Mattingly was on his way to a HOF career and injuries slowed him way down. Its a shame but it happened. Looking at his whole career, hes not a HOFer, 5 great years is not enough.

5 great years is enough, which we've talked about with specific examples of players who meet that standard and are in the HOF. The real discussion should be based around what separates these players.

I'm just playing the contrarian, Peter. I don't think Mattingly will ever make the Hall. But when you consider that Ozzie Smith got in as a shortstop for basically providing the same glove work Don Mattingly provided at first base, only without the offensive production, maybe the voters need to rethink some things.

Years played + games:

Smith 18 years, 2,573 games played
Mattingly 14 years, 1,785 games played

Gold Gloves:

Smith 13
Mattingly 9

Ok, Smith played 788 more games, roughly 5 more seasons, than Mattingly. He provided 5 more years of outstanding defense at shortstop than Mattingly provided at first.

I think most people would agree that shortstop is a more difficult position to play than first base. On any given play, the shortstop might be going for the ball, or covering second base. He could be involved in a double play as the pivot man. He has to make more throws than a first baseman will make in a game.

When you consider time played, as well as the higher degree of difficulty at shortstop, it's clear that Smith had more impact on defense than Mattingly did.

But then you mix in Mattingly's offensive excellence.

I just think that everybody that has so nonchalantly said "Mattingly does not deserve a Hall induction" really hasn't given him the thorough look he deserves. And I would certainly say the same thing about Keith Hernandez.

Maybe with the advanced metrics that are available now, some of these players, Hernandez and Mattingly among them, should be looked at again, and given fair consideration again. It doesn't mean I expect them to vote any differently. But they might. When you consider how great Mattingly's impact was on the whole game, I think he deserves that much.

I would say that Mattingly had 4 great seasons, 3 very good seasons, and 1 good year. When you consider the Hall requires ten years, Don meets that, and the great majority of the time, that time played is at a high/elite level.

If nothing more, it creates interesting discussions. :D

Colavito was easily on his way to 500 plus HR when he fell off the map at age 32. He didn't quite have the batting average, but he had a streak of phenomenal power seasons.

The difference is nothing prevented him from falling short except his own limitations. That's the difference we're trying to point out with Mattingly's injury and his career.

These comparisons aren't apples to apples.

5 great years is all most HOFers have. The difference is they had 5 great years during a 20 year career. The rest of the years were consistently above average. All I'm saying is (and I know I'm in the vast minority) why not let more players in who had the same great 5 years during a 15 year career and were just as consistently above average the rest of their shorter career? Again, it's a baseball museum we're talking about. Have a separate wing for Ruth and the obvious all time greats with those magic (but random) career stats.

I do respect everybody's opinion and these types of conversation is what makes baseball the best. But I say let the best players on the planet during their era in. The guys I've seen play: Dave Parker, Fred Lynn, Dale Murphy, Tim Raines, Oral Hershiser, Mattingly, Eric Davis, Albert Belle, Johan Santana, Larry Walker, Bagwell, Roy Halladay are all HOFers in my eyes.

How do you know? Not sure back then it was as in vogue to publicize injuries. He just fell off the map of his own accord? Possible but there could be other factors too.

This thread fails without Dale Murphy on the top of the list.

Mattingly had 5 seasons that I look at as HOF seasons, he had some years when he hit 15-18 HRs, had 75-80 RBIs and .275-.300 BA, like you said, very good years but not great which is what a HOFer should be.

He had shoulder and wrist injuries around 1966 when he turned 32. He didn't blame that on his decline but it couldn't have helped.

Max Patkin

Chuck Klein was the 1930s version of Larry Walker, Todd Helton, Jim Rice, and a whole host of other guys whose numbers were enormously inflated by their home ballparks. In 1931, for example, he hit .401 with 22 HRs at home and just .269 with 9 HRs on the road. He basically had a 5-year run of greatness thanks to Baker Bowl with a fine 1936 season mixed in.

Klein is also, I believe, the only guy besides Ted Williams to win the Triple Crown in a season but not also win the MVP (Williams did it twice).

Bottom line: The writers got it right by not electing Klein.

I vote with the others for Keith Hernandez. Greatest defensive first baseman ever, and an excellent hitter. I think he gets a bit of a bad rap because of his drug problems mid-career, but he got his act back together and was a beautiful player. The Mets never would have been the powerhouse they were in '86 without him.

