Yes, Morris had great success in a few World Series games and more complete games than Maddux and Glavine in far fewer starts, but the game was changing by the time Maddux and Glavine pitched the bulk of their postseason games and complete games were becoming rarer so it's a tough comparison to make. Maddux and Glavine pitched far more postseason innings and had much lower ERAs in a generally higher scoring period of baseball so even with worse won-loss records, you could still argue they were better postseason pitchers. The question with Morris has always been given his overall career, is a few great postseason games enough to make him a HoFer? I think that's the question people have debated endlessly. Maddux (definitely) and Glavine (probably) would have been HoFers if they never pitched at all in the postseason. I doubt that would have been true for Morris.

Stats are Allen's best friend, so he looks only stronger as we move more towards stats-based analysis. But he was quite moody, lots of controversy surrounded him, and he was not liked. Think Albert Belle. in his prime, Belle was one of the best hitters I've ever seen, but he never came close to the HOF.

I believe it’s a “new list”, but players who remain from the prior election can be included on it. With Allen falling one vote shy two votes running it’d be a bit shocking if he was left off the next go-around.

That’s the only thing I could think of…but how many on that 16 person panel even had direct interactions with Allen to have wanted to hold back their vote for him if they had a negative experience?

From the link you posted, there's this:

Screening Committee - The BBWAA-appointed Historical Overview Committee shall serve as the Screening Committee and consist of 10-12 representatives. The Committee shall identify 10 candidates for the Early Baseball, Golden Days, Modern Baseball and Today's Game Ballot.

So it looks like they will determine a new set of candidates each time, but it sounds like there is no reason someone who was just on the ballot cannot be again. Dick Allen missed by 1 vote a number of years ago, and he missed by 1 vote again this time which was the first time the ballot he was on was reconsidered.

That’s my thinking. For instance, the Modern ballot elected Miller and Simmons the last go round, so they need to add 2 names to the 2023 voting to bring the ballot up to 10 (as per their rules). But do the current 8 drop off? Garvey, Evans, John, Whitaker, et al?

There is a new committee with a new set of candidates each time. Being on the list does not guarantee being on the list the next time. It is possible, but not a given. For example, Doc Adams was on the previous early era ballot and fell just short of election. He wasn't even on the ballot this year.

Yes, it’s a new list and there’s no rule saying prior ballot candidates have to be on the next ballot, and no rule saying they can’t be…it’s just “back into the pool of possible candidates”.

Miñoso and O'Neill
 

Orestes Miñoso and Buck O'Neil, since yesterday members of the Hall of Fame, a good choice, Miñoso should have been included for a long time and also O'Neil, now I show from the 1947 Sports Almanac collection, their cards.

Boyer got off to a late start due to military service which some of these guys never had to do. He could actually field, run, and hit which some of those elected could not really do. That being said, I'm very happy Buck finally got in, and have no bone to pick on any of them. But Boyer belongs in this crew.

He quit on his teams multiple times and has a very poor reputation.

To be honest, his Gold Gloves are a joke. First, nobody really cares about Gold Gloves for a pitcher to begin with. Secondly, one year he won a Gold Glove with a fielding percentage of .826. So, that "Gold Glove defender" botched it nearly 1 of every 5 times he handled a ball defensively. That's mind-bogglingly terrible for an MLB player. Other years weren't a whole lot better.

IMHO, if "he won X Gold Gloves" is among the first things you mention for a pitcher, he's not a HOFer.

Yeah, I remember watching him in 1971 with the Dodgers. Looking back he had some very good stats, but he sure could make you pull your hair out (even though I was only 11). Even a street full of pre-teens could tell he wasn't much of a team guy.

Yup I agree.

Multiple former teammates have disputed that claim and have attested to his being generally well liked in the clubhouse. They realized the treatment he was getting from the press and the fans was more than he deserved or could handle.

For all the talk about Dick Allen quitting on various teams, hard to get along with, etc., I would be okay with him going in. He must have lost whatever chip he was carrying as time went by. He was known after hanging up the spikes as being quite fan friendly. I used to go to a forum back in the early 2000s that had numerous threads detailing how to contact ballplayers including old-timers. That was how I began a lengthy period of correspondence with Tommy Henrich. Well one of the threads listed info for Dick Allen. Many people commented that he happily signed photos, cards, what have you, and mailed them back. At no cost for signing. That says he must have been an okay guy to me.

