Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Let's talk about Hall of Fame candidates who have been "neglected" (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=304266)

SD 06-30-2021 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jingram058 (Post 2118468)
At the end of the day, the one guy not in that seems totally idiotic that he isn't is Gil Hodges. Go ahead and ignore this, and yack ad-nauseum or write a PhD dissertation about this guy, that guy, the other guy, whatever. The Hall of Fame has lost credibility big-time over the past few years over some really bad decisions, and you can't explain, ignore or deny it away. Perception is reality. I used to think I really wanted to visit Cooperstown, but as Dylan said, things have changed.

Exactly, the election process for the hall is flawed. If Ortiz gets in 22, then the flood gates will open.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

G1911 06-30-2021 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD (Post 2118478)
Exactly, the election process for the hall is flawed. If Ortiz gets in 22, then the flood gates will open.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk


I'm fine with steroid guys getting in, or being kept out, but the standard should be the same for all of them. Ortiz has thus far seemed to get a complete and total pass in the public eye while no other popped user has. If he gets in first ballot, and I think his odds are fair, while Bonds and Clemens at best languish, it will be an even bigger joke than electing Harold Baines.

Clutch-Hitter 06-30-2021 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17 (Post 2118032)
Fred McGriff and his 493 HRs is in if not for the 1994 strike, which robbed him of at least 7 HR. He was having his best season, with 34 home runs in his 113 games, before the player strike wiped out the rest of the season.

I have no sympathy for the players regarding that strike but it's too bad most of them (Molitor, Morris, etc.) didn't pay a price like McGriff.

+1. Crime Dog was robbed!

.

cardsagain74 06-30-2021 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiger8mush (Post 2118406)
Clemens and Bonds?

Its my understanding that over half the league is thought to have been using PEDs at the time, which MLB knew about but did nothing to stop. Pitchers faced hitters on PEDs, hitters faced pitchers on PEDs. MLB started serving suspensions for PED usage in 2005; Bonds & Clemens finished their careers playing 2005 and 2006 and 2007 (in their 40s) w/o a suspension. Both were SOOO dominant, their stats are just crazy. And they faced opponents who were also on PEDs.

How many years have pitchers been doctoring the ball with spider tack and other substances, which is against MLB rules, but was never stopped until now? None of the Astros lost their stats nor rings for cheating and many of those same coaches and players are still playing today. Many old timers, including HOFers, have admitted to (or been accused of) cheating in one way or another.

I was on the fence in the past, but am leaning towards induction for them both. Thoughts?

I agree with you. And even though it shouldn't be, I would imagine that the steroid era is treated a lot differently because most other cheating in baseball (past and present) is a lot more subtle.

If a pitcher doctors the ball or a hitter is gulping greenies by the handful to really sharpen their edge in various ways, you usually don't see a thing. But on the flipside, what's more noticeable than Bonds and McGwire turning into highly bulked up action figures at the plate (and then hitting 70+ homers in a season to smash a decades-long record)?

G1911 06-30-2021 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardsagain74 (Post 2118501)
I agree with you. And even though it shouldn't be, I would imagine that the steroid era is treated a lot differently because most other cheating in baseball (past and present) is a lot more subtle.

If a pitcher doctors the ball or a hitter is gulping greenies by the handful to really sharpen their edge in various ways, you usually don't see a thing. But on the flipside, what's more noticeable than Bonds and McGwire turning into highly bulked up action figures at the plate (and then hitting 70+ homers in a season to smash a decades-long record)?

I agree with this. I think it's a combination of how visible it is, the absurd statistics it produced (Gaylord Perry chucking spitters pithed very well, but he didn't obliterate records like a video game character), and the sense that the cheating is somehow unnatural. A 'boys will be boys' cheating of scuffing a ball or throwing a spitter sometimes feels different to many, than using the latest lab drugs to fundamentally change the field of play every single at-bat where they appear like the Hulk. Perhaps it should not feel different, but I think that it does to many.

Ricky 06-30-2021 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog (Post 2118460)
Of course. I don't know why I bother posting this every couple of years, but the best players of the 50s/60s/70s were using the best substances available to them at the time to enhance their performance, and so were the best players of the 80s/90s/2000s. There's no good reason to think that Bonds and Clemens wouldn't have used greenies if they had been born a generation earlier and no good reason to think that Aaron and Mays wouldn't have used "PEDs" (TM) if they had played a generation later. Being pleased that two of those guys are in the Hall and that the other two are not then is tantamount to endorsing discrimination on the basis of birth year, which is silly.

Aaron didn’t use greenies. In his autobiography he said he tried them once and the way they made him feel scared him so never again.

Ricky 06-30-2021 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cammb (Post 2118413)
Vada Pinson was every bit as good as Clemente

This is a hot take!

bbcard1 06-30-2021 01:20 PM

Any love for Bobby Mathews and his 297 wins? Three more and it would not have been a discussion. He was done by 1900 and has a terribly forgettable name. He probably didn't stack up against the best of his era, but he sure racked up a lot of stats, though the teams he played on were wonky. Once netted 625 innings in a single season.

cardsagain74 06-30-2021 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2118503)
I agree with this. I think it's a combination of how visible it is, the absurd statistics it produced (Gaylord Perry chucking spitters pithed very well, but he didn't obliterate records like a video game character), and the sense that the cheating is somehow unnatural. A 'boys will be boys' cheating of scuffing a ball or throwing a spitter sometimes feels different to many, than using the latest lab drugs to fundamentally change the field of play every single at-bat where they appear like the Hulk. Perhaps it should not feel different, but I think that it does to many.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q_KQ5f8PAY

GaryPassamonte 06-30-2021 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbcard1 (Post 2118523)
Any love for Bobby Mathews and his 297 wins? many eras of baseball. Three more and it would not have been a discussion. He was done by 1900 and has a terribly forgettable name. He probably didn't stack up against the best of his era, but he sure racked up a lot of stats, though the teams he played on were wonky. Once netted 625 innings in a single season.