A fascinating book of his, by the way, is Pure Baseball, where he comments and dissects two baseball games pitch by pitch.

Why am I seeing Ozzie Smith compared to Don Mattingly & Keith Hernandez? Ozzie played a super-premium defensive position at probably the highest level ever. Mattingly & Hernandez played what is - by far - the easiest defensive position. There's a reason the slow guys who can barely bend over play 1B. Hernandez gets no consideration because he never even once hit 20 HRs. Sorry, you play 1B, you gotta hit with power. It's the nature of the position.

Let me put it another way: Keith Hernandez was basically John Olerud, only with (a lot) less power. Anybody clamoring for Olerud to get in?

You have pretty low HOF standards, IMHO.

Baby Doll Jacobson? Career 112 OPS+, less than 100 HRs, and only 1700 hits.

Charlie Grimm? A 1B with a career OPS+ of just 94?!? Has a much stronger case as a manager and absolutely zero case as a player.

Emil Meusel? Simply didn't play enough. 9 seasons (discounting his 1 game in 1914 and 42 in 1927) just ain't enough. And he wasn't elite in those 9 seasons.

Bob Muesel? Decent enough candidate though he also didn't really play long enough. Just 11 years, none of which were GREAT by the standards of the day. With a higher peak, maybe he gets in.

Stuffy McInnis? A 1B with a career .381 slugging percentage? Even by dead ball era standards, that's terrible.

Bobby Veach? This one's a pretty solid pick. The Hall isn't incomplete by his absence but he is a much better candidate than I expected when I looked him up. Certainly a lot better than some of the other guys on this list.

Bob Johnson? Yep. Hurt by being in the shadow of other, greater players of the era but he probably belongs.

Tony Oliva, Fred McGriff, Roger Maris, Peter Edward Rose,

Bob Johnson
 

288-1283-.296 in a hitters' era.

I don't see it.

Neither did anyone else.

Hall of Fame
1948 BBWAA ( 0.8%)
1956 BBWAA ( 0.5%)

For me, when it comes to guys not in the HOF but should be, my #1 guy is Albert Belle. 9 straight 100+ RBI seasons - and a 10th with 95. 162 game averages of 40 HR and 130 RBI. While people spout the nonsense that Jim Rice was a "feared hitter", Albert Belle really was. His career ended in a heartbeat but you talk his 10 full seasons in the majors and he was an elite hitter for at least 9 of them. The guy absolutely belongs.

As for Don Mattingly, I see him get compared to Puckett, Dizzy, and Koufax all the time. I get it. The difference between those guys and Mattingly is this: their careers were basically ended by injury. Puckett & Koufax never played again, Dizzy only made 31 more starts. Mattingly? He kept playing. And, sorry, but that gets held against him. Going out and putting him subpar numbers like 9 HRs and 68 RBI at first base *IS* going to get held against you. Don't really care if it's because you hurt your back. If you're healthy enough to play, you're expected to play well. A great player who puts up average (or worse) numbers because he's hurt is no different than an average player who puts up average numbers.

You know who had a similar career to Don Mattingly? Lance Parrish. Parrish was unquestionably the best catcher in baseball putting up excellent power numbers for the era while playing stellar defense. Four Gold Gloves and who can forget the orange highlighter catcher's mitt? On his way to his best season ever in 1986 when he's felled by a back injury. Falls off the cliff after that but still manages 2 more All-Star appearances. Sounds a lot like the career of Don Mattingly* doesn't it?

* - In no way am I saying their careers were identical. Mattingly was obviously a LOT better as a hitter than Parrish. Just saying they were both the best at their positions, both hurt their backs, both hung around for years after putting up subpar numbers but nobody's giving a pass to Parrish for it.

It sure is a fun discussion. My two cents on a couple of themes that have come up here. I think through statistics and the eye test, Mattingly was a much better player than George Foster.

I believe there was a comparison between Mattingly's shortened career and Koufax's shortened career. Let's face it, Koufax's 5-6 prime years were much greater and much more dominant than Mattingly's, and Koufax led his team to the World Series and championships.
And for whatever reason, the writers and others treat a player like Koufax, who
didn't linger, but retired at a young age after one of the greatest pitching seasons ever, differently than a player facing injuries who continues to play for a number of years. For some reason, they're perceived differently.
I'd actually put Tony Oliva in ahead of Mattingly when it comes to great players who didn't achieve their full potential because of injuries.

