HOF expansion era ballot
 

The ballot has been announced

http://baseballhall.org/news/press-r...ideration-2014

I think the three managers get in. I think Miller is deserving and feel he will get in this time. Steinbrenner sure had the "fame," but I don't think he gets the votes yet.

Any thoughts?

I never got the whole Joe Torre manager thing. I watched him for over a decade manage the Mets, Braves, and Cards. IMHO, he couldn't manage an NL team if his life depended on it. All of a sudden, he is managing the Yanks with a young core of Jeter, Posada, Mo, and Pettite, mixed with Martinez, Williams, Wells, Cone, Fielder, Davis, Brosious, Boggs, Key, etc, etc. He wins 4WS in the first 5yrs and then none in the next 7 while having even more all time players added to his roster.
I guess winning 4 WS in 29yrs managing is pretty good, but I never felt that he got more out of his players than was expected and often got less. Interestingly, LaRussa took over in St L for Torre in 1996 and promptly won the division. The Cards went from 62-81 to 88-74 in one year without significant roster changes that I can recall.

You speak the truth, and there are many who feel that anybody could have managed those Yankee teams. Torre does have a pretty damn good playing career going for him as well, and continues to contribute to the game from MLB offices.

On the flip side of this is the question of whether a manager who benefited from (and possibly accepted or even fostered) steroid usage should be put in while players under him are being held out. Of course, this is a different body of voters.

Interesting questions.

Ted Simmons
 

I have always had a soft spot for Simmons and the Hall because I think he got shafted when he was initially on the ballot. For that guy, as one of the greatest catchers in history, to get less than 5% his first year on the ballot was an absolute travesty.

That said, I don't really think he deserves to be in the Hall. I just wish he had gotten his due on the ballots in the first place.

If I had a vote, LaRussa and Cox get in, Torre gets in, and Miller gets in. Parker is the closest for the players, but I don't think he quite makes it.

Tom C

I don't see how you can say that about Joe Torre unless you also have a problem with Casey Stengel getting in. In 13 seasons as a non-Yankees manager the highest he ever finished was 5th.

Torre finished first with the Braves in 1982 and won the Western division twice in a row with the Dodgers.

My opinion is Torre is the only HOFer out of the bunch.

Nobody should get in. None are worthy. It's obnoxious how we all know and dislike how the Hall is being watered down with lesser talent only to keep giving those lesser talents more opportunities to get in. Ron Santo being the perfect example. How many times was his candidacy vetted? Has to be over twenty times? Seems to be we keep giving players opportunities until those voting forget said player was good enough to be elected in the first place.


And Miller being on the ballot is a joke. He was a labor leader and never set foot on the field. It is bad enough that umps, owners, and commissioners are in.

Putting down the mic and humbly getting off my soap box. I thank you for wasting a minute to read my opinion.

Marvin Miller's candidacy always baffled me. How can he have such a strong case for HOF consideration while Curt Flood is ignored?

Marvin Miller has no legacy without Curt Flood. If Miller is a HOFer for his contributions to baseball then so is Curt Flood.

Speaking as one who believed Santo belonged in the Hall long ago, I vehimently disagree. As you can see with the induction of players like Santo and Blyleven, the Hall recognizes that how players were perceived when they were originally voted on can change over the years. Advanced metrics now show some players, such as Blyleven and Santo, to have been far more valuable than was previously thought. This is the reason for votes such as these.

As for Miller, he is one of the most important figures in the history of the sport. There should be little doubt about that. Yes, Curt Flood took his case to the Supreme Court, but Miller was there with him. Miller effectively ended the reserve clause, and he made the baseball players union into perhaps the strongest in the country. His actions helped lead the game to where it is today financially. Heck. If Bowie Kuhn is in the Hall of Fame but Marvin Miller isn't...???? Seems a bit ass-backwards to me.

Tom C

Even with Miller at the head of the Union, it took Flood acting on his own behalf to change baseball forever. It was Flood who declared himself a human baseball player and not property of the Cardinals and opened the gates for players to challenge the reserve clause. Not Miller. His contribution to baseball should supercede Miller's but he is never considered.