Mathews was an excellent pitcher for a number of years. His career totals helps illustrate the folly of comparing players across the many eras of baseball. Although seasons were shorter in the 19th century, starting pitchers simply pitched more games than they would into the 20th century and beyond. Getting 300 wins, like hitting .400, was easier in the 19th century than later years. On the other hand, hitting home runs was infinitely more difficult and not really a part of the style of baseball played back then. My point is that when evaluating players, using benchmarks is folly. The best way to evaluate any player is by viewing his record compared to his peers.
This assures an apples to apples comparison. This is not to say Mathews is not a hofer. I have no problem with his worthiness.

YazFenway08 06-30-2021 02:14 PM

It is possible than cammb and I are now friends....

Mozzie22 06-30-2021 03:02 PM

Don Mattingly and Kirby Puckett have nearly identical numbers and at no time ever did anyone say Puckett was the best player in the game. Mattingly was the best player in the game for a period in the 80's.

Mattingly should be in.

bbcard1 06-30-2021 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte (Post 2118538)
Mathews was an excellent pitcher for a number of years. His career totals helps illustrate the folly of comparing players across the many eras of baseball. Although seasons were shorter in the 19th century, starting pitchers simply pitched more games than they would into the 20th century and beyond. Getting 300 wins, like hitting .400, was easier in the 19th century than later years. On the other hand, hitting home runs was infinitely more difficult and not really a part of the style of baseball played back then. My point is that when evaluating players, using benchmarks is folly. The best way to evaluate any player is by viewing his record compared to his peers.
This assures an apples to apples comparison. This is not to say Mathews is not a hofer. I have no problem with his worthiness.

An issue he has, generic name aside, is that he died before the turn of the century and was probably largely forgotten by the time of the first HOF class.

Phil Arem 06-30-2021 03:50 PM

Hof
 
How about Keith Hernandez? 11 Gold gloves, close to 300BA, mvp, batting title, clutch hitter and 2 rings. Not to mention a hilarious announcer!

GaryPassamonte 06-30-2021 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbcard1 (Post 2118557)
An issue he has, generic name aside, is that he died before the turn of the century and was probably largely forgotten by the time of the first HOF class.

I agree and this issue pertains to many 19th century players. As I said in my original post on this thread, 19th century players, more specifically pioneer players are underrepresented in the HOF. This will never be changed unless baseball historians/SABRites have a majority voice on the Historical Overview Committee and the final Election Committee. SABR's 19th Century Committee has chosen the Most Overlooked 19th Century Legend for the past 13 years. Only Deacon White has been elected to the HOF from this group. This shows you how well the current HOF process works and how much they consider the input of the people that know 19th century baseball better than anybody.
As an aside, I believe Mathews finished either second or third in this year's voting, which was won by Charlie Bennett. Mathews was included on my ballot.

Mike D. 06-30-2021 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mozzie22 (Post 2118551)
Don Mattingly and Kirby Puckett have nearly identical numbers and at no time ever did anyone say Puckett was the best player in the game. Mattingly was the best player in the game for a period in the 80's.

Mattingly should be in.

Puckett finished top 3 in the MVP voting, top 10 4 other times. That’s 7 top 10 finishes in a 12 year career.

Mattingly had 2 top 3 finishes, 4 total top 10.

Mike D. 06-30-2021 04:06 PM

Wow…talk about different time. Mattingly had over 7,700 plate appearances…and struck out fewer than 450 times!

Exhibitman 06-30-2021 04:32 PM

Glasscock should be elected just so we can say the HOF has Glasscock and Dickey :D

I have been a big "Lefty" proponent for years, so all I can add to this thread about him are some of his Japanese cards from the 1949 Tour:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...%20OquDoul.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...er%20Seals.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...akabayashi.jpg
1949 O'Doul Bromide with "Big Lebowski" Betto and Wakabayashi

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...20Hamazaki.jpg
O'Doul and HOF Japanese Manager Shinji Hamazaki

rats60 06-30-2021 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cammb (Post 2118413)
Vada Pinson was every bit as good as Clemente

15xAS....... 4xAS
12xGG....... 1xGG
1 MVP....... 0 MVP
1 WS MVP....... 0 WS MVP
2 WS Champ....... 0 WS Champ
4 BA Champ....... 0 BA Champ

Those two are not remotely close.

sdimag 06-30-2021 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 2118578)
15xAS....... 4xAS
12xGG....... 1xGG
1 MVP....... 0 MVP
1 WS MVP....... 0 WS MVP
2 WS Champ....... 0 WS Champ
4 BA Champ....... 0 BA Champ

Those two are not remotely close.

Thank you!

vintagechris 06-30-2021 04:59 PM

I'll try to limit my list as admittedly I'm that guy that thinks we should let more in.
Gil Hodges
Steve Garvey
Deacon Phillippe
Dave Parker
Kenny Lofton
Luis Tiant
Ken Boyer
Jack Glasscock
Minnie Minoso
Tony Oliva
Dave Concepcion(I don't know why great defense is not more of a consideration but heck the guy has over 2300 hits too).

MooseDog 06-30-2021 09:48 PM

Bay Area Candidates

1) Lefty O'Doul
2) Will Clark
3) Vida Blue
4) Jose Canseco
5) Billy Martin

O'Doul undoubtedly should be in. Clark is kid of Dale Murphy level. Blue and Canseco put up numbers equal to or better than other borderline HOF candidates but have drugs (Blue) and steroid (Canseco) scandals hanging over their heads.

Billy Martin should be in at the very least as a manager.

Tabe 06-30-2021 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil Arem (Post 2118564)
How about Keith Hernandez? 11 Gold gloves, close to 300BA, mvp, batting title, clutch hitter and 2 rings. Not to mention a hilarious announcer!

If you like Keith Hernandez, then John Olerud goes in. Dead serious.

Tabe 06-30-2021 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 2118307)
Steve Garvey is the poster child for what is wrong with WAR. All Garvey did was get hits drive in runs and win games. From 1974-1984 Garvey led his team to 5 National League Championships and 1 World Championship. He committed no errors for a whole season and supposedly had a negative dWAR. 10x AS, 4 GG, MVP and 2 x NLCS MVP. He is absolutely a HOFer.

Garvey having low home run and OPS totals are the reason he's not in. Also, he committed few errors but had poor range.

moogpowell 06-30-2021 11:19 PM

Garvey
 
I agree that his fielding stats are misleading. I remember from back in the day he would hardly stretch or go off the bag. If the throw was errant, too bad.