The bottom line is that injuries and overall declining ability affect lots of players and keep them from having the careers we expected of them during their peak years -- you'd have to build a new Hall of Fame to put them all in.

Greg

Career OPS+ of 139. 7 straight 100+ RBI seasons, 9 straight of 92+. Yep, a hitters' era where his numbers were 40% above league average. You do that, you're elite.

That said, I should have added "but the HOF isn't hurt by his exclusion".

His numbers look an awful lot like Will Clark's. His OPS+ is 137 for example.

I concede the Foster argument on the matter of career ending injury. I believe the injury argument is weak and I'll pass because it's too subjective for my analytical nerd self.

Defense?
By any defensive metric outside of assists, putouts, and fielding average, Mattingly was at best an average first baseman. GG argument shouldn't be brought up unless we are in a bar discussing this with guys that do not know who the Big Six is or who truly believe Cal Ripken is the greatest SS ever.

If you read the entire thread, you'd see I made the point that shortstop was a far more difficult position than first base. A shortstop will have to make more throws than a first baseman, and those throws are more difficult. And, a shortstop will have more responsibilities. They may have to get the ball when its been hit in their general vicinity. They may have to cover the bag on a steal, or turn a double play. So much of playing shortstop is body positioning, and while being in position to make a play, avoiding a guy that's trying to slide into you. But you make it sound like playing first base in the Major Leagues is like playing Hello Kitty with a 10 year old. When Chris Davis, or some other similar left handed superstar power hitter turns a 98 mile per hour fastball into a line drive headed towards right field, you only have a split second to react, and that's often with a base runner interfering with you. And while only the slow guys that can barely bend over play first, of those slow guys that can barely bend over (and there have been a lot of them), Mattingly and Hernandez were by far the best at their position defensively.

And the reason nobody is clamoring for John Olerud to get in is because he was never the best player in baseball. Not by a long shot. Mattingly in his prime was putting up Triple Crown-worthy numbers while playing defense better than anybody else in his league. Keith Hernandez, while not ever the best player in the game, at least was voted the best player in his league for one year. And a big part of the reason he won the MVP is his defense. Somehow he did that while hitting 11 home runs. I guess the voters that year didn't get the memo that first basemen had to be power hitters. ;)

And by the way, nobody here is really "clamoring" for Mattingly or Hernandez to get into the Hall of Fame, either. I stated that Mattingly would likely never get in. This is interesting discussion on how some players that were spectacular defensively at their position can get in based on their defense alone, while other players who were also elite defensively at a different position, while being a top tier hitter, gets overlooked. Yes, we did take it a step further that Mattingly should at least get another look. But nobody here is organizing a massive letter writing campaign targeting the BBWAA.

Not one mention of the player John McGraw called the best hitter he ever saw?
Turkey Mike Donlin.
In a poll of the top American League pitchers in the 1960's they resoundingly said the most feared hitter they faced was Tony Oliva.
They both deserve to get in and Buck Weaver's name needs to be cleared after 94 years.

I watched Mattingly play a lot when I was a kid. The guy was a hell of a defensive first baseman. This wasn't Derek Jeter getting Gold Glove Awards that were, for the most part, unwarranted. What other defensive metrics were there when he was playing? There was fielding %, putouts, assists, errors, double plays, etc. None of these advanced metrics existed back then, and it's impossible to add today's metrics to games played 25 years ago. Things like zone rating are compiled on a game by game basis, and I don't know of any way of accurately creating these advanced metrics. It would be like going back and trying to figure out how many quarterback sacks Deacon Jones had. You'd have to go back and watch every play. And those seasons were only 16 games.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, Brent. I think the accolades for his defense are well deserved. He was fantastic with the glove.

First of all, I never compared Olerud to Mattingly.

Secondly, the writers were enamored with Hernandez winning a batting title - but not enough to give him the award solo. He wasn't the best player in 1979 - Dave Winfield was.

Third, I still think the Olerud/Hernandez comparison holds. High average, elite defensive 1B. Except that Olerud hit for more power and had seasons with higher average than Keith reached.

