have been allowed to because of the color of his skin. Also not likely to have been playing during those years were Latin players like Luis Aparicio, Dave Concepcion and Omar Vizquel.

Furthermore, in the five to 10 years after WW II, competition for MLB jobs was thinned because so many young, able bodied guys were in the War and were either injured or killed, thus thinning the herd as far as competition goes.

On top of that, those soldiers who did come back from the War healthy had a choice to make; become a pro baseball player and have a slight chance to make the Majors OR take advantage of the GI Bill and go to college for little to no cost. Which option do you think a lot of those guys chose?

Finally, as another person posted, the Yankees had a ban on Black players until 1955. This means they HAD a chance to sign Ernie Banks but didn't. Who do you think would have won the competition for the Short Stop job between Banks and Rizzuto?

Banks. And if that had happened then guess what would have happened to Rizzuto? He would have either been relegated to being a back up player for the Yankees, traded to another (probably lesser) team or he would have retired.

Either way, without the competition, Rizzuto was a starter for a team he probably otherwise wouldn't have been and won rings he probably otherwise wouldn't have won and gets rewared with an HOF induction because of it.

David

[mr2686]

Interesting that you think Rizzuto would be on the bench or traded if the Yankees had Banks. Banks only played 9 of his 19 major league seasons as a short stop (Rizzuto had 13) and they had almost identical fielding percentages...and Rizzuto had about 2446 more chances. Why wouldn't they have moved Rizzuto to 2b...or moved Banks to 1b (he played there 11 seasons). By the way, I do believe Concepcion should be in the hall as well for a lot of the same reasons I think Rizzuto and Reese are in.

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

kcohen,

"In the Rizzuto v Conception debate, I find the contention that the latter played against superior competition to be highly questionable."

Really? I will ask you then, who do you think was a better Short Stop, Phil Rizzuto or Ernie Banks?

Most people would say Banks.

David

First, I find the Rizzuto v. Banks question to be irrelevant to the question of whether Conception faced superior competition. The contention that he did appears to be based primarily if not solely on the color line. It is obvious that within the context of pre-1950 MLB, the general level of competition would have been raised with the inclusion of players like Josh Gibson and Satchell Paiges.

However, let's look at Rizzuto's time as opposed to Conception's. In Scooter's, there was not the watering down of expansion as there were only 16 teams. There were only three major pro sports, baseball, boxing, and horse racing. Therefore, a much greater percentage of the US athletic talent was channeled into baseball. In Conception's time, so many top athletes had gone into baseball and basketball.

To contend that the level competition in Rizzuto's time was inferior solely because of the color line is simplistic. It takes into consideration one element among several that are needed if one is to validly compare the two eras.

[howard38]

.

[howard38]

/

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by howard38

3)
It's not entirely true. During that period Rizzuto batted first, second and eighth. In his career he actually started more games in the 8 spot than he did leading off.

Howard

My recollection during those 5 hey-day years (1949-1953), Rizzuto batted either 1st or 2nd in the line-up. And, after the 1st inning, it's immaterial
what position in the line-up he was at. My contention is that when Rizzuto was the lead-off batter in any of the subsequent innings of a game, he
would do what it took to get on base....either by a hit, bunt, walk, or beating out an infield grounder.

There is a fundamental maxim in Baseball that says when the lead-off batter gets on base....70 % of the time he will eventually score a run in that
inning.


TED Z

[howard38]

.

[ctownboy]

packs,

If you want to think Rizzuto is a Hall Of Famer because of his broadcasting career that is fine (then I will counter that if having a lengthy MLB career and then an even longer broadcasting career are good criteria to use for people getting elected to the HOF then Joe Nuxhall should be in).

However, the fact is, Rizzuto was NOT elected to the HOF by the people responsible for electing sportswriters and broadcasters. he was elected by the Veterans Committee. This means he was elected based on what he did as a player.

Even Ted Z, a self-proclaimed Rizzuto fan, admits that Ted Williams used his influence to get Rizzuto elected. So, Rizzuto was not elected to the HOF when he was on the regular ballot and it took an all-time great like Williams to lobby for him with the Veterans Committee.

To me, that is like George W. Bush getting into Yale because of who his Father and Grand Father were. Both Rizzuto and George W. made it into prestigious institutions but neither did it on their own merits. They had outside influences help to get them in.

Again, like I said in another post, so what that Rizzuto lost time due to serving in WW II? Just because he lost time doesn't mean his stats would have gotten better. Sure, he could have played during all of that time and performed well. Conversely, he also could have been taken out at Second Base by a guy trying to break up a Double Play, had his knee ruined and never played again. Nobody knows.

So one cant just assume he would have played, played well and put up better numbers. You have to look at what he did on the field and the numbers he actually put up.

Again, I say there were other players on the Yankees who were better than Rizzuto and had more input to them winning games than Rizzuto did. Just because Rizzuto happened to be a starter on those teams that won World Series doesn't mean he automatically should be considered a better player than what he was.

David

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

Ted Williams used his influence to get Rizzuto elected. So, Rizzuto was not elected to the HOF when he was on the regular ballot and it took an all-time great like Williams to lobby for him with the Veterans Committee.