BUT I am hugely sympathetic to him possibly going in. For starters, he was a 10-time all star and fell just 401 hits short of 3,000. His career avg. was .294 and in post-season action he excelled, batting .338 in 55 post-season games with 11 home runs (which equates to a home run in 4.7% of plate appearances compared to his career average of 2.9%) and 31 RBIs.

And look at this stat!

Number of seasons with 200+ hits.

Steve Garvey - 6
Tony Gwynn - 5
Rod Carew - 4

tod41 07-01-2021 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe (Post 2118699)
Garvey having low home run and OPS totals are the reason he's not in. Also, he committed few errors but had poor range.

Garvey was a great post season player. One of the best. He was a dominant player in his era. Sometimes the stats don't tell the true story. He should be in the Hall of Fame if Tony Perez and Harold Baines are in. Keith Hernandez should also be in based upon some of the past selections.

cammb 07-01-2021 10:15 AM

Saw each of them play for a significant time, your stats don't impress me. How about seeing them in action.

Tabe 07-01-2021 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tod41 (Post 2118809)
Garvey was a great post season player. One of the best. He was a dominant player in his era. Sometimes the stats don't tell the true story. He should be in the Hall of Fame if Tony Perez and Harold Baines are in. Keith Hernandez should also be in based upon some of the past selections.

If he was truly dominant, the stats would reflect that. Dominant corner infielders don't hit 21 or fewer homers in 16 of their 19 seasons. They don't end up with a career .775 OPS. Dominant players have seasons over 140 OPS+ (Garvey: 0).

Garvey was a fine player but he was a (mostly) singles hitter at a position where power is the norm.

brianp-beme 07-01-2021 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe (Post 2118699)
Garvey having low home run and OPS totals are the reason he's not in. Also, he committed few errors but had poor range.

He had a horrible throwing arm as well.

Brian

SD 07-01-2021 12:40 PM

Was Garvey worse than Tommy McCarthy, Rizzuto, Mazeroski, George Kelly or Baines? If thats the standard to get in, there's a lot of players who have been overlooked.

Albert Belle averaged a homer every 3.5 games during his carrer, ended with a average right under 300, better then Baines. Had less then half the amount of ABs as Baines but more HRs and a way higher ops, war and slugging %. But no he is not a HOF in my book.
Shoot Harold McCrae averaged better per season #s then Baines.
I don't even want to start on George Kelly....



Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

Mike D. 07-01-2021 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD (Post 2118882)
Was Garvey worse than Tommy McCarthy, Rizzuto, Mazeroski, George Kelly or Baines? If thats the standard to get in, there's a lot of players who have been overlooked.

Thankfully, the “the mistakes of the past are the new criteria” approach isn’t the one widely used.

tod41 07-01-2021 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe (Post 2118864)
If he was truly dominant, the stats would reflect that. Dominant corner infielders don't hit 21 or fewer homers in 16 of their 19 seasons. They don't end up with a career .775 OPS. Dominant players have seasons over 140 OPS+ (Garvey: 0).

Garvey was a fine player but he was a (mostly) singles hitter at a position where power is the norm.

Consider the Era he played in. There were not many power hitting First Basemen like Rose, Hernandez, Chris Chambliss, Al Oliver, Rod Carew and others. Garvey has a higher OPS than Mantle in the post season. It should count for something. Garvey also had a 130 OPS+ five times including a 138+ in 1978.

brianclat11 07-01-2021 06:12 PM

Concepcion
 
I’ll second the vote for Dave Concepción of the 70s Big Red machine. For my money, one of the best defensive shortstops that ever played the game. His connection with Joe Morgan at 2nd was special. He could also handle the bat but kind of played second fiddle to the superstars on that team. The fact he hung around a little bit longer on the Reds when they went through some lean times didn’t help.

bbcard1 07-01-2021 06:30 PM

I've looked at Pinson pretty closely. He was a nice player. i think he needed two things to make the hall of fame...had his best seasons been more evenly distributed and had he played on a couple of teams that were a little more competitive. He was on the "catch lightning in a bottle" 1961 Reds team that ran into a meat grinder vs. the Yankees.

mainemule 07-01-2021 08:24 PM

Schilling, while a complete tool post-career, is a no-brainer.

3 WS rings
11-2 PS record
3,000 ks (only eligible member of this club not in HOF)
26th career WAR (all 25 ahead of him in HOF)
300 k's 3 times

Over-shadowed by Johnson and Pedro at times but won big game after big game.

How Mussina got in before Schilling still rankles me.

Tabe 07-01-2021 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tod41 (Post 2118997)
Consider the Era he played in. There were not many power hitting First Basemen like Rose, Hernandez, Chris Chambliss, Al Oliver, Rod Carew and others. Garvey has a higher OPS than Mantle in the post season. It should count for something. Garvey also had a 130 OPS+ five times including a 138+ in 1978.

Playing in an era of mediocre first basemen doesn't make Garvey any better. He had basically the same OPS as Dan Driessen. Funny that you left out Willie Stargell and Jason Thompson when naming his contemporaries.

Yes, he was a very good postseason performer, beating out Mantle in OPS by .002, but that's not nearly enough to offset his simply "pretty good" regular season numbers.

Yes, he topped 130 in OPS+ but that's not "dominant". It's good but it's not dominant. He had one season in top 10 for OPS (10th place in 1978). One season over 5 in WAR. Two seasons top 10 in slugging, none over .500.

Garvey had a really nice career and I like the man. He was EXTREMELY nice to my friend & I when we met him a few years ago. But he wasn't dominant and he simply wasn't good enough for the Hall.

Peter_Spaeth 07-01-2021 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe (Post 2119065)
Playing in an era of mediocre first basemen doesn't make Garvey any better. He had basically the same OPS as Dan Driessen. Funny that you left out Willie Stargell and Jason Thompson when naming his contemporaries.

Yes, he was a very good postseason performer, beating out Mantle in OPS by .002, but that's not nearly enough to offset his simply "pretty good" regular season numbers.

Yes, he topped 130 in OPS+ but that's not "dominant". It's good but it's not dominant. He had one season in top 10 for OPS (10th place in 1978). One season over 5 in WAR. Two seasons top 10 in slugging, none over .500.