Miller and the MLBPA helped bring the appeals process through, helped to strategize how it was handled, and ultimately helped shape public opinion of the matter as the owners fumbled along. Flood is extraordinarily important without question. He stuck his own neck onto the chopping block. The case doesn't get where it went if not for Miller. It was the determination that Miller showed that gave Flood the confidence to do what he did. Miller at the time was pretty much looking for someone to fit the bill who would do what Flood was willing to do. Flood did what he did BECAUSE he had Miller and the MLBPA guiding him every step of the way.

Miller remained a thorn in the owners' side for years thereafter as well. The game of baseball is what it is today as a result of his actions. No less than Bill James has said that if there was ever a Mount Rushmore for the sport of baseball, that Miller would be one of those recognized. He was that important.

Tom C

Miller ate Kuhn's lunch and Bowie got in. That's like putting the Washington Generals in before the Globetrotters.

I think the only ones getting in are the three managers, Torre, LaRussa and Cox.

Miller never played, or wore a uniform or worked for a team in his life. Not sure why he would be in the HOF. What he did may be considered important, but I don't think George Mitchell is going in, yet he will be forever famous for the Mitchell Report. I wouldn't put in Scott Boras because he negotiated some of the biggest contracts ever, they are all outside characters. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, you don't put him in because night baseball made the sport more popular.

Steinbrenner should never get in, shouldn't even be considered due to his ban from the sport. The main reason he shouldn't get in is the same one that no owner during the 90's should get in. They let steroids get out of hand and profited off it, then got off free and clear from any blame, while the players took all of it. Nothing like encouraging them to do it by allowing it and paying them more, then pretending like all 30 teams had no idea. If players from the era don't get in, then neither should the owners who allowed it until they were pressured from an outside source. Steinbrenner paid a large amount of those guilty and presumed guilty players, Giambi, Aroid, Pettitte, Clemens, etc and who knows who else

I feel the same way about Lou Whitaker: is he a HOFer? No, probably not. But to not even make it off the first ballot is insulting.

Also agree: no player on this ballot is a HOFer. I think the 3 managers will make it, but it's hard to see them all get in this year.

Now, if Simmons DOES get in this year, that loud thumping sound you'll hear is me kicking myself in the head. I had a bat of his for probably 10 years, and I just sold it.

Ken

LaRussa and Cox, or one of the two.

JimStinson
 

I never really looked at the Joe Torre argument as was presented here , I always figured he was a "lock" , but you guys made some pretty good points.

Kind of ironic , but I was at a ball game once in Chicago and asked a very, very intelligent baseball friend I was at the game with who in his opinion was the best manager he ever saw and he never even hesitated and said "Tony LaRussa" which kind of shocked me as I never considered him Good let alone GREAT and certainly not HOF material but he explained his reasoning and at the time it made sense.

We were drinking beer at the time so I guess he could have said "Stump Merrill" and that probably would have made sense too ....:)

The BEST manager by far that I ever saw manage day in and day out was Billy Martin. And not just with the Yankees either , the guy was complicated yes...but every where he went he turned losers into winners
_________________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Vintage autographs for sale on my web site
stinsonsports.com

Good point about Billy Martin and his managing ability...your description of turning losers in to winners sounds a lot like Buck Showalter (minus Martin's caustic personality). Will be interesting to see how Buck is regarded, especially if he wins a championship or two in the years to come. So far it seems his teams win right after he leaves for a new project ( see Yanks, DBacks, etc.).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JimStinson
 

Good point but alot of that could be "front office" Billy was personally grabbing them out of the farm system , and PRISON ! See Ron LaFlore

Stengel had great success but he had Barrow and Weiss
__________________
_________________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Vintage autographs for sale on my web site
stinsonsports.com

JimStinson
 

Anyway ...like it or not ....My picks for who will be inducted will be Tommy John & Joe Torre ..anyone else what to go out on a limb ?...:)
__________________
_________________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Vintage autographs for sale on my web site
stinsonsports.com

I almost completely agree with you here, except IMO, I do think Garvey is HOF-worthy. Garvey was one of the most reliable players in the '70s and early '80s. To me, he's just like Mattingly: I don't know why these reliable and productive players have been snubbed. I agree with you on Santo though. Was never really impressed with him.