I tend to stay out of these HOF "worthy / not worthy" threads, but in this situation, I feel like I need to say that if Ted Williams thinks somebody should be in the Hall, that trumps all of the opinions and stats that I've seen mentioned.

Doug

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

I tend to stay out of these HOF "worthy / not worthy" threads, but in this situation, I feel like I need to say that if Ted Williams thinks somebody should be in the Hall, that trumps all of the opinions and stats that I've seen mentioned.

Doug

Where does that leave you on Mel Harder?

[Orioles1954]

Neither Rizzuto or Concepcion are Hall of Famers in my opinion...and this coming from someone who doesn't think the Hall of Fame is "watered down".

[tedzan]

1st....Hall of Famers elected to the HOF via the Veterans Committee (VC) is not something that you should diminish. Great ballplayers like Johnny Mize,
Sam Rice, Connie Mack, Vic Willis, Enos Slaughter, etc., etc. are in via the VC route.

I'm assuming that you saw Dave Concepion play and you favor him and that's fine. I saw Rizzuto play (on TV or at Yankee Stadium) during the Yankees
"dynasty" years (1949 - 1953).
All 5 of those years, Phil was in the running for the AL MVP award. He was runner-up (to Ted Williams) in 1949 and won the AL MVP in 1950. There is no
denying it, Phil was a significant factor during that 5-year dynasty.

Yes, I am biased.....Phil lived 2 blocks away from our home when I was growing up in the 1940's to 1950's. We, in the neighborhood in Hillside (NJ), saw
quite a lot of Phil. Back in those days, Mondays were usually off-days for the Yankees. Phil attended many of our Catholic Youth Organization meetings
on Monday nights at St. Catherine's school; and, spend hours talking with us and showing us pointers on playing baseball. Also, Phil would answer our
questions regarding some the great BB players of his time. I could go on with a lot more here; but, I'll spare you the details.

I'll leave you with this comparison......

7 seasons Rizzuto was in consideration for the AL MVP (top 20 ranking)

3 seasons Concepcion was in consideration for the NL MVP (top 20 ranking)

Don't misconstrue....I saw Dave Concepion play for most of his 19 years and I agree....he was a great shortstop.


TED Z

a.k.a. ......T-Rex TED

[ctownboy]

mr2686,

Here is why I think Banks would have started at SS and Rizzuto would have been benched if both were on the Yankees.

In 1953, Banks came up as a 22 year-old rookie with the Cubs and appeared in 10 Games. That year, Rizzuto was 35 and he had, basically, his last productive year.

I think if both were on the team in 1954, the Yankees would look at a 23 year-old Banks and prefer him over a 36 year-old Rizzuto. Even if they didn't in Spring Training or the start of the season, they probably would have at some point.

I mean, unlike teams today (because of Salary Arbitration and Free Agency), the Yankees weren't afraid to bring young players up and let them start IF they were talented. Mantle first appeared as a 20 year-old and was starting at 21. Berra first appeared at age 21, played half a season at 22 and was a regular at 23. So, if Banks showed any signs of his true talent, I don't think the Yankees would have hesitated to bench Rizzuto and start Banks in his place.

David

[ctownboy]

Doug Goodman and Ted Z,

1) Phil Rizzuto was on the regular HOF ballot for 14 years over a 20 year time period and the highest percentage of votes he received during that time was 38.4%. He had plenty of time to get voted in by guys who actually saw him play and the majority of them thought he didn't warrant induction.

Hall of Fame
1956 BBWAA ( 0.5%)
1962 BBWAA (27.5%)
1964 BBWAA (22.4%)
1964 Run Off ( 5.5%)
1966 BBWAA (17.9%)
1967 BBWAA (24.3%)
1967 Run Off ( 4.6%)
1968 BBWAA (26.1%)
1969 BBWAA (22.9%)
1970 BBWAA (26.3%)
1971 BBWAA (25.6%)
1972 BBWAA (26.0%)
1973 BBWAA (29.2%)
1974 BBWAA (30.4%)
1975 BBWAA (32.3%)
1976 BBWAA (38.4%)

2) You cherry picked guys who were voted in by the Veterans Committee who were good and who some today would be arguing for HOF induction if they weren't already in.

I am pretty sure I can go down the list of players the VC chose, cherry pick some names, pull them out, put them on a poll for this board to vote on and these guys would be determined to NOT be worthy of the HOF. Heck, I am sure guys like Bill James agrees that some of the VC's decisions are not correct.

Ted, you gave Johnny Mize and Sam Rice as two such people. The funny thing is, when looking at the yearly HOF vote percentage that they received when they were on the regular ballot, Mize's percentage was consistently higher than Rizzuto while Rice languished near obscurity until his last three years. However, the last two years, he received over 50% of the vote something Rizzuto never got close to.

3) Putting faith in Ted Williams judgement during the later years of his life is something I wouldn't do.

4) From 1941 until 1956, there were only eight teams in the AL so the number of total players eligible for MVP voting wasn't as great as during Concepcion's time.