Garvey had a really nice career and I like the man. He was EXTREMELY nice to my friend & I when we met him a few years ago. But he wasn't dominant and he simply wasn't good enough for the Hall.

The metrics aren't so good for Gil Hodges either.

Misunderestimated 07-01-2021 09:33 PM

Jack Glasscock - he would be the only 1880's SS in the HOF ... George Wright is a pioneer who was done by the 1870's. Great long career and he did most of it without a glove.

Bobby Caruthers - a great pitcher who could play everyday and hit really well .. I guess Ohtani is the modern version and it hasn't happened since Ruth in about 1920.

JIm McCormick - He lost 40 in one season but his WAR is still higher than just about anyone eligible for the HOF (not named Clemens or Bonds).... and even higher than Mike Trout for the time being ...

Bill Dahlen - Great player who was recognized as a big deal in his own era. Strange how he got missed in the 50's when it seemed like they were putting everyone from the early 20th Century in the HOF who was a little famous. Even stranger that they missed George Davis until Bill James seems to have recovered him. Davis is statistically near the very top of Shortstops all-time.

Minnie Minoso -

Buck O'Neil - A lifetime achievement award.... He was a very good player and a good manager/coach too. But it's the whole package. This is generally not something the HOF is good at crediting. They like to compartmentalize the candidates.

Lou Whitaker

TUM301 07-02-2021 05:13 AM

Comparing Ozzie Smith and Omar Vizquel`s careers never really understood why one player is a hall of famer while the later barely gets 50% of the necessary votes. Omar`s numbers, minus the back flip, more than match up with Smith`s yet he rarely gets noticed.

jingram058 07-02-2021 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mainemule (Post 2119060)
Schilling, while a complete tool post-career, is a no-brainer.

3 WS rings
11-2 PS record
3,000 ks (only eligible member of this club not in HOF)
26th career WAR (all 25 ahead of him in HOF)
300 k's 3 times

Over-shadowed by Johnson and Pedro at times but won big game after big game.

How Mussina got in before Schilling still rankles me.

You said it yourself, "a complete tool". People are denied entry for any number of reasons. I guess being an idiot, no matter your ballplaying accomplishments, will keep you out on occasion. Somebody on the MLB Network, while they were discussing the no selected 2020, said along with Jackson and Rose, Schilling will never go in.

molenick 07-02-2021 08:53 AM

This may be a different thread, but I have noticed there are a few players that people sometimes assume are in the Hall of Fame who are not (to the point of auction listings mistakenly mentioning the player being a HOFer).

Offhand, I can think of the following:
Jimmy Dykes
Charlie Grimm
Babe Herman
Pepper Martin

mainemule 07-02-2021 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molenick (Post 2119177)
This may be a different thread, but I have noticed there are a few players that people sometimes assume are in the Hall of Fame who are not (to the point of auction listings mistakenly mentioning the player being a HOFer).

Offhand, I can think of the following:
Jimmy Dykes
Charlie Grimm
Babe Herman
Pepper Martin

ALOT of auction listings state "HOF" or "Future HOF" in the title to grab your attention. Some are laughable....some are questionable.....some are likely.....some are a certainty.

tod41 07-02-2021 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe (Post 2119065)
Playing in an era of mediocre first basemen doesn't make Garvey any better. He had basically the same OPS as Dan Driessen. Funny that you left out Willie Stargell and Jason Thompson when naming his contemporaries.

Yes, he was a very good postseason performer, beating out Mantle in OPS by .002, but that's not nearly enough to offset his simply "pretty good" regular season numbers.

Yes, he topped 130 in OPS+ but that's not "dominant". It's good but it's not dominant. He had one season in top 10 for OPS (10th place in 1978). One season over 5 in WAR. Two seasons top 10 in slugging, none over .500.

Garvey had a really nice career and I like the man. He was EXTREMELY nice to my friend & I when we met him a few years ago. But he wasn't dominant and he simply wasn't good enough for the Hall.

Stargell was essentially and usually exclusively a Left Fielder in his prime. He did not start playing first base exclusively until 1975 and then he never came close to playing a full season. The most games he played was 126 in his co-mvp year (which was a make-up for his 1973 season) and he often played far less then that. So I would not consider him a contemporary of Garvey at first base. The fact is that you have to look pretty hard to find the power hitting first baseman that you see in other eras. That's why I think you have to judge a player in the era they played and not compare to other times. When you do that, you have to search and find a Jason Thompson as opposed to a Jim Thome. So considering everything, Garvey compares favorably in my humble opinion..

Tabe 07-02-2021 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tod41 (Post 2119243)
Stargell was essentially and usually exclusively a Left Fielder in his prime. He did not start playing first base exclusively until 1975 and then he never came close to playing a full season. The most games he played was 126 in his co-mvp year (which was a make-up for his 1973 season) and he often played far less then that. So I would not consider him a contemporary of Garvey at first base. The fact is that you have to look pretty hard to find the power hitting first baseman that you see in other eras. That's why I think you have to judge a player in the era they played and not compare to other times. When you do that, you have to search and find a Jason Thompson as opposed to a Jim Thome. So considering everything, Garvey compares favorably in my humble opinion..

Eh, he was mostly a 1B as early as 1972.

And Garvey compares favorably to who? In 1977, one of his best years, he was middle of the pack in OPS+ among 1B. His contemporaries also included Tony Perez, Willie McCovey, and others. Heck, Bill Robinson outhit him.

The fact that Jason Thompson - a guy "you have to search and find" had a higher OPS+ than Garvey speaks volumes about Garvey being "dominant".

Peter_Spaeth 07-02-2021 09:49 PM

Garvey was a 10 time all star so I guess there is that. It seems like perhaps more than anyone in history, his metrics were crushed by not walking.

moogpowell 07-02-2021 11:09 PM

Garvey
 
I'll add a wrinkle to the Garvey discussion. I think he suffers from dare I say a "branding" or perception issue. I think a strong case can be made that he deserves to be in the HOF. Garvey was SEEN as a slugger but his numbers do not show someone with abundant power. And yet Garvey had 6 seasons with 200 hits, 1 with 190 and 3 with 175+. He sported a career .294 avg. and batted over .300 7 times. So Garvey, when identified or compared to the prototypical "slugger" pales and yet his numbers paint him more as an excellent pure hitter who had impressive, but not incredible, power.