I find it interesting that Concepcion is on the list. If he was on a lot of other teams of that era he wouldn't get any love at all, but because he was on the powerhouse Reds he's considered. Don't get me wrong, I think he was an important part of those teams, much like Reese and Rizzuto, but I'd have to be convinced that he belonged in the hall. Speaking of which, Reese and Rizzuto are often talked about in the same breath, so how is it that Concepcion is on the ballot and Bert Campaneris is not? Their stats are not that different and Campaneris was on 3 WS winners, not 2. Similar types of players if you ask me...which nobody did. :p

...also, I watched Garvey day in and day out in L.A and San Diego and in my book he is a Hall of Famer. Even on days he wasn't driving in runs he was saving runs with his glove. He could play.

JimStinson
 

Correct ...and he was a MONEY PLAYER ! could really come through in the clutch , thrived on it .....Just ask the 1984 Cubs who should have walked away easily with the championship were it not for Garvey
But before he goes ..what about Wes Parker ? Greatest defensive glove at first base probably of all time, He was at first base DOUBLE what Maz was at 2nd and almost what Brooks was at 3rd
They will end up putting Tommy John in based on his wins total and Torre because he managed the Yankees....I think the plan is to eventually induct into the HOF ANYONE that ever had an at bat for or managed the Yankees
Reggie Jackson ???? 1st ballot famer ???? please
______________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Vintage autographs for sale daily on my web site
stinsonsports.com

I never saw Parker play, but it's hard for me to believe he was better than Keith Hernandez. As a Mets fan during the 80s, I saw him pull off absolutely ridiculous plays day in and day out. If we are putting in guys strictly based on defense, he should definitely be in.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Parker was a SMOOTH operator at 1st base. I saw them both play and Parker was special, FWIW...

As a side note, Wes Parker had a baseball card shop in So Cal for many years that was called Wes Parker's Dugout. I always enjoyed visiting it back in the day when I collected BB cards...

+1 Garvey was awesome!

JimStinson
 

Hernandez had a great glove for sure but the difference between him and Parker was , Hernandez had a knack for making difficult plays look astonishing , Wes Parker made astonishing plays look EASY

Rawlings awarded the gold glove of the century a few years back at each position , and Wes Parker won at the position of 1st base

__________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Vintage autographs for sale now
stinsonsports.com

Wes Parker was, and may still be my all time favorite player. Best 1b with the glove of all time in my book, but Hernandez was right there with him. Hernandez had a longer career, more gold gloves, changed the way 1b's held on runners, and was a great hitter. As a matter of fact, 11 gold gloves and a .296 average (he would have been right at .300 without those last two partial years) and two WS rings on 2 different teams shout out hall of fame to me.

And plus, Parker was on an episode of the Brady Bunch. Any athlete good enough to be on the BB deserves to be in the HOF. Just look at Drysdale. :D

Not sure about this year but LaRussa, Cox and Torre eventually get in, as does Miller and probably even Steinbrenner. For some reason I really don't get, they like to honor owners and executives. I mean Barney Dreyfus, Jacob Ruppert? Really? Steinbrenner also served on the Board of Directors of the Hall of Fame for many years with several of the 16 members of the electorate. Had Joe Torre played two or three more years behind the plate, he would have been elected as a player. Ted Simmons was a fine catcher, slightly behind Torre as a hitter. As there are only 13 catchers in the Hall and I would only rank maybe 6 or 7 of them ahead of Simmons, I have no problem with him being elected either.

Well... Drysdale was on Leave It To Beaver, too. That is a big plus.

And Hernandez was on Seinfeld....... so the debate continues!

Koufax was on Dennis the Menace. Nolan Ryan was a guest on the soap Ryan's hope as, you got it, an injured baseball pitcher. What a stretch for the Express...

The only person the I feel belongs is Marvin Miller. He changed the game forever. The would not vote him in when he was around. Now that he has passed away I dont thing they have any choice but to vote him in.
Torre, was handed a team that anyone could have won with. His boss did nothing for baseball except to buy teams and make ball players earn more than they deserved. When his managers disagreed with him they where fired.Torre was perfect for him.

