Golden Era Hall of Fame Ballot announced
 

The ballot for the Hall of Fame "Golden Era" Committee has been announced today. It consists of Ken Boyer, Tony Oliva, Luis Tiant, Billy Pierce, Gil Hodges, Bob Howsam, Dick Allen, Maury Wills, Minnie Minoso and Jim Kaat. I would guess that Hodges, Boyer and Oliva have the best shot as there have been groups pushing their candidacies for years. I really like Minnie Minoso. Any thoughts?

My votes would go to Hodges and Kaat.

Dick Allen is the best offensive player not in the Hall outside of Rose and Jackson. He was an adventure in the field but he was dominant offensively. Hodges, Boyer etc aren't close with the bat.

I would like to see all three get in and maybe Kaat as well.

Tom C

Dick Allen, Hodges, and Boyer.

Allen is the only one worthy to me.

The Hall of Fame is already to watered down as it is. I vote to remove some players. None of these get in.

Indeed.

I think this is the year Hodges gets in

I also vote D) None of the above. All are very good, but not great...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

McCartney's Let em In (again)
 

Garvey's knocking at the door
Foster's ringing the bell
Johnson's knocking at the door
Allen's ringing the bell
Do me a favor
Open the Hall
Let em in

Luis Tiant
Tommy John
Colavito
Mattingly Don
T Oliva
Jimmy Wynn
Open the Hall
Let em in, in, in
__________________

Frank, is that you? :D

Hodges!!

I am in agreement with none!!

In all the sports they let too many people in. If you weren't in the most elite player of your time conversation then no.

Maybe the should open up a Hall of good?

Frank is derivative. :D:D

Hodges, Wills, Kaat

Anyone hear anything about the next Negro Leaguers vote? I know that Minnie spent a few years but is primarily being considered based on his MLB accomplishments.

How about forming a group to vote out 10% of the HOF, too many over rated in there as it is.

I'm wondering about the next Negro League vote too. I'm hoping Coimbre is nominated.

Maury Wills

Still holding out hope for Jessie Barfield.......and Ron Kittle. He should be in there on the popularity of his 1983 Fleer card alone...........

Hodges maybe.....none of the rest.........

Kaat missed by just two votes last time, but they added Wills and Howsam, who should both get votes. Since there is a limited number of votes allowed, I think no one gets in. That is what happens when there are no definite players on the ballot, but a lot of similar situations.

I have no problem with more players in the Hall. My solution would be to have tiers. I see no reason not to celebrate certain players that had great careers, but fell just short.

My problem with the HoF veterans committee is that with the 3 year rotation between categories it seems like it is always the same old names every time with nothing new. It they weren't elected on their first few times on the ballot then why are they still on it. I mean how much more discussion is needed on these guys... nothing with their careers has changed. Wills and Howsam being new will help the ballot.
As far as more Negro Leaguers being voted on, 2006 was supposedly the final addressing of that issue even though there are still a handful of worthy candidates.

With Kaat there are certainly some 'if he is in then Kaat should be in' arguments to be made. I never thought of him as a HOFer but I never thought of Blyleven or Sutton as one either.

Hodges? I am for it because he was the 2nd most prolific slugger of the 1950s. Snider had 326 taters, Hodges 310; Snider had 1,031 RBIs, Hodges 1,001. And that was when 50 HRs was a Ruthian milestone. A decade as the #2 slugger in the game and the 69 Mets manager? I say HOFer.

Minoso has always been a favorite of mine. The racial context definitely helps his case in my mind. He was a Negro League star for three years then spent two years in AAA [really for no good reason other than the fact that clubs were not bringing up more than one black player a year and Doby and Paige were ahead of him at Cleveland], before being brought up at age 25 where he became an instant star for a decade. A good argument could be made that he was a NL star and then an MLB star for better than a decade. Plus a total character [Don Newcombe told me a great story about Minoso: There was only one restaurant near Vero Beach that would serve the black ballplayers, so all of them went there. Minoso was easily distracted and the game was to get him going and then slip food off his plate until it was gone. Newk said that Minoso got so mad one day that he spit all over his chicken and then challenged the other players to try and take it]. I'd certainly love to see him get in.