To make an investing comparison, he is a like a stock that is growing revenue/earnings far less than a stock like Amazon, so it won't fetch a generous valuation/multiple yet his relative power obscures how good a batsman he was so he doesn't get sufficient credit for that. In a sense he is in no man's land. Harmon Killebrew had a mediocre batting average but had power in spades (growth) and Rod Carew had hits and a high average (value). Falling into either profile I think makes it easier for people to judge someone's overall career. Granted, many all-time greats straddle both categories and have received proper recognition but that is because they were so accomplished there was nothing to debate — think Aaron, Mays, F. Robby, etc.

ThomasL 07-03-2021 12:14 AM

Im a small Hall guy so I will take someone out if Im putting someone in...

Putting in:

Buck O'Neil
Lefty O'Doul
-both based on a solid careers and stellar post career involvement and contributions.

Rafael Palmeiro
Sammy Sosa
-there are already steroid guys in so lets not be hypocritical here, these two should have been no brainers (3000 hits/500 HR guy and a 600 HR guy) had it not been for steriods

Taking out:
Rabbit Maranville
Jesse Haines
Bud Selig
Candy Cummings

(Schilling should be in and probably will get in so Im not listing him)

rats60 07-03-2021 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe (Post 2118864)
If he was truly dominant, the stats would reflect that. Dominant corner infielders don't hit 21 or fewer homers in 16 of their 19 seasons. They don't end up with a career .775 OPS. Dominant players have seasons over 140 OPS+ (Garvey: 0).

Garvey was a fine player but he was a (mostly) singles hitter at a position where power is the norm.

His home park was one of the toughest to hit home runs in. So what you are saying is if he played for the Braves and had exaggerated HR numbers, he would be a HoFer.

The game is decided by who scores the most runs, not who hits the most HRs or what team has the highest OPS. Garvey did what it took to win games, not impress want to be Statisticians.

rats60 07-03-2021 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe (Post 2119420)
Eh, he was mostly a 1B as early as 1972.

And Garvey compares favorably to who? In 1977, one of his best years, he was middle of the pack in OPS+ among 1B. His contemporaries also included Tony Perez, Willie McCovey, and others. Heck, Bill Robinson outhit him.

The fact that Jason Thompson - a guy "you have to search and find" had a higher OPS+ than Garvey speaks volumes about Garvey being "dominant".

To Veterans Committee HOF picks. He received over 40% of the BBWAA votes 3 times including his 1st time on the ballot. That typically signals that a player will get in eventually. Like Curt Schilling, his case was hurt by negative publicity in his personal life when he was on the ballot.

Willie McCovey 6 time All Star. Tony Perez 7 time All Star. Steve Garvey 10 time All Star. His contemporaries thought he belonged in that group.

bbcard1 07-03-2021 06:43 AM

I for one wish there weren't executives in the hall of fame. It just clutters up the place and no one ever paid to see Morgan Bulkeley's plaque.

glynparson 07-03-2021 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield (Post 2117949)
I think the Hall wasn't too far off track when I was a kid...

I recall a book My Greatest Day in Baseball, by Carmichael, I read it several times as a kid; one time I read it and then started and finished it a second time... Most of Those guys belonged in the Hall, and most of those guys were the only ones who belonged in the Hall.

I agree with:

O'Doul
Dahlen
Kaat

I'd DEFINETLY add Ed Reulbach

I could live with Travis Jackson and Joe Wood

No to Lofton, Schilling, A Jones... and others.

Hodges and Murphy were REALLY good guys; but to me they fall a bit short and that 'good guy' and 'deserving' sentiment doesn't and shouldn't tip the scales. Dick Allen wasn't a good guy, but wasn't as bad as some think, I could almost live with him getting in.

I'm a Cardinals fan, starting with seeing Mr. Musial play in 1963. Boyer was a dependable RBI / cleanup hitter in 1964... but he falls a bit short of what I think of as Hall standards. I think Molina will get in, I'm definitely a Molina fan, but I'm thinking he's right at the threshold and needs a bit more...

It's not little league soccer where everyone plays, everyone is included, everyone gets to play a lot, everyone gets a gold star, and everyone gets a trophy. There's already a couple of dozen that I think should have never gone in, and that's realistically unfixable. Let's not compound that by adding more sow's ears to what should have been only silk purses.

Please you want to put in middling older players and ignore more modern studs. That’s one of baseballs biggest problems over romanticizing the past and over criticizing the modern era and present day. Why it’s no longer the number one sport it’s fans are annoying as hell.

cammb 07-03-2021 07:49 AM

The moody blues

packs 07-03-2021 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbcard1 (Post 2117920)
The problem with Lefty O'Doul is the problem with Buck O'Neil. They made significant contributions, but their contributions do not fit within the parameters of the way hall of fame voters are instructed to cast their votes. Of course, Curt Schilling is a case in point that many of the voters don't care.

I don't believe this to be true for O'Doul. The Japanese / MLB / Asian pipeline is new and ever evolving but I don't think MLB ever gets to see talents like Ichiro, Hideki Matsui, or Ohtani without O'Doul.

ThomasL 07-03-2021 12:44 PM

A good point in why O'Doul and more so O'Neil should be in the Hall of Fame is if you are truly exercising the "character" clause to eliminate and not vote for people...then you should also be using it in selecting people like Buck O'Neil and putting them in.

G1911 07-03-2021 10:31 PM

I'm not sure what Garvey did to win games that does not appear in the stats. I'd be interested to hear from the Garvey side specifics here, what the available stats are not accounting for. What am I, specifically, missing by looking at his stats?

As far as I can tell, Garvey's OPS numbers are more hurt by the fact that he was not good at getting on base. His power is not that great for a 1B, but it's not that bad either. His on bae is bad. .329 is straight up terrible for a player in HOF discussion. He did not walk, he hit into a lot of double plays, his power is mediocre. And he did this while he played the least important defensive position and the strongest offensive production positions.