From Jay Jaffe's write-up on Dick Allen:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/2022-gol...te-dick-allen/

"Sabermetrician Don Malcolm called that passage “the absolute nadir of Bill James’ career, a summary statement so blatantly biased that his long-time friend and associate Craig Wright felt compelled to write an essay refuting Bill’s perspective… Everyone knows that Dick Allen was a great hitter; there’s just all that other baggage that they’re afraid to open.” Having opened it, well, it’s not pretty, but by now it’s abundantly clear that it wasn’t all Allen’s baggage to begin with. Wright’s work, which featured interviews with all but one of Allen’s big league managers (the late Dodgers skipper Walter Alston) as well as several teammates, strongly refutes the notion that Allen was a divisive clubhouse presence or a particular problem for his managers aside from his early-career tardiness (and his extreme behavior in 1969). “His teammates always liked him,” said Mauch. “He wasn’t doing anything to hurt [his teammates] play of the game, and he didn’t involve his teammates in his problems. When he was personally rebellious, he didn’t try to bring other players into it.”

Even Skinner and Ozark, the two managers portrayed as the most openly critical of him, told Wright that Allen wasn’t the problem with their teams and that they’d have him back again if given the chance."

Here is a great photo of "Mr. White Sox", Minnie Minoso. That is one sharp-looking uniform he is wearing!

I feel compelled to echo loudly -- someone else wrote this above -- that Bill Dahlen really got screwed in this one. If I were a voter I would have voted for Dahlen, O'Neill, and Minoso... I don't really feel competent to vote either way on Fowler, Redding, or Donaldson. They all seem deserving from what little I know.
Oliva, Kaat and Hodges will not be the worst HOFers. All three bring the median down in terms of on the field performance. As people/ role models they bring the character and role model median up. It will be nice to see beloved figures like Kaat and Oliva inducted while they are still with us and Minoso and O'Neill while their memories are fresh.

I'm right there with you. The Early Baseball ballot is hard to fathom. Redding getting under 3 votes when many experts believe him the best player not in the Hall (and one that we have pretty extensive stats for at this point, and greatly expanded stats since 2006 when he was last considered) is hard to fathom. (I've mentioned elsewhere that I can't fathom voting for Donaldson over Redding, but that is neither here nor there.)

I'm thrilled that Minoso got in, and find with O'Neil getting in, although I hate that the vote was a competition, as the voters could not vote for all the candidates they thought were eligible.

Similarly, I don't understand how you could justify keeping Dick Allen out.

Happy for those who made it in. I don't think any bring down the stature of the Hall (although there are a couple of entries that I'd have been ok with going either way. Glad that Hodges finally gets in, but I'm sentimental for the 1955 Dodgers, and his roll with the 1969 Mets, so not sure if that's all that's driving my feeling on that.

Tony Oliva
 

I show a photo of Tony Oliva, a member of the Cooperstown Hall of Fame since yesterday, I edited that photo, but this one with the bat in both hands and his full signature, congratulations Tony.

Minnie is no longer on deck!

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1638877065

One of the things I like about this class is that where some of the players may feel a little light statistically to a purist, those players have significant off-field contributions that add to their case. I know the Hall of Fame doesn't give "lifetime achievement" awards, but it's hard to look at any of these players and feel bad about their total contribution to the game being honored.

Although I've been writing a few articles on the hall of fame lately, and I can say that Kaat's induction does lower the "HOF Standard" based just on his pitching numbers. Last week, the average career WAR of a Hall of Fame starting pitcher was 73.1. Today, it's 73.0. :D:p

He seems to be a complicated guy. He no-showed games in 1969 and walked away from his team in 1974 while feuding with Ron Santo but also clearly had some friends.

If we're going to dip that far into intangibles (which I'm ok with, as long as it's consistent) then Dale Murphy and Mattingly become a different situation too.

The '80s was a great time for baseball, and when people think back fondly about it, who comes to mind more than Murph and Donnie baseball?

If Minoso and Kaat are going to get the extra needed nudge because of their their positive impact on the game (and society) off the field, then why not those two guys as well?

