HOF Golden Era Results
 

The Hall of Fame just announced that no one received the necessary 12 of 16 votes to be elected by the Golden Era committee. Dick Allen and Tony Oliva each fell one vote short. I was surprised that Gil Hodges got so little support (fewer than 3 votes). Jim Kaat got 10. Maury Wills 9, Minnie Minoso 8, all others 3 or fewer.

+1
I am surprised Dick Allen got that close.

Gil Hodges got fewer than 3 votes? Really. I find that hard to fathom, unless some of those voters had received some poison pen letters or remarks from some now deceased Veterans Committee members prior to their being selected as committeemen. I know of two now deceased voters who had very, very sharp axes to grind on Gil, and would never forgive him. ---Brian Powell

Dick Allen has great hitting stats for the amount of time he played, but his defense was very bad and he flamed out quick. I think he needed to stay on the field a little more during those 11 prime years he had. He missed 344 games during that stretch.

Oliva doesn't stack up to Allen and he missed even more time. I think he looks better because he led the league in hits and average numerous times, but he didn't walk much, so he never led the league in OBP. Unfortunately for him, injuries took away his real chance at the Hall, at least that is what I thought

Hodges dropping to three or less votes is shocking. He spent two years in the military and came back as a catcher for a short time, those two facts have to help his case.

If I had a vote and had to stick to four votes maximum, I probably would have only picked Hodges and Kaat, though Allen and Tiant are real close for me and I've gone back and forth with them. Everyone else falls short.

I don't get the Maury Wills pick at all, .661 OPS and his SB% is below average, plus his career stats don't stand out. He didn't draw walks, hit for zero power and did that as a .281 hitter. The most comparable player all-time to Wills is Luis Castillo and I'd be shocked if he got more than one pity vote. You could make a case that Castillo was slightly better. Wills gets too much credit for his short reign with the SB record and his MVP.

Gil Hodges ??
 

Care to elucidate?

Sounds like good news. The Hall has already let in too many . When I was growing up the names like Mantle, Aaron, Mays, Kaline, Snider etc. that's the HOF, not Boyer, Maz, Rizzuto, Oliva etc. Good players but not HOF.

+1

Totally agree! I wrote an article about some guys on the NFL side that have no business getting in. All the Halls of Fame are very biased towards certain teams and certain personalities. Joe Namath is the biggest joke Hall of Famer ever!

I am actually baffled that Maris and Hodges are not in given all the NY bias.

Speaking of Namath, it's interesting that his rookie card is so visible and valuable when he is at best a top 20 quarterback.

I do not follow football at all. So these comments surprised me because Namath is the most popular pre 80s quarterback I have heard of. So I assumed he was better. This shows the bias that happens when all you know is the name and nothing else about the sport's history or stats.

With Namath, it's simple. Personality goes a long way.

I could be wrong but I don't think any football person could claim he was better than Unitas, or Starr, or Tarkenton, or Dawson, or Staubach, and probably others just from the 60s/early 70s.

It's a joke that some came so close even.

Would love to see Oliva get in then all of my auto's of him would go up. He signs every other day here in MN.

Bob Johnson gets no respect..... overall stats are similar to Dick Allen's numbers but he didn't even get a mention for consideration.

Statistically he was not one of the top QBs of all time but it's more than personality with Namath. He legitimized the AFL when he signed the biggest contract in history with the Jets instead of going to the NFL. He engineered a huge Super Bowl upset that further legitimized the AFL. He was the first QB to throw for 4,000 yards in a season (14 games). He was voted first team All-AFL ahead of Len Dawson.

jeff

Hey Peter
 

I would add Sammy Baugh and Sonny Jurgensen to that list of great QB's.

The mystique regarding Joe Namath is that in 1969 he showed the NFL world that the AFL was not a 2nd class League....when he led the Jets
to a Super Bowl win over Johnny Unitas and the Baltimore Colts.

The sports world (more or less) considered Namath's victory a "fluke". But, then in 1970, Lenny Dawson followed up with his Super Bowl win
over the Vikings.

Those were great years, if you were an old AFL fan. Namath was good, but his Receiving squad, made him greater than good....Maynard, Bell,
Snell, Caster, and RB's: Boozer and Riggins (my favorite guy).

