Top 25 Worst MLB HOFER’S
 

Thought this was an interesting read.

https://www.stadiumtalk.com/s/worst-...d82210714841b8

Tommy McCarthy was rooked--he should have been number one.

Interesting stuff! McCarthy must have made a lot of friends in his playing days.

I feel like the 19th century is riddled with players that should be in the HOF over a lot of the players in that article:

Jim McCormick
Tony Mullane
Bob Caruthers
Harry Stovey
Paul Hines
Lave Cross
Jack Glasscock

Etc, etc.

Harold Baines, that was easy.

Could not agree more. Baines lowered the bar more than any other player

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/12/10/ha...-fame-election

I'm not going to comment on the list itself, but I will use McCarthy as an example. He was one of the first players voted in. Who are we to say that was a mistake instead of the benchmark? It reminds me of current voters changing the MVP award from almost always going to the best player on the best team to just the best player regardless of the team, then saying old voters got it wrong.

I don't agree with either. If the old voters set the standard, then that's what the standard should be. Who takes it upon themselves to make it harder to get into the Hall of Fame just because they think it should be harder. No one who was among the original committee, that's for sure. And nothing annoys me more than people saying the dumbest line ever "It's not the Hall of very good". Yeah, it's also not the Hall of great, very great, outstanding or any other words you want to use. It's the Hall of Fame.

The initial announcement for the Hall of Fame in August of 1935 said they hoped to have 50 players inducted by the 1939 centennial, so they didn't exactly want it to be that strict from the start. They also said that group of 50 would be "all-stars". I don't think anyone says McCarthy wasn't all-star quality. Another said that those 50 all-stars would be from the National League and American League, so they were purposely leaving out some players who made their name in the American Association (which you could argue still exists with some of their choices)

But if McCarthy is the standard, there have been literally THOUSANDS of players better than him in the history of the game.

I don't agree with "revisionist history" either, but I also don't believe in exacerbating mistakes for the sake of historical consistency.

100% agree.

Just food for thought. I was curious why Baines is always the poster child for this kind of discussion..

Cal Ripken, who came to mind for some reason, vs Baines...

https://stathead.com/baseball/player...ineha01&type=b

One is a gold glove shortstop with a hallowed record, the other a DH. Though I agree Ripken is overrated in the public mind. Baines isn’t even close to Ripken overall, I think, only if you look at the raw hitting without any defense or position adjustment.

'worst" HOF?
 

Whew, Baseballcrazy62, you have opened a can of worms:)

My thought consistently goes to Phil Rizzuto. Exactly ONE good offensive
year (1950) and, in my opinion, riding the Yankee coattails like a good surfer
riding a wave... I did not do exhaustive research on every HOF member, he
merely strikes me as someone who should be in the conversation.

G1911- back to the "overrated" thing, and your little ploy of dangling
backhanded compliments? Great. Cal Ripken owns a "hallowed record" but
is "overrated in the public mind"? I know, when questioned you'll reply, "But
I said he was a Gold Glove shortstop with a hallowed record" (before you
insulted him, of course). I know you won't consider facts that wreck your
proclamations, but for those who do:

1) Ripken is NUMBER ONE all time for home runs for shortstops.
2) Ripken is NUMBER ONE all time for RBI among shortstops.
3) The consecutive game mark isn't just a "hallowed record". It's an
astonishing accomplishment that, in today's game, is hard to imagine
anyone ever eclipsing.
4) Ripken was an excellent defensive player for the bulk of his career.
5) Two MVPs.

Pray tell, what is this "public mind" you can access? Never mind, don't tell.
Your comment was ridiculous and indefensible, but you keep being you...

Trent King (not an Orioles fan!)

Ray Schalk

Harold really did lower the bar and sadly others better are out when he is in.

I think you could go either or on some of the picks. They went with Bottomley but I think could have went with Chick Hafey. Herman, Aparicio and Nellie Fox are on there but I think you could pick Joe Gordon too. There are guys who peaked like Catfish but I could see Robin Roberts on there in his place.

Total +1 agreement.

It looks like the list was created strictly utilizing the WAR/162 games stat as a ranking device, thus Lloyd Waner, at 1.96, is ranked at the top spot, and neglects any other career measuring device for players, whether subjective or objective.

Brian

I’ve been busted, you’ve uncovered my massive conspiracy to tarnish Cal Ripken :rolleyes:. My proclamation has been #wrecked! Got ‘em!

You’re so weird. Two things can be true at once. Ripken is overrated in the public mind; he’s also a stud shortstop and a top 10er. He does own a hallowed record. I know you’re furious some people didn’t join in your hagiography of Clemente instead of looking at the math but get over it. You will always find something to be offended over if you’re looking for it.

After Ripken RC's cratered in price, you were planning to buy them all up and corner the market, weren't you? #evilmastermind

:D:D:D

Man, how did you know?! I thought I was about to cash out a million or two off this genius scam I had planned out :(.

When I was a kid, I went as Cal Ripken for Halloween one year after he broke the record. He was the only jersey I owned, even though I was from a Giants house.

I'd take Pie Traynor off the list. Until Brooks Robinson's performance in the 1970 World Series, Traynor was almost universally ranked as the greatest third baseman of all time. Everyone couldn't have been that wrong for so long.