JimStinson
 

Agreed .....as did Curt Flood , both deserve but neither will go...Torre was a "yes" man and a Yankee ...he's IN
___________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Vintage autographs for sale daily on my web site
stinsonsports.com

This will piss off lots of people, but I think LaRussa should get the same exact HOF consideration as McGuire, Canseco, Giambi and the gang. If you look closely (or even not so closely) at the list of illegal substance violators, you'll see that no two organizations are guiltier than LaRussa's A's and his Cardinal teams.

If highly suspicious steroid-era players are being snubbed, why should the Manager and Kingpin be any different? He was aware of exactly what was going on. Anyone who disputes this is kidding themselves. At worst he was instructing/pressuring his players to do the injections. At very best, he was "turning a blind eye".

I would put Gil Hodges in the HOF, but unfortunately he's nowhere to be found on the list :(

Jim, agree that I should have mentioned Flood. I do belive Miller will get in. I also agree that Hodge's shouild have been in years ago.

Concepcion? Really? Different position, but Whitaker deserves way more consideration. I believe Whitaker is = to Sandberg.

Also, I rank Al Oliver above Garvey. Same OPS+ and higher career WAR. Garvey was featured in a bigger market with TV looks, that's his advantage.


As far as the managers, meh. I do believe Miller deserves it.

Al Oliver is so underrated. Not sure he has HOF career numbers, but for a long stretch, there were few hitters that were any more clutch, or any better.

Gil Hodges
 

None of the players listed belong in the HOF. You can't talk about Wes Parker or Keith Hernandez if Gil Hodges isn't in the Hall.

Hof
 

I don't understand why after someone is rejected for 15 years in a row, they should go to another committee and be looked at again. It seems after 15 years that should do it. They should actually shorten the 15 years to maybe 5. What makes someone more qualified his 15th year of voting than his 5th?

I think it has more to do with the people voting and not if the player was actually worthy of enshrinement. I would have taken the vote away from the writers years ago. They are the dumbest bags of hair in the world.

I was just thinking about this also. If voters are going to keep the players out who did steroids, how about the managers (and owners) who knew that this was happening in the clubhouse and did nothing about it?

Well, let's remember: these are the same voters who also turned the blind eye!! Here in Cleveland, the main newspaper writer has written countless articles about how everybody is to blame for the whole steroids saga --including the fans!!-- but he never mentions himself. I read his columns faithfully through the 90's, and never once did he mention the ballooning beefcakes in the locker room.

The only piece I can ever remember reading about this in the 90's is when Rick Reilly chased Sammy Sosa around with the jar.

Ken

+100
I'm not a supporter of steroid users in any way, but this is one of my main complaints with the entire issue. The writers completely ignored the problem because they had to kiss up to the players to get good stories and interviews and pay their bills. Now the same group of writers are coming out screaming about how sullied the game is and refusing to vote for guys. Even with all that in mind, I was able to forgive the guys who chose not to vote for proven users like Clemens, but when Biggio and Piazza were held "guilty by association" it really bothered me. Talk about a huge double standard. To me this was the last bad joke in the long, sad history of having the writers vote on HOFers.

Derek, very well put!!

Going back to the original topic, I'd like to see Torre and Cox get in, since I have memorabilia from them, plus I'd like to see Miller and Steinbrenner get in since I have extra auto's that I could sell.

Some may say I'm the pure combination of naked selfishness and blatant greed. My wife is a lucky lady!

Ken

This was mostly a response to Michael at post 40 it just took me a while to get it typed.


For a lot of reasons.

If a player doesn't get at least 5% in any eligible year they're off the ballot. So it's possible a player didn't get 5 years of eligibility. If for instance they were getting votes just short of being elected, then there was a very strong retirement group. Not a great example, but Dwight Evans had 5.9%, 10.4 %, and 3.6% what happened that last year? Ryan, Brett, Yount, and Fisk happened. It's possible Evans would have made it in eventually, maybe his 5th year. But he was removed from the ballot. His career numbers may seem unimpressive, but many are in the top 100 all time, a few in the top 50. Even after the steroid era his 385 HR are tenth for AL righthanders. Not too shabby for a borderline candidate.