He got a lot of hits because he hit .290-.300 and never walked. It's not really a good thing that he got a few more hits than some other guys in far more at bats. He should get some points for playing 160 games a year (consistently showing up like that certainly is a bonus to a team), but his annual hit totals are not because he was a super star contact hitter (.294), it's because he had a huge number of at bats because he player 160 games and never walked.

For many reasons, I do not trust the advanced defensive statistics to be very accurate for past players, so I will leave that out of it.

rats60 07-04-2021 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2119775)
I'm not sure what Garvey did to win games that does not appear in the stats. I'd be interested to hear from the Garvey side specifics here, what the available stats are not accounting for. What am I, specifically, missing by looking at his stats?

Drove in runs. If you have 2nd and 3rd with two outs, do you want your star to try to draw a walk or try to get a hit? Garvey hit .373 in those situations. You win by scoring the most runs not by drawing the most walks.
Garvey was clutch at getting big hits, driving in runs and winning games. OBP is for losers. How many World Series has Mike Trout led his team too?

I don't understand the obsession with drawing walks. You don't make an out, but now you are asking a worse player to get a hit to drive in runs and win the game. Pitchers intentionally walk batters to do exactly the same thing. That should tell you how little value a walk can have.

G1911 07-04-2021 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 2119860)
Drove in runs. If you have 2nd and 3rd with two outs, do you want your star to try to draw a walk or try to get a hit? Garvey hit .373 in those situations. You win by scoring the most runs not by drawing the most walks.
Garvey was clutch at getting big hits, driving in runs and winning games. OBP is for losers. How many World Series has Mike Trout led his team too?

I don't understand the obsession with drawing walks. You don't make an out, but now you are asking a worse player to get a hit to drive in runs and win the game. Pitchers intentionally walk batters to do exactly the same thing. That should tell you how little value a walk can have.

The logical issues here should be immediately apparent.

1) If driving in runs is what matters, how is a player supposed to drive in runs if getting on base is irrelevant and "for losers"?

2) The only way to score a run without first getting on base is to hit a home run, which Garvey was not very good at either. So this doesn't seem to help his case.

3) No player has single handedly taken his team to a championship title. By the standard of winning games, backups on the Yankees are some of the very best players of all time and Ted Williams sucks. Does this make sense?

4) There is a very strong correlation and causation between A) getting on base and B) runs being scored by that players team because it is a pre-requisite for the vast majority of runs scored in any time period of the game. A home run with the bases empty is the only way to score without first being on base.

5) If getting on base is "for losers" and Garvey's lack of home run power is also not a problem, then there appears to be literally no offensive standard of production to be a hall of famer.

6) If by driving in runs we mean RBI's are the key metric, then getting on base cannot be for "losers" as a players RBI's come from his teammates getting on base.

7) If we completely ignore the direct contradiction in 6, and say RBI's is what matters even though getting on base is irrelevant and for losers, Garvey ranks 109th with dozens of non-HOF players ahead of him. Reuben Sierra, Garret Anderson, Chili Davis, Carlos Lee, and other legends of the game rank ahead of him. I guess we better elect all of them.

8) If RBI rate or productivity is what matters, Garvey fares even worse. He is 109th in RBI's, but 85th in all time at-bats, and many of those ahead of him were leadoff hitters not in an RBI position. He doesn't appear to actually be very good at driving in runs either.

Mike Trout's a loser, Charlie Silvera is great. On-base is for losers, home runs are irrelevant, driving in runs is king even though that can't possibly happen without players getting on base or hitting home runs. There may be a rational argument for Steve Garvey. This is obviously not it.

Peter_Spaeth 07-04-2021 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 2119860)
Drove in runs. If you have 2nd and 3rd with two outs, do you want your star to try to draw a walk or try to get a hit? Garvey hit .373 in those situations. You win by scoring the most runs not by drawing the most walks.
Garvey was clutch at getting big hits, driving in runs and winning games. OBP is for losers. How many World Series has Mike Trout led his team too?

I don't understand the obsession with drawing walks. You don't make an out, but now you are asking a worse player to get a hit to drive in runs and win the game. Pitchers intentionally walk batters to do exactly the same thing. That should tell you how little value a walk can have.

If pitches are not in the strike zone, the hitter's chance of success goes WAY down even if he's Ted Williams. This is why it's better to take the walk than to swing at ball four. As for the benefits of walks in general, read Bill James' analysis of substituting a batter who walked every time for Babe Ruth's best season. The team did better with the walker.

rats60 07-04-2021 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2119933)
The logical issues here should be immediately apparent.

1) If driving in runs is what matters, how is a player supposed to drive in runs if getting on base is irrelevant and "for losers"?

2) The only way to score a run without first getting on base is to hit a home run, which Garvey was not very good at either. So this doesn't seem to help his case.

3) No player has single handedly taken his team to a championship title. By the standard of winning games, backups on the Yankees are some of the very best players of all time and Ted Williams sucks. Does this make sense?

4) There is a very strong correlation and causation between A) getting on base and B) runs being scored by that players team because it is a pre-requisite for the vast majority of runs scored in any time period of the game. A home run with the bases empty is the only way to score without first being on base.

5) If getting on base is "for losers" and Garvey's lack of home run power is also not a problem, then there appears to be literally no offensive standard of production to be a hall of famer.

6) If by driving in runs we mean RBI's are the key metric, then getting on base cannot be for "losers" as a players RBI's come from his teammates getting on base.

7) If we completely ignore the direct contradiction in 6, and say RBI's is what matters even though getting on base is irrelevant and for losers, Garvey ranks 109th with dozens of non-HOF players ahead of him. Reuben Sierra, Garret Anderson, Chili Davis, Carlos Lee, and other legends of the game rank ahead of him. I guess we better elect all of them.

8) If RBI rate or productivity is what matters, Garvey fares even worse. He is 109th in RBI's, but 85th in all time at-bats, and many of those ahead of him were leadoff hitters not in an RBI position. He doesn't appear to actually be very good at driving in runs either.

Mike Trout's a loser, Charlie Silvera is great. On-base is for losers, home runs are irrelevant, driving in runs is king even though that can't possibly happen without players getting on base or hitting home runs. There may be a rational argument for Steve Garvey. This is obviously not it.