Chris, you're right. You did not compare him to Mattingly. I did.

I would also agree with you that all things considered, Winfield was the best player in the NL that season.

And I absolutely agree that the comparison holds. Though I don't think you or I could find anybody with a high degree of baseball knowledge that would put Olerud's defensive abilities above Hernandez's. John won 3 Gold Gloves. Keith won 11. Again, I always like to throw in the disclaimer that Gold Glove wins alone do not accurately measure how good somebody is defensively (you could have two Gold Glove outfielders, yet one may be clearly better than the other). I just like it in certain instances where the comparison merits consideration. Receiving 3 Gold Glove Awards means for a time you were a very good defensive player (generally speaking, not always). But winning 11 Gold Gloves means you were highly regarded as a defensive player for quite a long time. You're flying in the rarefied air when you have double digit Gold Glove Award wins.

I guess for me, the bottom line is that I think a lot of players that have been labeled as "great players" do not get the consideration they merit when it comes to the Hall of Fame. That's on the BBWAA. It's too easy to look at Mattingly and say "his career numbers don't measure up".

Bill- In comparing Olerud to Hernandez, you failed to mention the fact that Olerud played at the same time as the immortal (without the 't' ) Rafael Palmeiro, who won a gold glove while playing only 28 games on defense in 1999, then told us about Viagra and how to impress congressmen before disappearing like a ghost that no one wants to remember.

At least Hernandez did not have to contend with that.


Anyway, I always compared, at least via their beautiful swings, Olerud to Ventura.

I'm a Yankee fan on Long Island and have no problem saying that Jeter has been overly-praised by the NY press since 1996, and as a result fans celebrate him way too much, IMHO. He WAS NOT the leader of multiple championship teams, as someone said. That would be O'Neill, if anyone. (Note that his Captain designation came after Paul retired.) And he's never been a captain in any sense of the word anyway. Never sticks up for teammates in the press, never does anything to fire up teammates on the field, stayed on the sidelines during bench clearing dust ups (talking to opposing player no less!!!). Some captain! Mark Messier he is not. I guess he "leads by example." Doesn't every good player do that? I only go on about this cause his monument out there next to Ruth and Dimagg will refer to him as "The Captain." Total nonsense. Hey Mr. Intangibles, can you do something tangible, like win at least ONE batting title or ONE MVP if you are going to be labeled as the best player of your generation??

This should be simple: just take the least-deserving HOF'er at each position, and find the closest matches that have been omitted. You'll almost certainly be able to find a few who were better hitters and worse fielders, or better fielders and worse hitters, or who had better careers over a shorter period of time, or who had slightly worse careers over a longer period of time. Put them all in and let the watering-down continue.

Dave Orr and Pete Browning are the two best 19th century hitters not in the Hall. Orr had a stroke after eight seasons which ended his career. Otherwise, he might be in the Hall already.

Hernandez was a winner everywhere he went and made his teammates better. Look at the Mets pre-Hernandez and post-Hernandez. That's the ultimate sign of a great player. I'm not going to argue 1B is as important a defensive position as SS/2B/3B but it is underrated in that a great 1B can make mediocre infielders much better as they otherwise are. This does not show up in the stat sheets but if you're an erratic thrower you don't overthink a throw when you know your 1B can bail you out if your throw is off. Hernandez was the best fielding 1B ever. Anybody can just look up WAR and say one player is similar to another. WAR is useful but (especially with regards to defense) is flawed.

The HOF is incomplete without him and I hope his peers correct the mistake the writers made.

1st post on Net54.

I'm on the inclusionary side - the HOF should be for those that stood out amongst their peers. Parker was a beast in his time and was considered amongst the best in the game. Without getting into all the statistical detail, that's been done to death on this thread, he's a yes for me. Same as Hernandez.

But I also think the Hall needs a "Legends" or "Immortals" category. Just looking at the list of current HOFers there's a need for it.

Like an earlier poster I want to see and read about the players that were "huge" during the years I watched baseball. Dawson definitely belongs there, but so does Dale Murphy and Doc Gooden.

Having an "Immortals" section would elevate the Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Wagner and Aaron careers to where they belong. Best of the Best.

I believe the rest of the HOF should be about being the best of baseball during the period the players played - not comparing them to ghosts in past eras.