For some players their impact may not be realized until much later. Some of these might more properly go in as contributors. Flood, Tommy John, probably others. Flood provided a player willing to take the risk that created free agency, Tommy John - Heck, the surgery that saves a few careers is named for him. Both had a larger impact than just what they did on the field.

And since the voting is done by the writers, there's a bias towards the guys who were more likable, or made for better stories. And towards NY and Boston players to some degree. Albert Belle is a prime example of a guy who did himself no favors. His numbers are pretty good, 381HR, .295 BA 1239 RBI and all that in what's more like ten and a half years. (And close to what Jim Rice did in 15 years, and it took them another 15 to elect him) But Belle was very abrasive, especially towards the press and only lasted 2 years on the ballot.

That's why it's good to give some players, as well as other contributors another look later on.

Steve B

Those are all valid points, and that's not even getting into consideration given to position, the era the player played in and the teams the player played for.

Bert Blyleven is my favorite example of why vote totals can jump, and by extension, why we need a Veteran's Committee. Before Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens surpassed him, Blyleven was third on the all-time strikeout list. Ask anyone who faced him, Bert's curveball was a back-breaker. Know how many shutouts he had? 60. One fewer than Seaver and Ryan, and good for 9th all-time. Those two stats alone scream dominance to me. Blyleven won 287 games, playing for some really, really poor teams. Just 13 wins away from a magic number that (rightly or wrongly) would have had him inducted on his first ballot. His teams were so bad in fact, that in terms of "quality starts", he had 99 such outings in which he was saddled with the loss and had ANOTHER 79 quality starts where he received a no-decision. That's 178 games that could easily have been W's with better offensive support. Keep in mind, his career ERA was 3.13, so it's not like he was asking a lot of his teams' hitters. If he could have won even 10% of those starts - basically if he had the fortune of playing just one season with the Yankees or Dodgers of his era - he's at 304 wins and a HOF lock. A big knock on him was that he never won a Cy Young Award. Well, the same writers who vote for the HOF also vote for postseason awards. So if the writers can get one vote wrong, what's to say they didn't misinterpret a player's worth when handing out CY/MVP awards? He did, however, help win 2 World Series, appear in 2 All-Star games, finish in Top 4 or better in Cy voting 3 times, and consistently rank among the league leaders in every important pitching stat several times.

Some purists feel the Hall should be reserved for only the very, very elite - the Ruths, Aarons and Cobbs of the world - but I think that a HOF consisting of only 50 or so guys would be pretty boring. The Hall still contains less than 1% of the men who have played the game, and I see no problem with varying levels of "greatness" being inducted. In other words, the worst HOFer was still miles ahead of the best "average" player. Great players like Blyleven deserve to be recognized for their real contributions and not just by lining their stats up against the stats of others.

OK, rant over, sorry for going OT....

Great post Derek, I completely agree.

+1 Good job, Derek!

Great post above! Very well stated!

As a side note, I would personally love to see Garvey get in. 10x All-Star, 4WS appearances, NL MVP. Not a bad resume. But I'm not biased at all... ;)

LaRussa and Cox, and Garvey.

From the mid 70's to the mid 80's, who would you take at 1st base over Garvey?? Stargell - past his prime and already a HOFer; Perez - see Stargell; Chambliss - no; E Murray - didn't start until the late 70's; Hernandez - good glove, but not quite. For a 10 year span, Garvey was the best first baseman in MLB.

I disagree that he was the best for a 10 span. A case can be made he was the best in 1975 and 1976, but for all other years someone was better. 1977 on, Murray was better



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would vote for Cox and possibly Torre. I don't think any of the players deserve it, they were great players but not HOFers IMO. In the mid 80s I would have rather had Mattingly over Garvey.

I still don't understand why Garvey and Mattingly are NOT in while other guys are (I won't mention them here). What were the reasons again? I remember in the '80s broadcasters would talk about how they thought Garvey was a shoe-in...same with Mattingly. What happened after they retired? Were the memories not that great? :confused: (and don't tell me it had to do with Garvey's illegitimate kids).