You clearly didn't read my post. If you think your star player's job is to get on base and not drive in runs, your team is never going to win anything. If you can't count on your best player to drive in runs, who is going to do it? Ted Williams is 15th all time in RBIs, how you can come up with Ted Williams sucks out of my post?

Peter_Spaeth 07-04-2021 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 2120006)
You clearly didn't read my post. If you think your star player's job is to get on base and not drive in runs, your team is never going to win anything. If you can't count on your best player to drive in runs, who is going to do it? Ted Williams is 15th all time in RBIs, how you can come up with Ted Williams sucks out of my post?

Ted took a huge amount of criticism from the press and fans for taking walks though. His philosophy was the one I articulated above -- he wasn't likely to have much success swinging at pitches out of the strike zone. His philosophy -- taught to him by Hornsby -- was get a good pitch to hit.

Yoda 07-04-2021 03:02 PM

Dale Murphy had 2 MVPs and hit for serious power. Don't understand what is holding him back?

G1911 07-04-2021 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 2120006)
You clearly didn't read my post. If you think your star player's job is to get on base and not drive in runs, your team is never going to win anything. If you can't count on your best player to drive in runs, who is going to do it? Ted Williams is 15th all time in RBIs, how you can come up with Ted Williams sucks out of my post?

It comes from when you said "OBP is for losers. How many World Series has Mike Trout led his team too?" Ted Williams, the career OBP record holder, led his team to 0 World Series titles. Maybe if Ted had gotten on base less, the Sox would have won one and broken the curse decades earlier.

Peter_Spaeth 07-04-2021 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2120011)
Dale Murphy had 2 MVPs and hit for serious power. Don't understand what is holding him back?

He didn't quite have the career stats.

Mike D. 07-04-2021 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2120060)
He didn't quite have the career stats.

Murphy had the low batting average at only .265 and with under 400 HR.

One interesting thing with Murphy is that he played in parts of 18 seasons, collecting 46.5 WAR. If you look at his WAR7, intended to measure peak value, Murphy’s is 41.2.

What does that suggest? A guy with a awesome peak, but not much longevity in terms of production. Just the kind of guy who “felt like a hall of famer”, but who’s career stats make him a borderline candidate.

So, that’s cool. :)

Peter_Spaeth 07-04-2021 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D. (Post 2120081)
Murphy had the low batting average at only .265 and with under 400 HR.

One interesting thing with Murphy is that he played in parts of 18 seasons, collecting 46.5 WAR. If you look at his WAR7, intended to measure peak value, Murphy’s is 41.2.

What does that suggest? A guy with a awesome peak, but not much longevity in terms of production. Just the kind of guy who “felt like a hall of famer”, but who’s career stats make him a borderline candidate.

So, that’s cool. :)

To put that in context, I believe Mookie Betts has already surpassed him in WAR.

G1911 07-04-2021 07:16 PM

Murphy was a significant player for 7 years (120 OPS+), and the rest of his career was about a league average bat to below. Traditional and Sabrmetric stats get him about right, I think. He was done contributing at age 31. I don't think he's a HOFer without electing a lot of other guys who were really good for 7 years too. He would hardly be the worst selection, but I see his case as being built more on nostalgia than math, which always makes me suspicious. I would vote no, but wouldn't consider him a ridiculous choice or anything.

Peter_Spaeth 07-04-2021 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2120097)
Murphy was a significant player for 7 years (120 OPS+), and the rest of his career was about a league average bat to below. Traditional and Sabrmetric stats get him about right, I think. He was done contributing at age 31. I don't think he's a HOFer without electing a lot of other guys who were really good for 7 years too. He would hardly be the worst selection, but I see his case as being built more on nostalgia than math, which always makes me suspicious. I would vote no, but wouldn't consider him a ridiculous choice or anything.

I think McGriff is much more deserving than Murphy, for example, but agree the world wouldn't end.

Mike D. 07-04-2021 07:35 PM

Agree Murphy being inducted wouldn’t keep me up at night.

I mean Baines WAR was only 38.7, and WAR7 only 21.4. Plus, he played forever.

Peter_Spaeth 07-04-2021 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D. (Post 2120105)
Agree Murphy being inducted wouldn’t keep me up at night.

I mean Baines WAR was only 38.7, and WAR7 only 21.4. Plus, he played forever.

He has to be the most underserving electee in recent memory. Obviously some personal politics there.

G1911 07-04-2021 07:47 PM

McGriff, I just don't understand. If we are going to keep out the steroid guys who had the video game stats (I'm fairly agnostic on this), then how can we keep out guys who were a notch below but consistently excellent, top tier players like McGriff? He's a no brainer "Yes!" vote in my book unless we want almost nobody but Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey representing power hitters of the 90's. I thought he would take some time to get in, but I am surprised by his vote totals being about ~20% most of the years he was on the ballot. He capped at only 39% his final year. I hope the Era committees eventually fix this mistake.

Baines keeps me up at night. That was just a horrible selection any way you look at it. Almost anyone else on that ballot would be a better choice.

Mike D. 07-04-2021 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2120107)
He has to be the most underserving electee in recent memory. Obviously some personal politics there.

Clearly…the interesting thing is that it harkens back to the bad old days of the vets committee…you know, before the HOF got bad. :rolleyes::D

McGriff seems solid and likely to make it eventually - if he does, do we need to re-examine guys like Will Clark, Hernandez, and Olerud? And do Votto and Helton go in too?

Peter_Spaeth 07-04-2021 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2120108)
McGriff, I just don't understand. If we are going to keep out the steroid guys who had the video game stats (I'm fairly agnostic on this), then how can we keep out guys who were a notch below but consistently excellent, top tier players like McGriff? He's a no brainer "Yes!" vote in my book unless we want almost nobody but Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey representing power hitters of the 90's. I thought he would take some time to get in, but I am surprised by his vote totals being about ~20% most of the years he was on the ballot. He capped at only 39% his final year. I hope the Era committees eventually fix this mistake.

Baines keeps me up at night. That was just a horrible selection any way you look at it. Almost anyone else on that ballot would be a better choice.

I think Vizquel will make it and I don't think he necessarily should. Longevity stats, never a top player, although he did seem to always torture the Red Sox. I guess McGriff is a product of small market teams and always being just a step below the superstars. But are players like Dawson, Perez, Cepeda that much better than McGriff?