Here's my ticket stub from the greatest FB game I was ever at (Jets 44 vs. Colts 34..9/24/72). Namath threw for 496 yds. and Johnny Unitas
threw for 376 yds.)

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...SvsBALTx50.jpg


TED Z
.

Yep
 

Yes, all these are perfect candidates to my recently instituted "Net 54 Hall of the Very Good".

I think the 4,000 yard thing is nice but doesn't make up for the fact that he had a losing record as a starter and threw more INT's than TD's. His completion percentage I believe is at or near the bottom of Hall of Fame QBs.

If Namath played in St. Louis at the time he would be a complete after thought. I would rate Plunkett and Brodie and possibly Gabriel as better contemporary passers.


Sorry I digress. I know this is a baseball forum and therefore given my above argument I am glad to see no one made it in. There should be NO golden era committee or Veterans committee or anything the like. If you weren't good enough to get in during eligibility the you are simply not good enough.

Passer rating can be misleading, but Joe is not even in the top 150 in that department (and it doesn't depend on longevity).

Fortunately, HOFs do not, nor should they, depend solely on statistics. I was a Buffalo Bills fan as a kid and saw many games against Joe Namath. I can tell you first hand he was one of the greatest QBs of all time.

Broadway Joe seems like the Reggie Jackson of the football HOF.

Who wants to go visit the grave of Arky Vaughan and give him the bad news?

Jim Plunkett was barely a contemporary of Namath's, and threw a shotput--one of the ugliest balls I have ever seen (with apologies to Bobby Douglass). John Hadl would be a more apt comparison to Namath, given their attachment to the old AFL and its love for the long pass and flair for the big play.

I doubt Namath would ever have been an "afterhought" regardless of where he played,and I would suggest that had he quarterbacked the Chiefs or Raiders, he would have led those teams to even more success than they enjoyed as the dominant teams of that time. Note that Namath was voted/named the quarterback on the all-time AFL team, ahead of Dawson, Kemp, et al.

I was no fan of Joe Willie, especially as I lived and died with Johnny U's Colts. Still, I recall him being an incredible player to watch, and stats aside, the following tributes (per Wikipedia) are pretty high praise from those who would know:
"Hall of Fame coach Bill Walsh stated that Namath was "the most beautiful, accurate, stylish passer with the quickest release [he'd] ever seen." Hall of Fame coach Don Shula stated that Namath was "one of the three smartest quarterbacks of all time."

I agree! Its a shame how he's looked over. And how Minnie isn't in yet just pisses me off!

Good, Darwin-
 

+1, well put. I want Arky in there!

What is this mania for preserving the "standards" of the HOF? Sure, there are some clunkers in there (Hooper, Ferrell, the infamous Frisch-led infield of Kelly, Jackson, and Lindstrom), but for the most part the Veterans Committee has righted a lot of omissions that the sportswriters collectively committed.

Namath 97. This list is from the early or mid 2000s I believe.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=4786953

I was a fan of Joe Willie, an avid Jets fan from 1969 - 1975......but, I have never forgiven them when they let John Riggins go (after he was their MVP in 1975).

Anyhow, having watched Joe Namath those years, and having gone to quite a few games....Todd's quote of Coach Bill Walsh describes Namath's play to the tee.
Joe was indeed quick on the release, precisely because The Jets had some great Receivers during Joe's tenure.....especially Don Maynard. These guys were real
professionals that could quickly get in the clear and had sure hands, which made Joe's task easier.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...SvsBALTx50.jpg


P.S. .... I never got Joe to sign my ticket stub. But, after reminiscing with Johnny Unitas regarding this great game (9/24/72), Johnny signed it on the back.


TED Z
.

The argument that Namath is overrated.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...terbacks/6538/

Hey Peter
 

Did you personally ever see (on TV, films, or actually being at a Jets game) Joe Namath play ?

If not, then citing some pub's questionable opinion of Namath doesn't cut it in my book.


TED Z
.