Announcement coming today, but I can't find when or how it will be made.

On radio they just said Cox, LaRussa, Torre voted in, didn't mention anyone else.

MLB.tv has press conf for the 3 managers

It all comes down to numbers. If you look at Mattingy's and compare them to guys in the HOF that played his position, or even not his position, his numbers just aren't quite good enough.

Mattingly was a good ball player, but not a HOF'er in my book. He just didn't play long enough.

Mattingly loses not because of the career he had but because of the career he did not have. His overall stats are strikingly similar to Kirby Puckett's but Mattingly had two careers. He was a god of batting--the next DiMaggio--until he hurt his back, then he became a very good player. I think that hurts his voting totals. It is better to burn out than fade away when it comes to HOF voting.

I don't know why Mattingly isn't in either. The HOF has inducted players with brief dominance and promise who suffered major injuries before.

Dizzy Dean would be a good example. He had 4 dominating seasons before an injury took his career.

From 1984 to 1987 Donnie Baseball was the premier player in the American League. He averaged 30 homers, 121 rbis and a .336 average over his peak. Had he not gotten hurt, I don't think there's any doubt he was a HOFer.

He should get in for the quality of player that he was. Not because of his career numbers.

Would you be able to compare Mattingly to someone undeserving besides Dean, like someone from the 60's on? The reason I ask is the same can be said for Dizzy as what you said, "the quality of player someone is, not because of his career numbers". I wasn't around for Dean, but maybe he was a quality player that really did deserve it?

But anyways, that unfortunately is not how the voting works. Of course they will look at the quality of player it is, but at the end of the day, if you have 2,000 and 222 HR's, you aren't getting in. Good ball player, but again, just not long enough.

It's hard to pick another player similar to Mattingly because I feel like he was a special case. Kirby Puckett is the best I can do with a contemporary player.

Joe Wood or Nomar would be great comps too. Unfortunately for Mattingly I don't think any of them will ever get in. But that's not bad company.

It's the old "if-then" with Puckett: if Puckett then Mattingly.

Sorry, if you want to put in a 1B because of "the quality player he was," then Mattingly should be discussed after Mickey Vernon.

Ken

I don't have a problem with Kirby getting in, but it says a lot that he got in on his first ballot. Mattingly slips every year. For a guy who had such a similar career (50.8 career WAR for Puckett compared to 42.2 for Mattingly) it seems like he should be getting more votes.

Especially since Puckett had more healthy years, but amounted only slightly higher stats than Mattingly, who was on the decline by age 29.

That says a lot about who Mattingly was when he was at his peak.

Edited to add: Vernon was not a career .300 hitter. He also finished with a career WAR of 34.6 and is considered the 62nd best first baseman compared to Mattingly at 35th.

then Vlad Guerrero

then Albert Belle

In my mind Albert and Vlad are both HOFers.

Mattingly
 

How many folks would be upset if Mattingly WAS elected...if you think about the 80's, how many guys would you say were better than he was? Would he look out of place in the Hall of Fame? I don't think he would...

I consider him a lock!

Vlad will likely be elected once he becomes eligible, maybe not a first ballot but he'll get there. Belle made too many enemies amongst the writers, and I'm not justifying that, but those are the people who vote. So, he kind of made his own bed.

Puckett and Mattingly are comparable on the surface. I'll preface this by saying Donnie Baseball was and is my absolute all-time favorite player. He's a class act on and off the field and was amazing to watch even well into his decline. That said, Puckett was more deserving.

One thing about Puckett that puts him ahead is his postseason. While I don't necessarily agree with a team accomplishment being used to measure an individual, that is the reality. It also didn't hurt that Puckett was an above .300 hitter in October and won an ALCS MVP on his way to 2 World Series rings. Puckett was also a fan favorite, people loved seeing a guy who looked like he should be doing log-rolls racing around CF and scaling the wall to rob opposing hitters of home runs. He just won people over with a constant smile...think the ANTI-Albert Belle.

