I agree with you 100 percent Perezfan. I wasn't trying to knock Tony...heck, I saw him play most of his career and know what a great player he was, I was just trying to give some love for Sunny Jim. You bring up a good point though, there are no stats for clutch hits, clutch wins, etc. For all we know, Jesse Haines was a clutch pitcher, Chick Hafey a clutch hitter, etc. That's why I say it's pretty hard to say a player should not be in the Hall. Where it really gets tough is when one player is in and then another (with similar stats) is not.

Wow - nice call!

More on Simmons
 

A little more on Ted Simmons from the www.thebaseballpage.com

I know he is very debatable, but how could he have left the ballot after only 1 year? I think the BBWAA seriously disrespected Simmons.

A grassroots campaign to get Ted Simmons inducted into the Hall of Fame has rarely drawn much attention. The switch-hitting catcher spent 21 years in the big leagues, and retired with more RBI than Johnny Bench, more runs scored than Gary Carter, more hits than Carlton Fisk, and a higher batting average than Yogi Berra. But his longevity has not obscured the fact that he was considered a mediocre defensive catcher, against whom baserunners frequently ran wild. With the stick however, Simmons accumulated 2,472 hits, the highest figure by a player who was primarily a catcher. He hit .300 seven times, and was frequently among league leaders in hits, doubles, and intentional walks.

"All you ever hear is Bench and Munson and Fisk. Nobody ever talks about Simmons. He's the most underrated catcher. He's never got the recognition he deserves. But where can you find a catcher that can do all the things Simmons can do? He hits better than any of them, and he calls a great game. And who else in the league can catch as many games as he does?" — Pittsburgh manager Chuck Tanner on St. Louis catcher Ted Simmons, 1978

Mike Piazza was a great batting catcher (0.300+ career hitter, ROY, 12 time all-star) who wasn't good defensively. Will he be a HOFer?

Rob
:)

After you guys vote out Maz, I would use my vote to bounce Blyleven and put Bill back in. Maz was an elite player on defense, and that counts for something sometimes. If you won't let me do that, I'd drop Chick Hafey and add Larry Doyle.

Simmons had a subpar fielding percentage, but his "caught stealing" percentage was just barely below Carter. As I've said before, it's a total shaft job. Playing for mostly crappy Cardinal teams of the 70's and then with the Brewers really hurt him, even with the Brewers going to the series in '82.

Four More in,Two out
 

Out: Elmer Flick What kind of name is that for a HOFer?

Jim Rice Erase one outstanding season (1976) and here's an ordinary player/DH who worked his way up the voting ladder. If one season gets you in, make way for Norm Cash. In mainly because the Boston crowd got what it wanted. Again.

In: Bill Madlock -- Lifetime .305 hitter, four batting championships

Al Oliver -- A batting championship, lifetime .303 hitter and 2700 hits.

Dale Murphy -- Dominant NL player in the '80s. Two MVPs, back to back. 398 homers Low overall average due to hanging on too long.

All three played for some bad (though not terrible) teams, out of the NY _ Boston corridor. And one who didn't ...

Gil Hodges On a team that featured some exceptional ballplayers (e.g. Reese, Robinson, Campy, Newk, Snider), Hodges was the one that nobody playing the Bums wanted to see in a clutch at bat. Managed the sorry Mets to a World Championship. And a guy who played the game the way it ought to be played, and lived his life the same way. The Hall ought to join him!

Im going with my heart over my head, but I'd put in Will Clark. :) If nothing else, I would have loved to see him last more than just one year on the ballot. He meant sooooo much to the city of SF and Giants fans.

And Ive only browsed through this thread, but I expected to see more comments for Ron Santo (where are the diehard Cubie fans?)

I will. Besides being rookie of the year and 3 batting championships, from 1964-71 he was in the top 10 in slugging percentage every single year. He was fast, a great outfielder and possessed a rifle arm. He is the poor man's Roberto Clemente. He tore up his knees but continued to play at a high rate and was twice runner up to the AL MVP and finished in the Top 10 several times.
It boggles the mind that Chick Hafey is in and Tony O is not. In a poll about 10 years ago of the top American league pitchers of the era, the majority voted Oliva as the most feared hitter in the AL in the 60's.

300 wins means a pitcher is a lock for Cooperstown but if you look at the body of work and how they performed in big games, I would take Jack Morris over Don Sutton any day of the week. He lead the AL in wins twice and finished 2nd twice. His stats compare almost identically with Amos Rusie, Red Ruffing, Burleigh Grimes and Jim Bunning, all HOFers. He pitched on some bad teams but was always a terror on the mound.

I liked Morris too, but you have to figure those ERA stats from 1989-1994 had to hurt his chances drastically.

1989 - 4.86
1990 - 4.51
1991 - 3.43 (not bad at all)
1992 - 4.04
1993 - 6.19
1994 - 5.60

Career ERA of 3.90 doesn't tell the story of his dominance in the 1980's, but I am sure it has kept him out of the hall.