Ted I am a little younger than you but yes as a teenager I saw Namath on TV including the Super Bowl. I doubt I knew the game well enough at that point to form a solid opinion at the time. An awful lot of "football people," though, support the claim that he was overrated. It makes for an interesting debate. To be clear I am not suggesting he wasn't a HOF quarterback, I am just questioning his status in some people's minds as one of the very few all time greats, most expensive post war rookie card, etc. etc.

Going back to the Cooperstown voting. Dick Allen had pretty decent HOF stats, but was known as a cancer in every clubhouse that he was in.

He was his generation's Joey Belle (that's right, Albert - it's JOE-ey, JOE-ey, JOE-ey. God, I miss chanting that at Fenway :D).

+2. If Arky's not in there, you need to kick out every SS not name Honus Wagner. I'm glad the current committee didn't elect anyone. I don't think those guys are HOFers, but looking at the back log on the ballot right now, I can see the need a few years down the road.

The Canseco "steroid" chants, with Jose responding by flexing his muscles, were good too.

Those who Blackballed Gil Hodges
 

Dave Foster----

Hiya pal. I'm sorry I couldn't get back to you regarding those who had a sharp axe to grind upon Gil Hodges with regard to voting him into the Baseball Hall of Fame. I work mid-afternoon to midnight. So, now I shall elucidate. However, please, by all means, if I am mistaken Dave, or if any one of you chaps sees a mistake here, correct me. The light I throw upon the matter is not done with a smug attitude or smile, as it's very unpleasant and says volumes about human nature.

The two individuals who were on the Veterans Committee and had it in for Gil Hodges were Ted Williams and Earl Weaver.

Ted Williams was a very proud man. He was immensely proud of what he did with the Washington Senators in 1969, turning them around and producing their first winning record, by a large margin no less, in quite a few years. However, when the The Sporting News, at the time very prestigious and authoritative, announced their Manager of the Year Award for 1969, they selected Gil Hodges. Ted Williams was very irked by that. Moreover, some scribes wrote that it was Gil Hodges, and NOT Ted Williams, that had paved the way for the lowly Senators to move up to a higher plane.

For the uninformed, Gil managed the Senators from 63-67, and every year their record got better and better, with the last year showing 76 victories, a very creditable improvement.

Those comments about Gil Hodges being the one who really deserved the credit for the Senators' 1969 performance got Ted's pot boiling. In the ensuing years, under Ted's lousy managerial skills, the team just got worse and worse, and worse. The players could not stand Ted Williams. On the contrary, most of the Mets players loved Gil Hodges, and really mourned his untimely death of a heart attack in 1972.

Ted Williams had a very large ego, and I'm sure it's what helped drive him on to be one of the greatest hitters in the game's history. But his feelings smarted over the credit and acknowledgement that Gil Hodges received as a manager. So, once Ted was in a position on the Veterans Committee, he would always blackball Gil Hodges.

Let's now move on to the other man, Earl Weaver. As opposing managers in the 1969 World Series, the Weaver-led Orioles had decimated the American League that year, coming so close to topping the league record for victories held by the vaunted 1927 New York Yankees. Or was it the 1954 Cleveland Indians? Well, anyway, the Orioles were heavy favorites over the Gil Hodges-managed New York Mets, a cinderella team if there ever was one. As a Chicago suburbanite, I was a Cubs fan, not a Mets fan, by the way.

Well, you know most of the rest. After the Orioles won the first game, the Mets took the next four. It was all over for the Orioles, and Earl Weaver was denounced, while Gil Hodges was lauded. Perhaps the most galling episode in that series was when Gil Hodges showed the umpire the black shoe polish on the baseball that proved it had hit Cleon Jones. Jones is awarded first base. Brilliant! Next batter, Donn Clendenon, socks a home run! The Orioles were shot down again, and again, and again. Earl Weaver was humiliated.

But there was more.

In the following year, one of the best baseball all-star games took place. The National League had been on a roll, but the AL was strong and determined. Opposing managers? That's right. Gil Hodges versus Earl Weaver again. The National League had come from behind to tie it after nine innings, and so it was nail biting until finally in the twelfth, Pete Rose bowled over Cleveland catcher Ray Fosse and scored the winning run. To this day, I still remember the excitement of that play as I watched it on national TV. Maybe you saw it too.