For example, in 1950 (Rizzuto's MVP year) the Yankees used 38 players during the season. 15 of those players were Pitchers (five of whom appeared in eight or fewer Games). Of the 23 position players, only nine appeared in 100 or more Games and only 10 had 300 or more Plate Appearances (if you want to go by At Bats then it is only eight players). So, at most, each team would have maybe 20 guys who could be considered for the MVP (the number is probably closer to 15 but I am giving the benefit of the doubt).

This means that during his playing days, there might be 160 guys who could be considered for the MVP each year. So, for Rizzuto to finish in the top 20 of the MVP balloting he would only have to be better than 140 players (more like 100 players if the number of guys is only 15 per team).

Now, during Concepcion's time, there were 12 teams in the NL. In 1979, (I would have used 1981 where Concepcion finished fourth in the MVP voting but that was the strike shortened year) Concepcion finished ninth in the MVP balloting. During that season, the Reds used 35 different players, 14 of whom were Pitchers. Of the 21 position players, only eight played in 100 or more Games and nine had 300 or more Plate Appearances and At Bats.

Basically it works out to, again, between 15 to 20 players per team who could have been reasonably thought of as MVP candidates. But there is the rub. Concepcion had to compete against more players (an additional 60 to 80) when looking at whether he finished in the top 20 of MVP voting or not.

So, instead of having to beat, at most, 140 players like Rizzuto did to finish in the top 20 of MVP voting, Concepcion had to beat 220, at most, other players to finish in the top 20 of MVP voting.

Also, when looking at those MVP votes, Concepcion finished fourth, ninth and 15th while Rizzuto finished first, second, sixth, 11th, 14th, 19th and 20th.

Finally, yes, I grew up watching Concepcion play and the Reds were my favorite team. However, that is NOT the main reason I am arguing that Rizzuto is not a HOF player.

The main reasons are because I think Rizzuto got in by riding the coattails of DiMaggio, Dickey, Mantle, Berra and Ford (the ones most responsible for winning those World Series rings). He got in by having Ted Williams influence the VC and he got in because he just happened to be lucky enough to play for the Yankees.

For me, Rizzuto didn't have a long enough career (which would have given him a chance to accumulate counting stats), he didn't have a high enough peak and that peak didn't last long enough and he didn't lead his league in many offensive categories (he led the AL in Sac Bunts four times but if he were such a great hitter then he should have been swinging away and advancing the runner/s' via a Hit instead of the Bunt).

So, if Rizzuto got in the HOF by riding the coattails of others then I think Concepcion should to (Rose, Bench, Morgan, Perez, Foster, May Griffey, Seaver). But, he wont and that is because he didn't play in NY.

David

[Cy2009]

One of the biggest travesties in the Hall of Fame voting is Edgar Martinez. What a great hitter he was. His stats are impeccable when it comes to being a hitter. The only reason that he is not in there is because he was primarily a DH. Maybe I am confused, but hasn't that been a position since 1973? Heck the DH has been around a lot longer than the one-inning closer. Let's not vote any of those guys in because it is not a position that has been around long enough.

The fact that his not playing the field is ridiculous. For Hall of Fame recognition, rarely is fielding equated into the formula. Martinez batted .312 for 18 seasons. If there wasn't a DH, does anyone think that his bat would have been left out because he wasn't a strong fielder? Seattle would have hid him in left field or 1st base as baseball has done for a long time. But since the DH was allowed in the AL, this wasn't necessary. Plus Martinez was clutch. If the game was on the line with a guy on base and he came to the plate, he ripped the ball into an open area of the field, consistently.

The question isn't is Edgar Martinez worthy of the Hall of Fame. He is. The question is, do we start to recognize DH's as full fledged position players or let's get rid of the DH. Because if you don't recognize something that has been around for 40 years as significant, then get rid of it.

Cy

[rdixon1208]

Regarding Edgar Martinez, that's a nice Batting Average, but 2247 hits 309 HR's and 1261 RBI's isn't that impressive. Especially for his era. When I think or Edgar Martinez, I think good hitter....not HOFer. Below is a list of his most similar batters according to Baseball-Reference. There's not a HOFer on the list in my opinion....even though some of those guys could play the field too.

Will Clark
Todd Helton
John Olerud
Moises Alou
Magglio Ordonez
Bob Johnson
Bernie Williams
Paul O'Neill
Ellis Burks
Carlos Lee

[z28jd]

Martinez was a great hitter but if he had to play the field he would've likely been nowhere near the hitter he was. He was moved to DH because of nagging injuries and if he was forced to play the field 9 innings a game he would've missed many more games, probably been injured more often and not had the career as a hitter he had. The DH role definitely helped pad his offensive stats.

The comparison to a reliever is actually a good one because I'd never vote in any reliever, especially a one inning one. I don't care how good they are, it is one inning, it isnt always a tight situation, it isnt always the heart of a tough lineup theyre facing and they don't even play half the teams games. Definitely an overrated position. If you found some guy who pinch hit his entire career and hit .300 every year I wouldn't even think of voting him in no matter how impressive that feat is.