Tony "Wish They Could Have Scoped The Knee" Oliva I'd also vote for: three batting titles, five times leading the league in hits. Better to burn out than it is to rust...

I'd like to see tiant for reasons purely selfish. Would like Luke Easter to get attention on the negro league side. My dad says Kaat should be in and I trust his opinion.

before my time, but as I understand it Jim Kaat was the best shortstop to ever play the pitcher position. That's gotta be worth somethin.

Had to look up Bob Howsam, never heard of him, so no. Not on the original posters list but I vote for Steve Garvey and Dave Parker, no one else.

I think Allen and Oliva belong.

Kaat (as much as I'd like to see him in) and Minoso are close but no cigar.

Dick Allen WAS in the "most elite player" conversation though. Led the league in slugging 3 times, OPS 4 times, won a ROY award, an MVP award and has a career OPS+ of 156. Every 20th century guy ahead of him in OPS+ is in the HOF except Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds.

He belongs.

This falls into the "whoopdeedoo" category of stats. Yeah, he hit the most homers in the 50s. Why? Because Willie Mays missed 2 years to the military. Hodges just happened to his prime fall perfectly in line with the decade of the 50s. Does anybody really believe he was the best slugger of the 1950s? Of course not.

Hodges misses the cut, IMHO.

Wills, Hodges, Allen.

Nuf ced.

Best,

Eric

Maury Wills stats. Nuf ced indeed.


JAWS Shortstop (46th), 39.5 career WAR/29.5 7yr-peak WAR/34.5 JAWS
Average HOF SS (out of 21) = 66.7 career WAR/42.8 7yr-peak WAR/54.7 JAWS

If any exec out there is going to get in, it should be Howsam. He built the Cardinals of the 60's and the Big Frickin' Red Machine!

Not to start a war, but how many chances do you Hodges fans want???

My reluctance to go back and admit old timers aside, the argument for Hodges, and it's not a bad one in my view, is that there was an overall lowering of standards since his eligibility. Is he really all that different from a Jim Rice, an Andre Dawson, a Tony Perez, an Orlando Cepeda? I don't like those types of arguments in general -- X got in so Y must too -- but it seems like more of an argument about overall standards than a particular guy.

I think the Baseball HOF gets it right compared to other Halls of Fame; it strikes the right balance between being too stringent and letting too many players in.

In my opinion, just looking at the numbers I would not vote for any of the listed players but, having said that, except for Kaat and Tiant at the tail end of their careers, I never saw any of them play.

8 All Star Games

Won the first 3 Gold Gloves for his position. He would have won many more but Gold Gloves were not awarded until 1957.

14 career grand slams.

From 1949 - 1959, he averaged 30 home runs and 101 runs batted in per season.

In his era, he was the only player to drive in over 100 runs in 7 straight seasons.

He lost approximately 4 seasons to military service during WW II which likely delayed his career as an everyday player since he did not become an everyday player until 1949. He turned 25 years old just before the season in 1949. If he would not have served our country in WW II, his career would have likely started several years sooner which would have helped his overall career numbers.

More career homers than Mize, DiMaggio, Berra and Kiner.

Also, won a World Series as a player and manager.

By now you have probably figured out who I am talking about.

I am a great Gil Hodges fan so I am biased in my opinion but, Gil belongs in the Hall of Fame.

I like Tony Olivia - Pedro on the 63 Topps Card, #1 in your heart.

He was really nice to me at an old timers game in 1984 in Indianapolis. This was before the Colts came and they were finding ways to utilize the (then) Hoosier Dome so that the taxpayers didn't start banging fists on the table about the costs.

I was a 12 year old kid nuts about baseball history and was in heaven at a game that had Aaron, Mays and a ton of others. I walked out that night with my ball signed by Tony, Brooks Robinson, and Monte Irvin. I did a bunch of research after that and grew an apprciation for him. He was a crazy good hitter and looked to fade out quickly - was he injured?

In the if x is in, then y should be in, I use Ross Youngs and Wes Ferrell as X. therefore, be ready for Chris Sabo's inevitable induction.