His big year was actually 1978, and Rice was far btter than just that one season. In 75 he had similar stats to Lynn .309/22/102 vs .331/21/105 but got hurt late in the year and missed the postseason.
During a good part of his career he was an impressive hitter, a couple homers he hit that I saw in person left the park quicker than any I've seen. And he's one of the very few to get one out of fenway to the right of the flagpole.

One thing that gets missed is that his last 3 years or so he had vision problems, but was too stubborn to wear glasses. After finally getting a pair after taking a eating in the press about how he needed them, they made fun of how they looked (yeah, the ones he picked were a poor choice) So he stopped wearing them.

He suffered in HOF balloting because he wasn't all that media friendly. And like it or not, if a guy is borderline in any way it comes down to a popularity with the press contest. He took a lot of knocks for being a bad fielder - Who isn't a bad fielder in Fenways LF?- and for grounding into far too many doubleplays. But by the middle part of his career, he was an ok if not great fielder, and while he's 6th all time in GIDP he's in some excellent company there. http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...P_career.shtml
He was also one of at least 3 players that were treated horribly by the owners in 89-90 and his reaction to being disinvited to spring training- basically being cut before the season ended - didn't win any friends witht he press either.

A quote from wikipedia sums it up nicely "Rice could hit for both power and average, and currently only nine other retired players rank ahead of him in both career home runs and batting average: Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams"

Steve B

Wow. I still don't get the hate Jim Rice gets and I'm a Yankees fan.

..............and then you throw in Bill Madlock because of the batting titles?

Rice had almost as high of a lifetime batting average, finished top 5 in the MVP voting six times. HR leader 3 times, RBI leader twice, 4 seasons of 200 or more hits.

Rice was a very competent Left Fielder, especially when he got a chance to do it every day after Yaz retired. He's 3rd All-Time in assists from a Left Fielder since they started tracking it, behind only Bonds and Yaz.

Madlock never finished in the top 5 MVP. Never had 200 hits. Not even close, which is shocking for a 4-time batting title winner. Never had 100 RBI's, never had 100 Runs scored. Guy was barely an everyday player. :confused:

Madlock was barely an everyday player? Huh? Twice with over 600 PA's, 8 times with over 500 PA's, and 4 times with over 400 PA's. That's quite a slacker.

I think I made my point pretty clear even if I was a little dramatic in saying it. You'd put him in the HOF over Jim Rice because he had over 600 plate appearances a couple times?

The guy won 4 batting titles, barely walked and never had even close to 200 hits in a single season, and was rarely ever considered in the MVP voting.

Not to denigrate Madlock as he was obviously a fantastic contact hitter with a little bit of pop, but he is nowhere in Rice's league.

I'm just tired of this anti-Jim Rice bias that seems to have no basis in reality for anybody who actually watched him play on a regular basis.

People throw out his lifetime accumulated stats for a guy with a relatively shortened career and then throw out a name like Bill Madlock (maybe not the same people, but it's just as headscratching) as more deserving.................somebody whose overall stats don't hold a candle to Rice's.

Was Madlock a part-time player? He played over 140 games a grand total of 4 times in his entire career. Whether it was because of injuries or not having the DH to fall back on, what's it matter?

Rice was thought of highly enough in his era to earn 6, Top 5 MVP finishes despite being pretty despised by the press. Norm Cash, one year wonder..............I think not.

I have to agree Bill Madlock was a nice player, but not anywhere close to Jim Rice.

All this discussion about Jim Rice intrigued me, so I hunted down a few statistics. I'll preface this by saying I was perfectly happy to see Rice enter the Hall, and while I'm a born and raised Giants' fan, I've always liked the Sox.

I've always considered lifetime road statistics as a pretty good indicator of a player's true abilities, 'cause lets face it, there are certain parks that are/were ridiculously hitter friendly (Coors Field, The Metrodome, Fenway, etc.).

So here are the lifetime ROAD STATS of Jim Rice alongside several players who had very good careers, but aren't often mentioned as being Hall of Fame worthy.

Name....................AB HR RBI AVG OBP SLG

Jim Rice...............4150 174 649 .277 .330 .459
Jack Clark............4198 185 614 .266 .377 .480
Boog Powell.........3393 189 637 .266 .360 .477
Rocky Colavito.....3343 181 581 .271 .358 .489
George Foster......3568 164 602 .279 .338 .449
Frank Howard......3268 196 534 .266 .344 .491
Matt Williams.......3558 194 633 .269 .315 .491
Dick Allen............3185 168 540 .290 .372 .519
Joe Adcock...........2996 187 553 .278 .340 .526

And damn this message board for scrunching up all those statistics I laboriously typed out.

Sorry, but why is Jim Rice the only player who does or does not get into the Hall based on "Road" statistics?