Puckett reached 2000 hits faster than any player in the history of the game, leading the league in hits four times (3 consecutive) in 6 years. Mattingly led the league twice, and finished with 150 or so fewer hits than Kirby, even though Mattingly played 14 seasons to Puckett's 12. Mattingly continued to play through his injury and saw his numbers decline (what some players wouldn't give to have a Mattingly "off" year!), so I don't think voters give him a lot of consideration when trying to project his stats out to say, a 20-year career, since we saw 70% or more of his career. With Puckett, his eyesight forced him out while he was still extremely productive - his last season, he hit .314 with 39 doubles, 23 homers, 99 RBI and an OPS of .894. The year prior, .317/32/20 and a league-leading 112 RBI, with a .902 OPS. While I don't usually like the HOF voters to get into the "what-if" game, for someone like Puckett it's understandable. It's also much easier to speculate what he "might have" done as compared to someone like Mattingly whose production decline was actually witnessed. We never saw that in Puckett.

I still hold out hope that Donnie will win 15 World Series with the Dodgers and get in the same way Torre did today. :D After all, even though I get why he's not a HOFer, he's one in my book and he's still my favorite player!

Albert Belle or Pujols?? If you say Belle, I'm done. :-)

Albert "Don't call me Joey" Belle
 

Albert Belle = 'Roid Rage personified

Tell me this guy wasn't a steroid user.
IMHO, he left baseball just in time to not be one of main players on the PED list.

It does, but still - he had 3 or 4 outstanding years, and then he was pretty average. Over his first 2 and final 6 years - totaling over half his career - he was a .285/15 homers/65 RBI guy with a SA just barely above .400. You can pull Puckett's 12 seasons apart in any direction, and he was consistently excellent from the first to the last.

Kirby started 6 AS games; Mattingly 1. Kirby led the Twins to 2 world championships; in 14 seasons with Mattingly, the Yanks finished 1st only once, and Mattingly only made it to the post season once (and just the 1st round). Mattingly won the MVP, but Kirby was in the top 10 in voting nearly twice as often and had more career MVP shares.

And for an 1800-game career, a 20% difference in WAR is, IMO, huge. It's the difference between 177th all-time and 276th.

Mattingly won 2 more Gold Gloves than Kirby, but I think fans and writers place more value on center-fielding than playing first base (which might be a mistake, but Kirby climbing the wall to pull back a home run is a lot more glamorous than saving runs by scooping balls out of the dirt).

I can see why Kirby's in and Mattingly's not. That said, I wouldn't have voted Kirby in either - he owes a lot of his offensive stats to the Metrodome, where he hit 50 points higher than he did on the road, and he won some of those Gold Gloves because he played a really deep center, scaled the wall a lot and made a lot of long throws. Good highlight reel stuff, but he probably let a zillion singles fall in front of him.

If we're going to vote guys in on short careers plus what they might have done, I would have voted Tony Oliva in ahead of either Puckett or Mattingly. From the time he was ROY in 1964 until 1971, his last season before injury, he was an AS all 8 years; a 3-time batting champ who finished in the top three in hitting 7 times and top 8 all 8 seasons; a 5-time hits leader; 4-time doubles leader; and helped Minnesota to the post season 3 times (in an era where only 2 to 4 teams could qualify). And his WAR was higher than Mattingly's in 12% fewer plate appearances. As I always say, if Tony had gotten run over by a bus after his 1971 season - instead of playing on a bum leg for several more years and ruining all of his career stats - he would have been in the HOF the following year. Maybe the same would have been true for Mattingly after 1989.

Well said. I also wanted to add to my last post that if you want to argue that Mattingly, a first basemen, be in the HOF, why not Gil Hodges? Sure, he was a .275 hitter, but had 370 HR's, 3 time WS champ, 8 time all star, 3 time GG, and you can throw in his manager days. A decent argument..

I agree with Oliva too, he is a highly under-rated HOF candidate.

If only we had a 'Hall of Above Average'.

my list of HOF'ers would only include about 125 players not the 300 that are currently in there

+1 My thoughts exactly.

Not to be a pedant, but there are only 208 former MLB players and 35 Negro Leaguers currently in the Hall. That is a pretty damn small number, but your point is taken.