I also believe Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa and others should be in. Rose and Shoeless too for that matter. Put an asterisk beside their names if you want. That was a good suggestion.

Don't forget to put asterisks next to the names of pitchers who cheated using spitters too though.

I like HOF discussions. Having 2% or so of players getting in seems about right to me as well. It's all in good fun anyways.

Bonds
Rose
Joe jackson
Gary shefield
Maddux
Pedro martinez
Chipper jones
Piazza

I never said that the Gold Glove Award was perfect. I think I referenced a few times where Jeter won the Award and didn't really deserve it. But if you research Hernandez or Mattingly, besides the hardware, it's said repeatedly that the two were considered the best defensive players at their position while they were playing. I think most of the time, the Awards are handed to the most deserving player. Sometimes they do get it wrong, though. Absolutely.

Welcome to the forum, CT. Nice first post.

BEST of the BEST- IMO
 

Including only currently elected Hall-of-Famers:

RHP- Walter Johnson
RHP- Christy Mathewson
RHP- Grover Alexander
RHP- Cy Young
RHP- Bob Feller
RHP- Satchel Paige
RHP- Greg Maddux

LHP- Warren Spahn
LHP- Lefty Grove
LHP- Sandy Koufax

C- Johnny Bench
C- Yogi Berra
C- Josh Gibson

1B- Lou Gehrig
1B- Jimmie Foxx
1B- Hank Greenberg

2B- Joe Morgan
2B- Rogers Hornsby
2B- Jackie Robinson

SS- Honus Wagner
SS- Cal Ripken, Jr.
SS- Ozzie Smith
SS- Ernie Banks

3B- Mike Schmidt
3B- George Brett
3B- Eddie Mathews
3B- Brooks Robinson

LF- Ted Williams
LF- Stan Musial

CF- Willie Mays
CF- Ty Cobb
CF- Oscar Charleston
CF- Tris Speaker
CF- Mickey Mantle
CF- Joe DiMaggio

RF- Babe Ruth
RF- Hank Aaron
RF- Frank Robinson
RF- Roberto Clemente

MG- Casey Stengel
MG- John McGraw

Actually, yes. See Bill James, often regarded as the best ever at determining a player's true value (as opposed to what the public, or sportswriters, perceive that player to be worth):

"In recent years it has been suggested that the Cy Young Award for Felix Hernandez or the Hall of Fame selection of Bert Blyleven show how far sabermetrics has come in winning general acceptance. Well, let me suggest that the near-unanimous rejection of John Olerud shows how far we haven’t come…. In my analysis, John Olerud rates as an obvious Hall of Famer."

Furthermore, Hernandez was a superior defensiver player and far more influential team leader than Olerud.

Steve Carlton as a LHP before Koufax (IMHO)

Good for Bill James then :)

Hernandez may have been better than Olerud defensively but the difference between the two would have been very, very, VERY small. He was an all-time great at eliminating throwing errors, for example.

Besides, Olerud is the subject of one of the best Rickey Henderson stories of all-time*. Can Keith Hernandez say THAT???????????

* - Upon joining the Mets in 1999, Henderson saw Olerud wearing his helmet in the field and asked him about it. Olerud explained he always wore the helmet in the field. Rickey says "weird. We had a guy in Toronto who did the exact same thing." Olerud says "Rickey, that was me."

That was GREAT!

Does that mean that we all look the same to THEM? lol - I hope

Apparently that story's urban legend. Though I prefer to believe it's true.. As I do the Cal Ripken/Kevin Coster/fake blackout at Camden story

Well, if it's an enjoyable urban legend, please share:
 

I haven't heard the Ripken story

I'll go with some negro leaguers. There are others who merit discussion but I'll start with these:

John Beckwith
Dick Lundy
Blll Monroe
Grant Johnson
Ed Wesley
Nip Winters
Oliver Marcelle
Bill Wright
Spottswood Poles
John Donaldson
Dick Redding
Dobie Moore
Alejandro Oms

I agree with your Negro League opinions but would like to add 2 names to your list:
Sammy Hughes
C. I. Taylor

I have no problem with either Hughes or Taylor. I should probably have put Chet Brewer on my list too.

Huh?

THEM= players who always wore helmets on the field.