This isn't the first time I've seen this argument........and it's always based around Jim Rice for some reason.

Lots of players are more comfortable at home then they are on the road. Fenway Park and Coors Field shouldn't even be uttered in the same breath, regardless of Rice's prowess at home.

Madlock was a regular except for his rookie year and his last year, when he had 350 at bats. He was a fine fielder, a great baserunner, and a line drive hitter with pop. Four batting titles should be a ticket to the hall. And he did all this hitting in the National League, which used to be a lot tougher than hitting in the American League. I saw him play a lot, and my observations and his stats both tell me that he ought to get more attention. In addition, I should say that I get to see him every couple of weeks, since he gives lessons to kids at the local batting cages, and he is about the nicest guy I've ever met.

Hey guys...I for one am not arguing Rice over Madlock...I think they both deserve to be in.

I'd choose Al Oliver over Madlock. He always hit the ball hard, had over 2700 hits, and was absolutely a hitting machine. I liked Maddog, but Oliver was head and shoulders better. When talking about guys who got the shaft from the BBWAA, I'd put the two O's, Oliver and Oliva, up near the top.

I second that... Oliver was a machine. Perhaps if he had more longevity, he might have made it in. I still remember a long stretch of televised Pirates games in the '70s... he must have gone about 16 for 20, and even his outs were among the hardest hit balls in the game.

Oliver always seemed to center the ball, but he was not a great rbi man. With all the hitters in front of him, he should have driven in tons of runs in the early to mid seventes. But he drove in 100 runs only once, at the end of his career. I still think Madlock was the better hitter.

Actually, he drove in 100+ twice and 99 once. Madlock? 0. Oliver also had 700+ more hits. Oliver had 7 AS appearances, Madlock had 3. We can debate the numbers and what they mean, but I believe that people at the time thought Oliver to be the better ballplayer. Now, years after they have both retired, I believe that the thinking back then was, and remains, accurate.

I also hate to kick anyone out but want to voice support for the single most deserving 19th century player not yet enshrined . . . <b>Deacon White</b>.

Without question, Deacon was the games best catcher during a decade in which the catcher was of most importance, the 1870s. If a team didn't have a good catcher, they didn't stand a chance regardless of who might be pitching. Catching wasn't for the faint of heart back then and Deacon did it masterfully, moving close behind the batter to hold runners from advancing while pitchers threw harder and began experimenting with curve balls etc. His defense alone makes him more than worthy but it didn't end there. Deacon also posted impressive offensive numbers in the 1870s including a couple years in which he would lead many catagories. He would re-invent himself as a better than average 3rd baseman in the 1880s and continue to post better than average offensive numbers even when he became the oldest man in the League in 1887. Championships seemed to follow him just about everywhere he went. I don't understand Deacon's exclusion.

I have had many discussions over who should/shouldn't be in the HOF, but I can honestly say this is the first time I have heard Madlock's name being brought up.

The 4 batting titles absolutely should not give him a pass into the hall.

1975 - 354 7HR 64RBI 77Runs
1976 - 339 15HR 84RBI 68Runs
1981 - 341 6HR 45RBI 35Runs (strike shortened season)
1983 - 323 12HR 68RBI 68Runs

Madlock had a nice BA those seasons, but those are not HOF type seasons.

In a single season he never had 100RBI, never had 100Runs, did not have 1,000 RBI or Runs for his career. Never finished top 5 in any MVP voting.

Only 3 All Star selections in 15 full big league seasons.

And the most glaring stat to me...his season high in hits was 182!! And he only got over 170 hits in a season 3 times...

I just don't see how his name can even be brought up.

Rob,

It's clear that we disagree on Madlock, but let me say that sometimes it not just about the numbers. I watched Madlock play a lot and it's just my opinion that he should eek in...not a solid hof'er but borderline falling on to the Hall side of the fence. I could go on about where he batted in the order that hurt his rbi's, who else played third that made the all star team ahead of him, the fact that he almost had 5 batting titles although 4 was the most by a right handed hitter for some time yada yada yada. To show my point about the numbers, I'll pick someone you want to put in...someone I think deserves to be in as well...Bert Blyleven. Blyleven never led the league in wins or ERA. He only won 20 once and only led the league in strikeouts once. When he retired he was way up on the strikeout totals but had a 287-250 wins to loses ratio. Those numbers don't tell what kind of pitcher he was in big games or what kind of teams he played on. I watched him as well and think he should be in too.
Maybe I'm getting too sentimental about some of the players I got to see...the Al Olivers, the Dick Allen's, the Alan Trammels and the Steve Garvey's of the world, but at least it makes for some interesting discussions.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Bill Madlock would lower the bar for baseball HOFers more than the election of Floyd Little lowered it in football.

Madlock was a good player. He wasn't a great player. He wasn't one of the very best players of his era. Good players do not belong in Cooperstown.