Especially with Murphy, who would've been voted in 20 years ago if he'd hit just two more HRs

I’m not against such considerations for more recent players, but I’m not sure “was a really nice guy” (Murphy) of “managed for a while” (Mattingly) quite rise to the level of a Kaat, Minoso, or O’neil’s post-playing-days contributions.

That being said, I expect with more time, if the 80’s are under-represented, these are two guys on the short list of hitters for consideration. BTW, the list of pitchers is longer!

Service to baseball
 

I agree that the loyal service to baseball as an announcer, manager, coach, public appearances, etc. seem to be one of the factors being using this year. They weren't looking just at stats that's for sure. These were good players whose stats were a little light but who elevated the public image of the game.

This Hall-of-Fame Class just got better:

Congratulations to someone who really loves the game:

TIM KURKJIAN!!





=

Well deserved. Tim is fantastic.

That has nothing to do with what I said, nor was it what I meant (when referencing Murphy's or Mattingly's off-the-field contribution to the game).

As mentioned above, it's about their huge cultural impact on the game. Some may not weigh that as much as Kaat's broadcasting emmy awards, but I believe it's just as important for someone's place in baseball history.

I don’t believe Jim Kaat was deserving in the slightest. I have nothing against the guy, but I Cooperstown exists to pay tribute to the best players in the game’s history. That’s not Jim Kaat. He’s the living embodiment of the phrase “Hall of Very Good”.

I get that he won almost 300 games (283). But he pitched in 25 different seasons to get that many wins, and honestly, win total, and win-loss record, are terrible methods for evaluating a player’s performance because so many things beyond a pitcher’s control influences a decision (run support, defensive performance, bullpen strength, etc).

ERA+ is a standardized metric that shows how much better or worse a pitcher performed than league average (average being 100). Kaat’s 108 ERA+ was, for his career, only 8% better than league average. And his best individual was only a 131 ERA+.

The man earned Cy Young votes-any votes, at all, in exactly one season, and the award began getting handed out in both leagues in 1967, Kaat’s age 28 season. From the beginning of that 1967 season, Kaat pitched 3,015 more innings, winning 185 more games. He started 406 games, and appeared in 654 in total. And yet the men that covered the game every day, who saw him pitch up close, thought he was worthy of receiving a Cy Young vote exactly one time. That’s not a ringing endorsement, and it’s certainly not indicative of greatness.

Typically, great players will create value at a rate greater than the amount of time they played. What I mean by that is, if you look at a player’s WAR ranking (either among position players or pitchers), and compared that ranking to where they appear on the all time innings pitched, or plate appearances list, the good ones will rank higher in WAR than those other two metrics; at worst, they will be about the same, or very slightly below.

In the 146 year history of Major League Baseball, 24 men have thrown more than Jim Kaat’s 4,530 innings pitched. And yet his 45.2 WAR from pitching ranks only 126th, all-time. For the amount of time he spent on the field, he didn’t generate anywhere near the amount of value for his team that he should have.

By JAWS, which averages career WAR and WAR7 (7 peak seasons), Jim Kaat, again, 25th all-time in innings pitched, ranks 109th in JAWS. He’s the 109th best pitcher in Major League Baseball history. There are now 65 pitchers in Cooperstown, meaning that there are 43 pitchers with a more compelling resume than Jim Kaat, not in the Hall of Fame.

And the whole “he won 16 Gold Gloves” narrative is not as impactful as many would have us believe. Yes, he was a good fielder. But fielding is such a small part of a pitcher’s responsibilities. Kaat threw 4,530 and 1/3 innings in 25 seasons. He handled 1,062 chances in his career. He made 262 putouts, and had 744 assists. He made a putout once every 17.3 innings pitched, and an assist every 6.1 innings. Again, not really statistically significant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Tony Oliva was a much more deserving player than Kaat. He didn’t have the counting numbers a lot of voters look for, as injuries derailed his career, but Oliva, unlike Kaat, was an elite player. Tony Oliva was MVP runner up twice, finished 4th another time, 6th yet another, and had a 10th place finish. He had three other top 20 finishes. Oliva win three batting titles, led his league in runs once, in hits five times, doubles four times, SLG, total bases, sac flies and intentional base on balls once each.

And he wax a strong defensive outfielder, with +56 Rtot in his career, and an average of +6 per 1,200 defensive innings. He won only one Gold Glove, but I think that’s more the product of his playing right field in the American League at the same time Al Kaline did. There were only three Gold Gloves handed out in each league for the outfield, and Oliva was up against Kaline, Carl Yastrzemski and Paul Blair. Those guys were going to be awfully tough to beat out.