Well, the same results echoed in the ears of losing manager Earl Weaver, for once again, the National League had come from behind to snatch another victory from the Americans. Again Gil Hodges was raised to the rafters, while Weaver was earning a reputation of championship decrepitude.

In the minds of many, all that was forgotten as the Orioles took it all that year over The Big Red Machine. Weaver would eventually win two Sporting News Manager of the Year awards. Still, the echoes of those smashing defeats at the hands of Hodges as his opposing manager rang in Earl's ears forever. Gil's premature death only meant that Earl would never have the chance to show that he could outsmart and out-manage Gil. Gil Hodges was a better manager than Earl, period.

However, Earl Weaver, when he became a member of the Veterans Committee, used all his power and influence to blackball Gil Hodges from being enshrined in the Hall---'til the day Weaver died.

There ya have it, Dave. Now that I've written it, I feel a bit depressed. There is so much truth in the saying, "the truth hurts."

Enough of my elaboration. Take care. ----Brian Powell

Peter
 

I'll tell you from where I'm coming from. As a kid in the 1950's, I saw Sammy Baugh play (near the end of his career). Then I started following Johnny Unitas and Sonny Jurgensen.
Loved these guys.

When I returned to civilian life (Air Force 1960-64) I started following FB again and I took a liking to Len Dawson and KC....and, then the Jets when Namath arrived. I was regularly
kidded by my FB buddies for being a fan of the AFL.

But, I certainly had the last laugh in 1969 and 1970.

The 4 seasons from 1966 to 1969 (when Broadway Joe was healthy), the Jets had a 35 - 18 - 3 record. Namath was at his best; but, after those years his injuries preventing him
from continuing to have a really great career. Those big bruisers on the opposing teams were out to get him.....and, they did.


TED Z
.

Ted I grew up in Washington, DC area. Jurgensen was phenomenal, an incredibly accurate passer. It is still incredible to me that George Allen started Kilmer over him at the end of his career when he could still play. The Redskins teams until the very end of Jurgensen's career were horrible. God only knows how far he could have gone with a decent team. The man could flat out throw. There is a story, probably apocryphal, that he was asked if he could hit a receiver in the eye at 40 yards. He asked, which eye?

PS After Sonny retired, when he was an announcer (a beloved one at that, a fixture of Redskins radio coverage for decades), my Dad had the good fortune of sitting next to him on a cross country flight out of DC. Sonny, shall we say, had a few, and apparently had some very choice things to say about being demoted to second string in favor of Billy Kilmer. I wish I had been there.

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1352646] There is a story, probably apocryphal, that he was asked if he could hit a receiver in the eye at 40 yards. He asked, which eye?

Peter, I've read virtually the same story, but it's not apocryphal. However, the story concerned a question asked to one of Sonny's predecessors, the beloved Sammy Baugh. ---Brian Powell

Sonny Jurgensen
 

Peter

In 1973 and '74, I switched to following the REDSKINS (with Namath's injuries, the Jets were no longer a contender) to see Sonny Jurgensen play.

And, yes Kilmer was usually the starting QB then. However, by the 4th Q Kilmer would be in trouble and George Allen would send in Sonny. And invariably, Sonny would turn the
game around and save the day. Sonny's stats confirm this in that Sonny played in all 14 games in each of the '73 and '74 seasons.

Sonny would conduct his 5 - 15 minute drill in which he would zing to the left and to the right and down mid field the most precise screen passes to Larry Brown, Charley Taylor,
Roy Jefferson, Jerry Smith, etc.

Peter....I haven't seen the likes of Sonny and his passing accuracy in the NFL since those days. The REDSKINS were 20 - 8 in '73 and '74.

I would have given my T206 Wagner to have sat next to Sonny Jurgensen on a 6 hour flight :)


TED Z
.

I would have voted for Gil Hodges--Dick Allen--Tony Oliva----Another thought is Roger Maris (is he off the ballot) Also for a 4 year run Check Ted Kluszewski 1953 .320 40HR--108RBi 1954 .316 49HR 141 Rbi---1955 .326 47HR 113 Rbi 1956 .314 35HR 102 RBi---I don't know what happened to him after that maybe injuries but if he would have hit like that for 10 years Wow----As for Joe Namath, he gets my vote--The Super Bowl of course was unique, but he had injuries most of his career---What would he have done in todays football Passing crazy era.

