Tonelli is really close. Counting WHA, he has almost 1000 professional points. I asked him about it once and he said if he had thought about it at the time, he’d have held on for a bit to get those 14 points.

But look at Goring’s Kings’ career; the guy was an all star. He sort of played in obscurity out there all those years. We have seen Goring’s career and Carboneau’s career. I’ll ask anyone that saw those two play: you are starting a franchise and have to pick one of those players, who are you picking? You take the 32 GMs now, I’d say 24 take Goring. Probably more.

Unfortunately since the time I posted yesterday, the John Kruk Hall of Fame Egregious Oversight Society (JKHFEOS) has disbanded, due to outside agitators and provocateurs pushing a Manny Trillo for the Hall agenda, utilizing an anti-Kruk disinformation campaign to boost Manny's chances.

To keep Trillo and his malicious de-facto supporters from de-legitimizing the Hall of Fame and its induction standards, Kruk's Egregious Oversight status needs to be publicly diminished on various platforms and campaigns, including the JKHFEOS at this point of time, to minimize the Trillo faction from gaining traction in this Hall of Fame struggle for supremacy.


Brian

Ahem...Kruk lives around here. See him regularly at the Publix grocery store across the street from where we live.

Ned Williamson? George Gore? Bobby Lowe?

Yep, you are absolutely right, and mine was Steve Garvey, and he was great, but I'm sorry, he doesn't quite make it in on my ballot.

Doug "sadly" Goodman

Yup….I’d take Goring all day long…..

People don’t realize what it takes to win 4 Cups in a row….it takes Goring, Tonelli, Nystrom ( the bad boys ) and the 5 HOFers and quick skaters like Bourne and defensive gems like Morrow….may never see it again…….and guys like Langevin, Sutter, Lane were no slouches……

My dad always states: Bobby Bourne on any other team is an all star. (If he played in Toronto or Montreal, we’d still be hearing his name.) he also says that 5th Cup really isn’t in ‘84, it’s ‘78 or ‘79. And that’s what Goring did. Made them believe they were that good.

During the pandemic, I started watching a lot of those mid 80s Oiler teams. I used to give the edge to the Isles because, well, I’m from Long Island, but also Arbour over Sather. But those Oiler teams were probably just as good as the Isles. Over an 80 game season the teams are probably 35-35-10 (that’s 10 ties, not “loser point shoot out nonsense”.)

Can’t disagree - but the Isles won four straight - almost five and 19 - nineteen straight playoff series in a row…..just incredible….the Oilers were great back then….5 Cups in 7 years I believe? I would take the Isles lineup all day long….but like you, I am biased being from Long Island….

So unless you’re advocating for a big expansion of the HOF, it would seem that you should have a chapter on players who, in a perfect world, would be expunged. Otherwise, you’re bascially just moving the bar lower, which creates borderline HOFers out of players who are currently very good, but not all that close. Then someone pushes for the new borderline players to come in, and the pattern repeats itself.

A chapter on revising the standards and voting procedures might help too. There are plently of stories about certain people having outsized influence to get in their own favorites. And the whole thing has been done with a decided lack of professionalism since the beginning. Whay does it have to be that way?

+1

It’s all relative. So you would need an objective standard by which you can justify that your picks are better than existing picks, like hallofstats.com does.

Of course, some like Ross Barnes or Harry Stovey could be justified through qualitative means, like being an early trailblazer/innovator.

We all have varying thoughts on what the Hall should be. Personally, I have mixed feelings on quantifying every minute detail. If there was a statistical bar (i.e. .280/350HR/65WAR, etc) I would certainly be interested to see who’s already in and doesn’t hit it vs those who did and aren’t. On the flip side, I do like at least some human element. As many have said before, it’s the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats. Canseco, Mattingly, and Bo Jackson were as famous as any other ballplayers in the 80’s and 90’s. I’m not arguing for their entry, per se, but I do subscribe to the idea that the Hall should be a museum that tells the history of the sport through the lens of it’s most iconic players, sometimes stats be damned. Stepping down from my soap box now.

A few I would like to add to your list that I didn't see:
Bert Campaneris
Sal Bando
Craig Nettles
Buddy Bell
Stan Hack
Willie Davis
Rick Rueschel. I think Rick would have gotten a lot more consideration if he didn't look like a butcher wearing a baseball uniform. This is not an insult as my build closely resembles Rick Rueschels.

I would encourage you to move forward with the project. It is a long road, but with Amazon it is quite doable. Feel free to reach out to me if I can be of assistance in any way.

The hardest thing you have to tackle is what the Hall of Fame should be. There are a few players no one can possibly have an issue with (Ruth, Cobb, Bench, Willams, Gehirg) Several that are fairly clearly hall of famers, some that are kind of the average hall of famers, and some that are entirely questionable (Lloyd Waner, Baines, Lindstrom, Kelly). Where would you propose your candidates fit? The Hall of Fame is not an ideal place in that there is not standard of excellence that is clearly established...but it would make a fun discussion.

Ed Reulbach was the 3rd best pitcher on the Cubs at that time?

Ned Williamson? George Gore? Bobby Lowe?