G1911 07-04-2021 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D. (Post 2120111)
Clearly…the interesting thing is that it harkens back to the bad old days of the vets committee…you know, before the HOF got bad. :rolleyes::D

McGriff seems solid and likely to make it eventually - if he does, do we need to re-examine guys like Will Clark, Hernandez, and Olerud? And do Votto and Helton go in too?

I think Keith Hernandez and John Olerud are clear No's, though they were very good players and Olerud in particular is very underrated.

Will Clark is a real candidate. Sabrmetrics has been very kind to him, 56.5 WAR, 137 career OPS+, and he finished above .300. His relative lack of home runs for a 1B in the home run era hurts him. He does not 'feel' like a HOFer, but he's really not a bad pick.

Helton cleared 60 WAR, 133 OPS+ both of which account for the extremely favorable conditions he player in. He too is borderline to me, I suspect he will eventually make it.

Votto I would vote for at this point, 7 OBP crowns, 147 OPS+. A couple more years of good-not-great production would really help his counting stats.

Other 1B:
Mattingly is a real candidate, but just like Murphy. Short peak that was very good but not historically great, and so I think he falls short.

Hodges is a good candidate, his OPS+ is a bit low at 120, he has some counting stats, the connection to a mythologized team, and I think his managing works to his credit too, leading the 1968 Mets is worth a lot, taking a team that shouldn't go that far all the way is a credit to a manager. I am surprised he is not in, but I would probably not vote for him purely on his career as a 1B, he's hall of very good to me.

I think Carlos Delgado should have gotten serious consideration. I think I end up at "No" for him, but he should not have fallen off the ballot immediately his first year and I think merited a serious discussion. 138 OPS+, 473 dingers. His WAR is slaughtered by his defense.

G1911 07-04-2021 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2120112)
I think Vizquel will make it and I don't think he necessarily should. Longevity stats, never a top player, although he did seem to always torture the Red Sox. I guess McGriff is a product of small market teams and always being just a step below the superstars. But are players like Dawson, Perez, Cepeda that much better than McGriff?

I agree, it looks Vizquel will make it. I don't think he should, even though I loved watching him in the 90's and he was as favored player for his highlight defensive plays. During his prime, he was the fourth or fifth best SS in the American League, and never felt like a Hall of Famer, which both Sabrmetric and traditional stats agree with.

McGriff and Lofton have been really hurt by playing for so many small market teams.

I would put McGriff above Perez and Cepeda, even though coming from Giants country my bias is towards Cepeda. McGriff seems a clear "over the line, bottom third of the Hall but well merited by the selection standards they have consistently applied" to me.

Peter_Spaeth 07-04-2021 08:06 PM

I don't see Helton. I think Walker just made it despite the Coors Field thing but I don't see it happening twice.

I don't see Will Clark, to me quintessential Hall of Very Good.

Hernandez and Olerud, no way, agree with you. I don't even understand the support for Hernandez.

Delgado, yeah, interesting case, so is Beltran. Both feel like Dawson to me.

Votto, meh, not even 2000 hits yet, not feeling the love. He doesn't do very well on Baseball Reference metrics either.

Mike D. 07-04-2021 08:13 PM

With 70 WAR and 434 career homers, I think Beltran makes it. Not first ballot or anything, but he’ll get in.

Peter_Spaeth 07-04-2021 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D. (Post 2120120)
With 70 WAR and 434 career homers, I think Beltran makes it. Not first ballot or anything, but he’ll get in.

He may get punished a bit for the scandal, but yes.

G1911 07-04-2021 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2120117)
I don't see Helton. I think Walker just made it despite the Coors Field thing but I don't see it happening twice.

I don't see Will Clark, to me quintessential Hall of Very Good.

Hernandez and Olerud, no way, agree with you. I don't even understand the support for Hernandez.

Delgado, yeah, interesting case, so is Beltran.

Votto, meh, not even 2000 hits yet, not feeling the love.

I think Helton will end up in, only because of Larry Walker. I think he will get elected his tenth year or by an era committee at some point.

Beltran never 'felt like' a Hall of Famer to me, but his counting stats accumulated to where I thought his career value was going to put him in. No idea what happens now that his career ends in scandal. Will be interesting to see. I thought Lance Berkman from that Astro's team deserved a serious look as well, not saying he should be a yes but he merited much more than 1.2% of the vote and immediately disappearing from the ballot. Sabrmetrics have been kind to him as well.

Votto is heavily benefited by Sabrmetrics and walking constantly. As more and more of the writers adopt this mindset, I think he will end up making it assuming he doesn't hang on too long and kill his career rate stats. 18th in War, 9th in WAR 7, 15th in JAWS among 1B with everyone higher in the HOF, active or a steroid guy. I'm okay with him getting in, I'd probably vote for him on the strength of his OPS and On Base crowns.

Peter_Spaeth 07-04-2021 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2120122)
I think Helton will end up in, only because of Larry Walker. I think he will get elected his tenth year or by an era committee at some point.

Beltran never 'felt like' a Hall of Famer to me, but his counting stats accumulated to where I thought his career value was going to put him in. No idea what happens now that his career ends in scandal. Will be interesting to see. I thought Lance Berkman from that Astro's team deserved a serious look as well, not saying he should be a yes but he merited much more than 1.2% of the vote and immediately disappearing from the ballot. Sabrmetrics have been kind to him as well.

Votto is heavily benefited by Sabrmetrics and walking constantly. As more and more of the writers adopt this mindset, I think he will end up making it assuming he doesn't hang on too long and kill his career rate stats. 18th in War, 9th in WAR 7, 15th in JAWS among 1B with everyone higher in the HOF, active or a steroid guy. I'm okay with him getting in, I'd probably vote for him on the strength of his OPS and On Base crowns.

His productive career seems to have ended at age 33. He's already been hanging around doing very little for 4 years IMO. Counting numbers still matter to some extent and at a little over 300 HR and probably a little over 2000 hits when all is said and done, doesn't feel like an obvious HOFer to me.

Peter_Spaeth 07-04-2021 08:24 PM

Even with Coors, Helton did very little after age 30.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:15 PM.