Don he probably would do just what he did in his day -- throw a lot more picks than touchdowns. :)

+1

I am not a stats only guy if I was Dave Krieg would have been in the Football Hall a long time ago.

I've always loved the story that Jurgensen tells occasionally (although I'm not sure I recall all of the details) about the time he dined at Johnny Unitas's restaurant named "The Golden Arm" in the late '60s. Johnny thanked Sonny for coming up to Baltimore from DC and Sonny replied, "It's a pleasure -- and thanks for naming your restaurant after me." Ha!!!!

That's false. Allen's teammates - Goose Gossage and Mike Schmidt, to name two - and managers (Gene Mauch) all praised Allen as a teammate and competitor. The "cancer" thing comes from him taking the job of a white teammate early in his career and an ensuing fight that was not his fault.

Those who Blackballed Gil Hodges
 

Brian - thanks for taking the time to give a very interesting analysis.

Dave F.

Dick Allen
 

For what it's worth.

Similar Batters
View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars
1.Lance Berkman (903)
2.Reggie Smith (894)
3.Ellis Burks (890)
4.Brian Giles (889)
5.Jermaine Dye (880)
6.George Foster (880)
7.Fred Lynn (875)
8.Tim Salmon (875)
9.Shawn Green (875)
10.Rocky Colavito (873)

Similarity is sometimes useful, sometimes not. Dick Allen was a dominant force in his era, leading the league in OPS four times and finishing with a career OPS+ of 156. Listing his "similar" guys doesn't really show how truly dominant he was during his career.

At a quick glance, Colavito's run of big seasons appears superior to Allen's, except he wasn't winning titles because of guys like Maris and Mantle. Three 40 HR seasons, Allen had one. Six 100 RBI years, I believe Allen had only 2 or 3.

If either Dick Allen or Tony Oliva belongs in the Hall with their 'abbreviated' careers, then wouldn't Don Mattingly be an absolute no-brainer??? 2100 hits, 1000+ RBI's and a .307 average in a career destroyed by injuries. He was a dominant force at the plate and far from shabby at first base.

For what it is worth, the ballot got it right in my opinion. Of the group, I like Hodges and Kaat the best but to call them Hall of Fame players, not so much. You could argue positive for any player on this list but to vote somebody in just because they are on the ballot does nothing for the Hall.

Now the crime of the balloting for the Hall of Fame is not having voted Lee Smith into the Hall already. In his day, he was the premier closer in an era when the closers ofter threw more than one inning. On top of it, he is a first rate human being. Probably won't be elected this year due to some really good players coming on to the ballot for the first time but he does belong in the Hall.

Dick Allen had 9 post season at bats. Wow. That didn't help him I guess.

Looking forward to the pre-integration ballot next year and seeing what names are on that list.

Different eras, different leagues. Colavito also hit just .266, slugged just .489. Allen hit .292, slugged .534. Allen had an OPS+ of 156 - for his career.

That's why "a quick glance" ain't enough.

I honestly never saw Allen play, but reading the below from Dave Fleming in 2008, he doesn't sound like an all out competitor.

Dick Allen, The Player



Looking only at his record, it is a little surprising that Dick Allen hasn’t been elected to the Hall of Fame. He won the 1964 Rookie of the Year and the 1972 AL MVP. He was a seven-time All-Star, a high .300 hitter with remarkable power. His career numbers suffer slightly because his prime years took place in an era of low offense, but by any reasonable measure Dick Allen was a great hitter.


Conservatively, Dick Allen was one of the top forty hitters of all-time. And that’s very conservative. He averaged 31.68 Win Shares per 162 games, which is higher than any first baseman except Lou Gehrig. Dick Allen won a few major awards and was the best offensive player in the game for ten years. His career line is a little low, but his peak is remarkable. His statistical record is the record of a Hall of Fame player.