+1

My vote would be for Minoso and Hodges.

Who in the world is Bob Howsam?

My vote would be for Minoso - he belongs more than many already in.

Isn't Howsam the former GM of the Big Red Machine of the 70's (if there was sarcasm in the question, my meter is broken, so ignore accordingly..)

All in... except for one, perhaps
 

Ken Boyer, Tony Oliva, Luis Tiant, Billy Pierce, Gil Hodges, Bob Howsam, Dick Allen, Maury Wills, Minnie Minoso and Jim Kaat - They all look good to me, except for (maybe) one: Howsam.

Some believe the National Baseball Hall of Fame to already be too thin as to talent. I'm of the view that the HOF is top-heavy with non-players although there are a number of Deadball Era non-players I would object less to than Howsam - mainly due to their long-ignored status. High among them would be Barney Dreyfuss who died in 1932.

I like the logic, but it's flawed. Wes isn't in the HOF, but his brother, Rick, is. Hopefully there are only 1 or 2 inductees...my checkbook has taken a beating!

I really do think Wes Ferrell deserves more credit than he gets. His ERA is ugly but its inflated by a few too many years trying to hold on to his career.

Over an 8 year stretch he won 20 games 6 times including 4 in a row. HIs 1935 season was one of the best ever for a pitcher. Led the league in wins and hit 347 with 7 homers and 32 RBIs. Unheard of for a pitcher.

But not a HOFer.

GIL Hodges

Hodges led all major-league first basemen of the 1950s in the following categories: home runs (310), games (1,477), at bats (5,313), runs (890), hits (1,491), runs batted in (1,001), total bases (2,733), strikeouts (882), and extra-base hits (585). He made the All-Star team eight times, every year from 1949-55 and again in 1957, the most of any first baseman of the time. In addition, Hodges won Gold Gloves the first three years they were given out (1957-59) and was considered the finest defensive first baseman of the era. Also, he was second among all players in the 1950s in home runs and RBIs, third in total bases and eighth in runs.

That would make a very respectable-reading HOF plaque.

I don't buy this stuff about there being too many players in the Hall of Fame. Baseball is constantly changing and so is our perception of its history. Improved statistical analysis has changed the way we look at players. Plus, the Hall of Fame's standards have already been set by the induction of far less talented players like Rabbit Maranville, Bobby Wallace, Travis Jackson and at least a dozen more. Heck, somebody should be elected every year. Seeing well-deserving players like Minnie Minoso and Tony Oliva receiving their plaques at Cooperstown next summer would do wonders for connecting the next generation of baseball fans to the game's history. I'd put most of these guys in, but particularly Minnie. His stats don't begin to show how great a player he was or his many intangibles. He got a late start through no fault of his own, had an OPS higher than Clemente or Yaz, was hit by more pitches than ANYBODY before him, was once the White Sox' all-time home run king, and was so good a defensive player that when they gave out the first-ever Gold Glove awards in 1957, the three outfielders were Mays, Kaline and Minnie — and the runners-up included several other Hall of Famers.

I tend to agree with folks that argue that the HOF is too watered down, but you make a good point about the next generation. I've already heard some statistics that baseball is losing ground in terms of interest amongst the younger generation, if there are ways to prevent that, it might be worth a shot, even if we have to give up a little purity. That said, not sure that people getting in the HOF makes any difference to whether someone likes/follows the sport or not.

Google is my friend! I couldn't remember which one and flipped a coin versus taking 10 seconds to look it up!

I agree 100%. Celebrate the game and the players! One of baseball's big problems is that they are a prisoner of their own history and purist attitudes. Perhaps the reason football and basketball have soared in popularity (besides the pace of their game in a lightning fast world) is because they promote new stars relentlessly and arent handicapped by a ball and chain to their past. Fill up the Hall of Fame and then add another wing!

Not to be too harsh but...man, that is REALLY exaggerating things. You want to make the case for it being the best offensive season by a pitcher? Go for it. But all around best season? Not a chance. You gotta do better than 7th in your league in ERA for that.

Ferrell actually hit 9 HRs one year (1931). .319/9/30. Heckuva year.