I remember George Scott and Dick Allen doing the same, not sure what their reasoning was but Olerud had a brain aneurism and took step as a precaution.

I think Scott wore it because he was afraid of fans throwing stuff at him. LOL. Would not surprise me if Allen had a similar reason.

Uh, no he didn't. Check the Cleveland years, where he took a pile of money and basically never stepped foot in town.

I love that story about Olerud and Henderson, whether it is true or not.

I don't have anything against Olerud, and really don't have an opinion about whether he deserves to be in the Hall, but as an avid Mets fan for decades, I can tell you that Hernandez meant much more to his team. Besides his fielding and hitting, he was the first team captain in Mets history and really kept a young, and notably rambunctious, team together. He was known for counseling pitchers during tight situations, a job usually designated for the shortstop, and even called pitches for some of the young guys.

His value may be reflected in the MVP voting. Hernandez was named on the ballot eight different times, winning it once and coming close two other times. Olerud was listed only twice, coming in third in his best year.

And while Olerud was certainly an excellent fielding first baseman, Hernandez was so adept on bunts and at throwing to all bases that he changed the position. The Mets even used to have him handle outfield relay throws sometimes instead of the second baseman (although with Gregg Jeffries and Wally Backman at second, that is a bit more understandable). As one commentator has stated, "If you never saw him play, it's hard to describe how a first baseman can be such an impact player in the field. Just saying he won eleven consecutive Gold Gloves doesn't do him anything near justice. He was a master at fielding bunts, often cutting down the runner at second, and covered an enormous amount of ground. He covered a multitude of sins handling throws. Who else could hold together an infield that sometimes included Wally Backman at second, Howard Johnson at third, and Kevin Mitchell at short - on a first place team"

Bill James even devised a stat based on Hernandez, after figuring out that one way to measure a first baseman's range was to count assists at all bases other than first, and that Hernandez was making 20-30 more outs per season than the average team. He named it, "The Keith Hernandez Breakthrough.“

According to one sabermetric stat (Total Zone Runs), Hernandez's defense saved 117 runs in his career, the most ever for a first baseman. Olerud comes in fourth at 97, still excellent, but nearly 20% behind.

All this having been said, Hernandez still has to answer for a few things. Besides the short career and the admitted drug use, many consider his mustache and his "Just For Men" ads unpardonable.

He was past his prime, like saying Steve Carlton isn't a HOFer based on the end of his career.

You said he was a winner everywhere and made his teams better. I say he was a money-grabbing SOB with no interest in playing for Cleveland, just cashing the checks.

To get the thread moving again:

Bob Howsam!

Both Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker, as they have turned more double players then any other double play combination, ever. Between them, 12 All Star appearances 7 gold Gloves, and that is just the defensive side.

Offensively, between them they averaged over 280, hit 429 home runs, I rookie of the year award, one World series MVP award, 3 Silver slugger awards at SS and another 4 Silver Slugger Awards at second base.

Tinkers, Evers made the Hall with their double play numbers, but they are now ranked 10th, while the best DP combination is left looking at the "HALL" from the outside.

THEY SHOULOD GO IN TOGETHER.

Costner is a guest at Ripken's home, Ripken leaves the house but returns sooner than expected, only to find Costner in bed with his wife. There's a fight and Ripken informs the Orioles he's not coming to the park, thus ending his streak. The Orioles, not wanting the streak to end, fake a blackout and cancel the game, preserving Cal's streak.

:)

That is a hilarious story, heard it long ago, but Rickey being Rickey is classic!!!

He should be in, 100%!!!

these are all choices I endorse as well.

I'm somewhat torn on Kaat. Yes, he won almost 300 games. Yes, he won 16 Gold Gloves (second most all-time to Greg Maddux). But was he ever the best pitcher in the game, or even in his league?

Here's the problem I have. The Cy Young Award started in 1956. Kaat started his career in 1959. Until 1967, there was just one award. Then there started being an award for each league.

But Kaat, in his 25 year career, only received votes for the Cy Young Award once in his career, in 1975. I'm not saying he only won the Cy Young once. I'm saying that he only got votes--any votes at all--in one year. He was fourth in the '75 AL Cy Young Award. He never received another vote again.

If the voters for that award only thought he was one of the top pitchers one year in twenty-five, how do we put him into the Hall of Fame, which is supposed to recognize he greats of the game?