Dick Allen, the Man



So we come to Dick Allen, the man. The debate about whether or not Dick Allen should be in the baseball Hall of Fame rests entirely on our interpretation of his personality, and how that personality influenced the teams he played on.



Bill James once wrote that Dick Allen “did more to keep his teams from winning than anyone else who ever played major league baseball.” In his Historical Abstract, Bill added that Dick Allen was the second most controversial player in baseball history, behind Rogers Hornsby.



Think about that for a moment: Dick Allen was the second most controversial player in history.



Here’s an exercise: write down a list of the most controversial players in baseball history. Ty Cobb would be on the list. Joe Jackson created a fair bit of controversy. Hal Chase: he was the Devil in a uniform. Babe Ruth generated a little bit of press, I suppose, and though it's forgotten now, Ted Williams was about as disliked as any player ever was. Joe Medwick almost caused a riot in the 1934 World Series and was nearly killed by a teammate. Reggie Jackson and Pete Rose had their moments. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are our current lightning rods.



I wasn’t around to follow Dick Allen’s career, but I have little reason to contradict Bill’s comments. And wherever Allen ranks among the most controversial players, there is no doubt that Dick Allen had a career filled with controversy. And you know what? A lot of that controversy is sort of ignored right now. It sure seems that accounts about Allen have undergone a kind of historical revision.



I’ll give you an example: the late Gene Mauch, Dick Allen’s former manager, was often asked about Allen. In those interviews Mauch made a concerted effort to describe Allen in a flattering light. He repeatedly called Allen the greatest player he ever managed, and when pressed to speak of Allen’s flaws, Mauch was quick to reject any suggestion that Allen wasn't a saint. If pressed hard, Mauch cites Allen’s chronic tardiness.


And you know what? Allen was chronically tardy. But saying so is a sort of half-truths: Allen was tardy because he was often stopping at bars before games to drink. And Mauch covered for Allen for years: time and time again Allen would miss games or get fined for causing trouble, and Mauch would explain everything away an innocuous excuse. Dick Allen has been fined for being late. Dick Allen isn’t playing because he has a sore body part. It wasn’t true. You get the sense, too, that Mauch wanted to be on the right side of history. He doesn’t want the teams he managed described as having any racial tensions. And to that end, he certainly wouldn’t want to voice any criticism of that team’s most visible black player.

Historical gerrymandering aside, I think Mauch’s motivations for making excuses for Dick Allen stemmed from the very best of human intentions: he wanted to protect Allen from fans who were exceedingly hard on Allen and a press that rode his ass from day one. It was an act of compassion for Mauch to say years later: “Dick Allen was always tardy,” when he really meant “Dick Allen had a serious drinking problem.” Compassion, sure, but it’s still a lie.



For those of us who didn’t follow Allen’s career, that sort of stuff is glossed over. How many of us know that Allen, eager to get out of Philly, started scratching notes in the on-deck circle. He wrote “Oct. 2” because it was the last day he’d have to wear the Philly uniform, and when the fans got on his case he wrote, “Boo.” It’s actually a little bit funny: he’d write stuff like “Mom” and “No,” and people in the stands would freak out. That’s hardly ever mentioned. He missed a doubleheader in 1969 because he was at the horse tracks, and then bitched and moaned when he was suspended. The suspension was lifted almost immediately, but Allen sat out 26 games, causing President Nixon to send Allen a message to start playing. When he came back, he insisted on his own private dressing room and made threats that ‘something would happen,’ if anyone complained. His manager quit in frustration when Allen refused to play an exhibition game against the Philly AA team.



All that crap is forgotten about. What is attended to, what is given weight in our considerations of Allen’s career, is the abuse he endured in 1963, as a member of the Phillies AAA team in Little Rock, Arkansas, and the similar abuse he endured from the Philadelphia fans and press. This stuff is brought up as a way to explain away Allen’s behavior, and to clarify the contexts of his times. The same holds true over Allen’s fight with teammate Frank Thomas: in the telling of the story, close attention is given to the racial overtones of the fight, to Thomas’s taunts about Cassius Clay and Malcolm X.