He lost 2, not 4. He joined the military in 1943, missed all of the 1944 and 1945 seasons and then was in the minors for all of 1946.

Notwithstanding those 50s numbers, the stats don't seem to treat him well, which surprised me.

Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)


Black Ink Batting - 2 (619), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 128 (140), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 83 (227), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 32 (272), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS First Base (34th), 44.9 career WAR/34.2 7yr-peak WAR/39.6 JAWS
Average HOF 1B (out of 19) = 65.9 career WAR/42.4 7yr-peak WAR/54.2 JAWS

I also think Hodges should be strongly considered for the Hall of Fame. Anyone who dominates his position (perennial all-star) for a 10 to 12 year span should be given serious consideration. This is why I agreed with putting Jim Rice in the Hall of Fame. It is also why I think that Steve Garvey is a borderline HOFer also. His stats (besides home runs) from 1974-83 are very similar to Hodges' 10 year stats that were posted above.

Games 1,499 - 1,477
Home Runs 200 - 310
At Bats 5,967 - 5,313
Runs 820 - 890
Hits 1820 - 1,491
RBI 939 - 1,001
Total Bases 2,785 - 2,733
Extra-Base Hits 536 - 585
All-Star Teams 8 - 8
Gold Gloves 4 - 3 (Hodges was a superior fielder)

Plus, Garvey won an MVP while he finished in the top 6 in MVP voting 5 times in a 7 year span. That is pretty impressive.

Garvey doesn't look so good according to the new wave stats. His "JAWS" rating places him only a remarkable 47th among first basemen. Part of the issue I think is that his on base percentage was not much higher than his BA because he rarely walked. For someone with 6 200 hit seasons (or was it more?) to rate this low is baffling.

This is my thinking exactly, including the comments about Garvey and Hodges. If a player dominates his era he deserves induction to the HOF because comparing stats over decades is simply unfair. Rice deserved to be in as probably does Garvey and certainly Hodges. Was Don Sutton a more dominant player of his era or did he just play longer than many others? If Tommy John won a few more games he would have had 300 -- and easily been inducted. It's silly to have bright line cutoffs on stats and not simply determine if the player dominated when he played.

Yeah, his stats do not stack up very well to modern metrics. I just think that it is pretty special when a player was considered the best at his position for a 10 to 12 year span. His MVP voting was pretty good too.

These guys shouldn't even be considered. They don't compare to the greats. Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Young, Mantle, etc. These guys don't deserve to tie there shoes for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am still surprised Hodges is not in. I can't make a solid argument for him deserving it, but he was to the Dodgers what Rizzuto was to the Yankees.

Kevin yeah but by that token Bill Freehan was the best AL catcher, by far, from say the mid 60s through the mid 70s. All star every year I would guess. HOFer?

How did Steve Garvey "dominate" his era? He won no batting titles, no HR or RBI titles, never led the league in doubles. Not to say he was not a great player, but dominant seems overstating it.

Oliva was dominant. Only played 11 full seasons and led the league in hits 5 of those, with three batting crowns and 4 LL in doubles. One slg. pct title , a ROY and two runner-up MVPs, one to his teammate. Not bad.

Yeah, great example. Tim Raines, Tony Oliva and Dale Murphy are others.

I just remember Garvey always being one of the most clutch and feared hitters of his time. He was a fixture of all those All-Star games that I watched as a kid. All of the perennial All-Stars (Schmidt, Morgan, Rose, Brock, Bench, Carew, Brett, Jackson, Fisk, Rice, Winfield, Dawson, Carter etc.) seem to be worthy of the Hall of Fame - Rose would be there if it was based on stats alone. I just always assumed that Garvey would get there too.

But, by looking at his lifetime stats, it is easy to see why he is not there. They really are not that impressive.

Garvey had 10 AS game appearances and 6 top 11 MVP finishes including 5 years in a row. How does that not indicate dominance in his era?

Plus his consecutive games played streak and multiple Gold Gloves.

Bill Freehan was an eleven time all star with a 2 and a 3 MVP finish. I bet I could find many other examples you wouldn't consider to be dominant players with lots of "top 11" MVP finishes.

Different definitions of dominance I guess.