I looked at all Hall of Fame pitchers that have thrown over 1,000 innings in their career between 1880 and 2014. There are 66 pitchers. I then looked at their ERA +. Kaat's ERA+ is 108. His ERA + would be the 6th worst out of all Major League Hall of Fame pitchers.

I then looked at career WAR. Kaat's 45.3 WAR would be 15th worst.

Next, I looked at career WHIP. Kaat would be 17th worst.

I don't know if those numbers are as reliable as they're purported to be, but it's pretty clear from those metrics, Kaat would be a lower-tier Hall of Famer if here were elected.

I then checked his career averages. Per 162 games played, here are Kaat's career averages:

13 wins, 11 losses, 3.45 ERA, 110 strikeouts

I couldn't help but notice that he only struck out 2,461 batters in 25 years.

Then, I looked at his Hall of Fame statistics

http://imageshack.com/a/img849/4007/o5bd.png

Three out of four metrics, he did not meet the average threshold for a Hall of Famer.

However, one positive would be the most similar pitcher. First is Tommy John, who is not a Hall of Famer. But next are Robin Roberts and Fergie Jenkins, two Hall of Famers. However, Roberts had six straight 20 win seasons where he had a 2.93 ERA. All these years were before the advent of the Cy Young Award. And Jenkins won a Cy Young, finished second twice, finished third twice, and sixth once.

I can see Jim Kaat getting another look, but he's a borderline Hall of Famer in my opinion. A very good pitcher with a few excellent seasons. I certainly wouldn't be upset if he got in, but if I were a voter, I would not vote for him.

I agree with everything you wrote except that I wouldn't put any stock in the Cy Young voting. For much of his career there was only one Cy Young given for the entire major leagues and voters could only vote for one pitcher. As a result in 1966 when Kaat almost certainly have won the AL award if it existed he lost out to Sandy Koufax who received all twenty votes from the sportswriters.

You're absolutely right. I'll give him 1966. He probably would have won the AL Cy Young if the award was given out in both leagues. But I would not say that "for much of his career there was only one Cy Young". Kaat became a full-time starting pitcher in 1961. In 1960, he only appeared in 13 games, starting 9. From 1961 to 1966, there was one Award. That's 6 seasons. He'd have won the 1966 Cy Young. He pitched another 17 seasons after 1966, from 1967 to 1978, 12 seasons, he was a full time starter, and he received any kind of Cy Young vote in one season, 1975.

From 1967 to 1983, the period after which we agree he'd have won the 1966 AL Cy Young, he started 406 games, and appeared in a total of 654 games. During the period of 1967 to 1983, his numbers:

185-154 (.546) with a 3.50 ERA, 1,504 K in 3,015 1/3 IP, 1.275 WHIP.

When you consider how the rules and the pitching mound gave pitchers an absolutely incredible advantage, even in his peak years, Kaat wasn't all that impressive. In 1968, Kaat was 14-12 with a 2.94 ERA while Denny McClain, a guy who'd pitched to a career 3.57 ERA, was winning 30 games with a 1.96 ERA. And Bob Gibson was 22-9 with a 1.12 ERA for the National League Cardinals. Kaat was very ordinary at a time when there was one hitter in the American League hitting .300, Carl Yastrzemski, who hit .301.

Now I've always been very open about the fact that I don't put much weight in a player's win-loss record. A very good pitcher can throw his arm off, but if the team behind him is no good, he's not going to get much run support, and he's not going to win a lot of games. And, I'm not saying Kaat was a bad pitcher. Quite the opposite. He was a good, solid pitcher. A dependable pitcher. But I just don't think the Hall of Fame should reward "sturdy and dependable".

Anyone for Bobby Grich?
Very underrated ballplayer

Billy Pierce

I agree with you on Grich . He definitely deserves consideration. I think like Ted Simmons he played in the shadow of a great Reds player during that time ...Joe Morgan.

I really like that you are considering how an 'average' HOF'er performed, as opposed to the worst HOF'er for each stat. Too many people would say: "So his WAR is higher than 14 current HOF'ers, his WHIP is better than 16 HOF'ers and his ERA is better than 5 current HOF'ers - obviously, he should be in the HOF."

But I really do like Kaat - out of all the less-than-great-but-better-than-average players in Twins history, and they seem to have more than any other franchise, Kaat and Oliva are at the top.