We strive, in this modern age, to understand contexts. We want to understand how Dick Allen became Dick Allen. It’s a reasonable aspiration, even a noble one. But it does Allen a disservice of sorts: by focusing on the circumstances that surrounded him, we deny the possibility that Allen had choices within those circumstances. He made the choice to be self-destructive. He made the choice to fight with Thomas, to chide Thomas and to rise to Thomas’s race-baiting. Allen had the talent to be an all-time great and he wasn’t. And as much as the world around him was set against him, he bears responsibilities for that failure.



I think Dick Allen is understood in two different ways, two conceptions that are separated by generational lines. Those of us who didn’t watch Allen, those of us who came along too late to see Allen and read the daily reports of his behavior, we grew up indoctrinated in the belief that context trumps character. That where we come from and what traumas we endure have a large role in shaping the kind of people we become. For this reason, we tend to think that Dick Allen’s failings are the failing of the larger society, while his successes are the triumphs of a courageous but flawed individual.



But those who did watch Allen, those who fought in a difficult war and endured the decade of social revolution that followed, they placed a greater burden on the actions of the individual. Life is hard, and the best we can do is use those hardships as motivations. Henry Aaron did that. Jackie Robinson did, too. So did Frank Robinson and Roberto Clemente and Larry Doby and Curt Flood and countless others. Dick Allen didn’t. Where the others strived for greatness, Dick Allen was content to sow discord and squander his ability. He should have been an all-time great, and he wasn’t. That was his choice.



I don’t know which interpretation is right, or if either one is completely fair. But the question about Dick Allen and the Hall of Fame is a hard question to answer, because it extends beyond simply statistical analysis. It encroached on the terrain of how we imagine we should live our own lives, and by what measure we judge the lives of others.

I wouldn't call his peak "remarkable." Sure, his typical season of 30-90/95-.295 was very solid in the context of that time, but "remarkable"????

Jim Bunning on the process
 

Interesting little article on philly.com today about Jim Bunning's experience at the Golden Era balloting session. The man sounds exasperated...

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/...rfect_day.html

It seems this will keep being thrown out there, and I'll keep defending Hooper as a legitimate and completely deserving HOFer. I'll copy an updated version what I wrote several times before:

A few points about Hooper:

- He was a lead-off man with more pop than most,
- His job was to score runs - he scored 1429 of them (#82 all time), averaging 100 per full season over his entire career,
- Ranked #106 all time in career base hits,
- Ranked #40 all time in triples, which means, in that era, both speed and power,
- Drew over 1000 walks, averaging 80 per full season, good for #71 all-time,
- Glove? Not even a question. One of the greatest ever. Key component of what many regard as the best outfield of all time,
- World Series? Unreal with both glove and bat. Won 4 World Series titles with Red Sox between 1912-1918. The key player who was a constant in all 4 Red Sox championship years. Hooper is the only HOFer to play in all 4 years of the Red Sox dynasty of the 1910s. And Speaker only played 2 of the 4. Can you imagine the uproar in New York if a team from that city won 4 World Series titles in 7 years and only sent one guy from those teams to the HOF? Unthinkable.
- First player ever to hit 2 home runs in a single WS game in 1915,
- Also stole 375 bases, good for #90 all-time,
- The first and longest part of his career was played in the dead ball era with Boston. He hit .272 over this period. He went to Chicago roughly when the lively ball came into play and after that - in the seasons forming the twilight of his career - he hit .302...pretty good evidence of the effect of the lively ball on the stats of some players.

So I strongly disagree with the widely-held idea that Hooper does not belong. To me he is an obvious HOFer.

Cheers,
Blair

I never though there was any real controversy over Hooper being in the Hall. He may not be a top tier or even a mid tier Hall Of Fame player, but he is deserving for his steady play and key contributions to one of the great early dynasties.

I would put him in before someone like Tony Lazzeri.

Tom C

I'm still pissed Minnie didn't get in.

Me Too! He's very deserving.

Dan, I know how you feel. The fact that Minnie isn't in is proof baseball's Hall of Fame balloting is totally busted. If you look at all Minnie achieved — he was a five tool player who was baseball's first Spanish-speaking star, and put up stellar numbers for a decade despite missing several prime years as a result of the color of his skin — he's unquestionably a Hall of Famer. I can't take the Hall of Fame seriously until he's in.