Bill Freehan played a position in which he could routinely bat .230 and make an AS game. Garvey was a much superior hitter and finished with 1000 more hits. Not only did Garvey win an MVP but as I said, he was judged to be one of the top 11 players in the league 6 times and an AS 10 times. He was also the best player on a team that appeared in 4 World Series. His overall numbers may not bear it out but he was certainly one of the top players in his era as anyone who grew up in the 70s would recall.

Well now you have changed your tune. Yes he was one of the top players of his era. I absolutely agree. That, to me, does not equate to being a dominant player. Semantics perhaps.

Too many players got into the HOF simply because they kept on playing, amassing stats. Garvey had a long period of years in which he was one of the top players in baseball -- that made him a dominant player of his era.

I don't disagree with you on some of the longevity stat guys. And there are many guys I just don't understand the reason for at all. To me, Garvey is still a step below. Dave Parker has 7 top 11 MVP finishes -- is he in? Not to mention more HR RBI and hits than Garvey.

I agree on Parker -- another guy who was a dominant player of his era. His greatness was spread out a bit more than Garvey and he had drug issues which surely hurt his chances. Like Garvey, probably just a notch below immortal greatness. I think my issue is that with so many guys who got in due to playing forever, there should be more value placed on players who were better during shorter careers. Again, I come back to Don Sutton who cannot truly be argued had a better career than Garvey by any measurement -- and they were a part of the same team during the same era. Can anyone claim that Sutton was the more important player to that team?

Well, at least we had the obligatory "the Hall of Fame is way too watered down and a ton of people should be kicked out" talking point. By the way, what is a "stat compiler" other than someone who was consistently productive over a long stretch of time? If it's so easy for a "stat compiler" to get 300 wins or 3,000 hits then why aren't there hundreds more of them? Wait, could it be because they were actually really great?

Peter,

It's not the, "Hall of Statistical Superiority". Maury Wills was a great player. Why shouldn't he make the cut?

Best regards,

Eric

Because he was eligible 15 times from 1978 to 1992 and nobody thought him worthy. He never garnered more than 40 percent of the vote. Most things in baseball come down to stats, you know. If you're a great player, you usually put up great numbers, and the opposite (the contrapositive? I forget my logic) is also true.

+1

If "amassing stats" is just something an ordinary ballplayer does then why are not hundreds of more ball players joining those great milestone clubs? Isn't consistency something to be celebrated?

Great Post...Agreed 100%

Jeff

As a whole, the 1960s are underrepresented. I would be fine with Wills as he was a revolutionary talent who, I think, was generally assumed to be a Hall of Fame talent during his career. His reputation was tainted by off-field exploits that hurt him during his time on the ballot. Bill Freehan seems to be under appreciated to me, but it all depends on what you think the Hall of Fame should be....

No one is saying that the players who amass superior stats are ordinary players, it's just that there are a bunch in the HOF who are only there due to longevity. Do you think that a pitcher who played in an era when pitchers routinely started 40 games a year, pitched for a top team, won 20 games only once and never finished in the top 3 for a Cy Young deserves to be in the HOF due solely to playing forever? The question is what defines greatness. Is it amassing stats via 20 good seasons but rarely great? Or 10 dominant seasons with significantly less lifetime accumulated stats? I think it's the latter obviously.

Look at yaz. Mostly longevity stats his avg season was not that great really.

Garvey should be in the Hall. He was the best player in that position for nearly a decade. I grew up watching him play and on the Dodgers team he was one of their best if not the best hitter all around. Plus he played every game until he broke a finger if i recall. Performed well in the World Series, All Star games...There are many players in the Hall that if you look at their stats you would say why? & they were not dominant for nearly a decade. Oh, i forgot all those gold gloves :)

Yeah, Yaz had longevity, but he also played at a very high level during those years - he had 18 All-Star appearances. Also, he was the best in the game at one point, winning an MVP and a Triple Crown.

The guys that I think that earned it mostly through longevity are guys like Don Sutton - (4 time All-Star, 0 Cy Youngs and only 1 20-game win season), Bert Blyleven (0, 0 and 1), Tony Perez and Billy Williams.