Niekro didn't get a lot of Cy Young votes either.

Neither did Cy Young;)

I'd go with Joe Wood, Lefty O'Doul and Thurman Munson

He finished 2nd in '69, 3rd in '74, 6th in '78 and '79 and 5th in '82. Much better than Kaat.

Where do you think I got my condensed recap from? :)

Smoky Joe is a tough case. He was a legit HOF'er as a pitcher until he got hurt - a career 147 ERA+ guy. But...too many partial seasons and only two 20-win seasons in an era when every top guy won 20 every year. As a hitter, he was good but not great - and really only played two years. Just not enough on the resume to be a HOFer but there's no doubt he was a legitimately great player.

Lefty O'Doul - I don't care that his career was short. I don't care that he played in the offense-inflated 1930s. You hit .349 for your career with two batting titles AND some power? You're in.

Thurman Munson - Munson, to me, is in the Hall of Very Good. I think he needed a couple more good or great years to be a HOFer. And, even without the plane crash, he wasn't going to have those.

Plus he's a huge reason there's baseball in Japan still, and by association, probably why there's baseball in Korea and other parts of Asia. Had a long storied career as player and manager in the PCL too.

Separately, someone referred to Chuck Klein's home/away splits. O'Doul's home stats in Philly were better, but he still raked on the road.

IMO, he should definitely be in.

Re- Ripken and snopes, the story has evolved over the years. An older version was that Costner was at a celebrity golf tournament during the day with Ripken and his wife. Ripken left for the ballpark, but forgot he needed something at home so went there only to find Costner with his wife. The rest of the snopes story holds to the version I'd heard. 10-15 years ago this was being told as gospel in minor league (and apparently some major league) clubhouses. I heard it from a guy who I think made it double A in the Orioles organization and he told it with certainty. Several other buddies of mine heard different versions separately from friends in both the minors and majors around the same time. Snopes doesn't agree, but it was really fun to hear it.. And to believe it back then.

There are some funny anecdotes about O'Doul in Gay Talese's great mid 60s profile of DiMaggio, "Silent Season of a Hero." Apparently he was one of the few people in DiMaggio's inner circle at that time. In one of them they go to a charitable event which they were expecting to be a big deal, it turns out to be some old ladies singing in a remote church, DiMaggio is being gracious and chatting with the ladies and O'Doul is muttering under his breath "how the *&^% did you get us into this?"

O'Doul only played two years for the Phillies. His BA for the rest of his career was .332 so he surely could rake.

My point exactly. Was just pre-empting any possible Baker Bowl arguments.

Let's get him in!!!!

I think the HOF should have a "pioneers" section which honors/recognizes players in the 19th century. There are players from that era represented, but there could/should probably be a few more:

Stovey, Caruthers, Mathews, Mullane and a few others.

From the early 20th century there are some more deserving than some that are now enshrined.

I agree with you and with the players mentioned here and the viewpoints expressed for these players pros and cons. Since the reorganization of the Old Timers/Veterans committee I have believed and lobbied for 5 categories rather than the present 3. This would allow for a 5 year rotation rather than the present 3 year rotation between categories and therefore candidates would not be recycled regularly , and the same names would not be showing up all the time and we would not see voter lethargy due to the same names being nominated every 3 years. Also let the categories include players, umpires, executives, owners, and negro leaguers.
It seems we all agree that there are 10-20 19th -early 20th century players deserving election, and probably the same number of serious negro league players. The 5 year rotation would allow for possibly a greater review of these players accomplishments as well as allowing for a few fresh faces to show up on the Veterans Committee and therefore have a different look at some of these deserving players with new insights into their careers and an appreciation of their contributions to baseball and avoiding voter boredom amid repetition.
I really think a Net54 veterans committee could do as well as or better than the present Veterans Committee.
My categories would be :
1. Pioneers 1869-1900
2. Dead Ball Era 1901-1920
3. Rise to Prominence 1921-1950
4. Glory Days 1950-1970
5. Expansion Era 1971- Present
I know this doesn't mention specific players, the members have all stated their cases for players well. I too have my long list of players, execs, umps, owners and negro leaguers that I feel deserve election also. This is a viewpoint to address the broader topic of getting players elected that deserve to be.