As a rule of thumb, I’d much rather honor great players who had shorter careers than those who played for a really long time, but never really achieving greatness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Way overdue on Hodges - Over the years - I can remember having conversations many times as to why he hadn't been inducted a long time ago.

Being originally from KC - Buck has had a tremendous career and vary large fan base for a long time.

BTW - If you ever get a chance - The Negro League Baseball Hall of Fame at 18th and Vine is an incredible way to spend a day.

Just wanted to second this recommendation! I’ve been there a couple times over the years and it really is a great museum.

Why is Minoso a clear HOFer and not Oliva?

Plate Appearances:
Minoso 8223
Oliva 6880.

Minoso simply played significantly more, which helps.

WAR
Minoso 53.8
Oliva 43.0

WAR values Minoso's overall production higher than Oliva's prodigious bat.

Speaking of which, they offensively come out about the same rate wise.

OPS+:
Minoso: 130
Oliva: 131

Both really came into the league at 25 (Oliva had played 16 games before his rookie year, Minoso 9) and came in hot. Oliva won ROY, Minoso deserved too but a Yankee got it. Performance above the average is done at 35 for both of them. Except Minoso played more during that time and didn't miss as many games.

Oliva dominated the minors, but he wasn't there for long. 64 Games in D, 127 games in A ball and 1963 in AAA. He was probably major league ready a year or two before he got into the lineup. Minoso had 2 excellent AAA years, and 2 excellent years in the Negro National League (one of which he played a few games of A ball too). Minoso was major league ready well before he got a real chance.

Minoso was excellent at most things, Oliva was an excellent hitter who missed more time. Oliva has 3 batting titles

Black Ink:
Minoso 19
Oliva 41

But, Grey ink gives the reverse
Minoso 229
Oliva 146

Oliva's batting titles are significant, more than most modern-metric fans think so. But Minoso was close to the top in lots of things lots of years, moreso than Oliva.

Jaws has Minoso as the 18th LF, Oliva the 34th RF. The similarity scores for both are not good. Minoso though, is a difficult to compare player. There is only 1 900 score for his.

Oliva was a fine player, and I am not against his election. He and Minoso both have very, very similar total value from their bats (OPS+, which has faults but it's faults favor Oliva because it effectively weights slugging higher), but Minoso was good at the small things and played significantly more while putting out the same value. I think it pushes him over the line, while Oliva is right at the line and could go either way. Minoso's career in the majors is a bit short for HOF, Oliva's even moreso.

Finally, I think Minoso is the best player of his time who is not in the HOF (before this week). Oliva is not. The best player of his time not in the HOF makes them a reasonable selection for the HOF, when that era is revisited.

He wasn't even that good of a fielder. Career .947 fielding percentage. I randomly looked at Greg Maddux, Steve Carlton, Bob Gibson, and Robin Roberts - literally just four guys who pitched a long time - and all of them had a higher fielding % than Kaat. Yeah, fielding % is not a great indicator for defensive prowess but it's better than nothing.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I think you’re basically referencing the “fame” part of hall of fame.

And I think that does help a case, if they are famous for being one of the best players of “some period of time”, an MVP, big playoff performer, etc.

I think you need to have numbers at or near the HOF standard, but fame can put a borderline candidate over the top.

I just had an article on the Golden Days Era ballot get published at Cardlines.com if anyone is interested: https://www.cardlines.com/golden-day...f-famer-cards/

Minos o the best player of his time not in the hall? How about Richie Allen or Vada pins on who I believe should be in the hall instead of Minoso

Minoso 1951-1964

Allen 1963-1977

Pinson 1958-1975

Allen is not really the same time as Minoso. Pinson overlaps some, his 111 OPS+ is far below their offensive level.

Dick Allen's exclusion is worse than any of the new inductees was.

A 156+ OPS over 7300 plate appearances during the lowest scoring time period in the live ball era. Including leading the league three times (and in OPS four times). At this stage of HOF induction, that should be practically a layup.

And yep, his reputation. But obviously there are plenty of people in the Hall who are considered selfish jerks.

Unless he gave noogies for a dozen years to all little kids near him, he should still have been in long ago