First off, I'm not saying I think Bunning shouldn't be in the HOF, nor am I saying he should....

4 x 19W seasons and only 1 x 20W season (and it was exactly 20Ws).... just one more W in 3 of 4 of those seasons would have helped....

wolf441----Your rundown on Dick Allen was extremely well-written and thought provocative. The only thing I might add is that when he came to Chicago, he had what I believe was his best year, happiest year, and it was one glorious honeymoon for all concerned. For a while.

Then Dick reverted to his divisive ways of stinkin' thinkin' and everything went to pot all over again.

Sure, he had some "Hall of Famer" years; but in retrospect, he has absolutely no place on a bronze plaque at Cooperstown. By this time, most horses probably don't want him hanging around them, either.

You guys who say Minnie Minoso belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame----KEEP SHOUTING, MAKING NOISE, AND BOMBARD THE HALL!!!! Minnie needs a guy like the one that helped found SPORTS SCOOP in the early 70s and launched a tirade of "The Dirty Deal" articles at the BHOF for the way they had long ignored Earl Averill. It worked. Earl got elected, and rightfully so.


Minnie Minoso belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame. He may not wear a World Series ring, but his name rings loud and strong among us who have studied his contributions to the Chicago White Sox and Latin people, beginning at the not so tender age of, what was it, 29!?!

This won't count, of course, but in 1961, in the northwest suburb of Chicago where I lived, when you got Minnie Minoso's Topps baseball card, it was just as exciting as when you got Mickey Mantle's. ---Brian Powell

Minoso's major league debut was at the age of 23.

I don't think Minoso was a better player than Mattingly or Larry Walker and neither of them will probably ever get in.

Regardless how old Minnie was when he broke in — more than one birth date been published — he was good enough in 1946 to bat leadoff for the New York Cubans when they won the Negro League World Series. He didn't get a chance to play regularly in the majors until 1951.

Outstanding defense of Harry Hooper... and some food for thought
 

Blair deserves kudos for his outstanding defense of Harry Hooper's record. As I paged through Deadball Stars of the American League and Deadball Stars of the National League I became increasingly impressed by the baseball ability of many who played during the T206 era, who contributed mightily to their teams and who, sadly, have been largely forgotten or overlooked due to the differences in strategy, the style of play and even the baseballs used.

Well done, Blair. What applies to Harry Hooper (in various ways) applies to a goodly number of other Deadball Era stars including Sherry Magee, Stuffy McInnis, Jake Daubert and others.

As others have said, Harry Hooper IS a Hall of Famer and deserves to be one - as does Jim Bunning.

If I were Bunning working with some of those guys...
 

Interesting article. If I had been in Jim Bunning's shoes and working with guys who (in the past) had sent in blank BBWAA Hall of Fame ballots, did not ask questions or give comment on deserving players and otherwise served as a potted plant during the gathering, I would be disgusted, too. It is my view that the committee was almost doomed from the start, given its composition and the participation of its members.

As most know, Jim Bunning pitcher became Congressman (later Senator) James Bunning of Kentucky following his Hall of Fame pitching career. He is used to mixing it up politically and it sounds like he fought for Richie Allen (and possibly others) for the Hall of Fame. We need more fighters like Jim - in Washington and on behalf of Cooperstown worthies.

He also fought for Maury Wills, who belongs nowhere near the HOF.

Thanks very much, Steve! :)

Cheers,
Blair

First off, the birth date of Minoso is up in the air, like that of Satchel Paige. I have always gone by my 1964 Chicago White Sox yearbook entry for Minnie, which lists his birthday as November 29, 1922. What Cleveland offered him in 1949 was a cup o' coffee. His genuine first year of play was 1951, so if the yearbook date is correct, I was off by one year. He was 28, the same late age as when Jackie Robinson began his major league career. ---Brian Powell

If the 1922 birth date is correct, his age 23 and 24 seasons in the Negro Leagues weren't anything to write home about. Much more understandable numbers if he was 20 and 21 at the time however. Not sure what his winter league stats looked like in Cuba over these years.

Tom C

nice interview w/ Minnie

HOF is a joke until Minnie gets in