I was surprised not to see Tinker or Evers or Chance. I know there are some Evers fans on the board, but Tinker?

Worst HOF
 

G1911-

1) Regarding overrated, I'll call upon the wisdom of Inigo Montoya-
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it
means".

2) Funny you mention hagiographies. At least mine would be of someone
worthy of it as a player and a person, rather than of myself as you are
so humbly attempting...

3) Of course two things can be true at once, you dolt. The problem is that
your two aren't both true. What color is the sky in your world?

Go away! Trent King

Thanks for the daily dose of batshit insanity. Again. How many times do you want to do this weird thing before you just grow up, kid?

The list is just sorting by WAR rate, but I agree. WAR absolutely hates Traynor, and there may be a lesson that he’s been overrated, but I have a hard time seeing how he isn’t a hall of famer at all by the standards of his time and his election time.

I wouldn’t put in Evers or Tinker, personally.

Baines and Lloyd Waner are hard to top in my book as the worst choices. As I understand it Tommy McCarthy was inducted more for his inventive plays and innovations and role as the anti-Oriole when baseball was getting a thuggish reputation. A lot of the bad picks were elected for reasons other than the numbers we are looking at. Baines wasn’t, and Waner was because he hit .300 and his brother was great.

The list is imperfect but interesting. I don't know that WAR and stat line per 162 games are very good measurements of a Hall of Famer, especially those that didn't play 162 game seasons, but to each his own.

What's interesting about the list is how much it skews "old timer". People always talk about the Hall of Fame like the Hall of Fame standard is going DOWN, but in reality, it's been trending UP for a few decades.

Just as not every Hall of Famer elected today isn't a "inner circle" Hall of Famer, most Hall of Famers historically also aren't "inner circle".

There are a lot worse choices than Baines, which is not to say he is a good pick.

Worst HOF
 

G1911-

1) your attempts at "logic" are even weaker than normal. No meds today?

2) you're the kid in this relationship, Chief. I'm guessing 35 years old,
frustrated former athlete? Pretty close? Yeah...

3) I noticed you have flatly failed to weigh in on the actual topic of worst
HOFer. Wonder why that is?

4) Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a life. In my mind, you are more of a
Miniature Pinscher than an actual Doberman, and you are way off base
(again) when it comes to basic reading comprehension and staying
on point. Maybe you need another hobby?

Trent King

I have weighed in. Go read again. Can you just stop this bullshit and vaguely behave? I get you have a hate boner for me, but I don’t really care and I don’t know why you need to spam the board with it. You aren’t “staying on point” you aren’t too good for this because you have a life, because this is like the fifth time you’ve started this out of nowhere. Grow up.

I think we were doing really good until a few years ago; selections were getting better and better but the last few years we’ve had a lot of highly questionable selections from the era committees. I think the writers have pretty much always picked deserving candidates on the whole. The Fritsch committee period and it’s open corruption was probably the worst; I give a lot more leeway in context for the 1950’s selections of 19th century players. The research industry in baseball wasn’t really a thing then, they had limited information and most of them aren’t terrible selections on the whole.

I think the most egregious part of the whole Baines fiasco was that it was basically a carbon copy of the "bad old days" Fritsch committee. Baines get voted in by a closed door committee that just happens to have a former owner and a former manager from Baines playing days on it.

There have been some borderline selection of late, although other than Baines, I can't think of that truly offend me. Even the year Jack Morris got in, Alan Trammell did too. I remember thinking "I'll take that trade" at the time.

Baines is the guy I an issue with. But I have more issues with this list. Pie Traynor was on a number of all time great teams as late as the 70's ( rold gold / kelloggs all time greats). Waner lifetime 316 hitter hit over 350 3 times and was a gold glove level center fielder. Catfish was a Great pitcher for some great teams. Teams that don't win world series without him. Tough to judge so many different era's with WAR.
JMHO
J

Candy Cummings has to be the undisputed #1

Baines is obvious and Rabbit Maranville would round out my top 3 cuts

The three worst picks of the 21st century are, I think, Baines, Morris, Effa Manley and Sutter. I disagree with some others, but those were the ones that seemed dubious.

The corruption that seems readily apparent in Baines’ pick really helps make it stand out, and I think has a lot to do with why people were particularly unhappy with that one. Fritsch hurt his own legacy by shoveling a dozen or more picks like Baines of his pals.

I can't believe that it took until post 32 to mention Bruce Sutter. He barely broke 20 in bWAR and was below 20 in fWAR. Even if there were an anti-reliever bias in the WAR calcs (and I'm not saying there is), there's really no justification for his selection.

Not going to mention any names as everyone has their own opinion. The theme through this article seems to be Home Run's (lack of), longevity and Veterans Committee and, in many cases, New York. I do believe the Veteran's Committee feel they MUST vote someone it and how best to do it is longevity. If a player played for so many years he must have been great and, especiality, if he was in New York.

I admit I am biased but look at Phil Cavarretta's numbers:

Career 22 YEARS
WAR AB H HR BA R RBI SB OBP SLG OPS OPS+
37.0 6754 1977 95 .293 990 920 65 .372 .416 .788 118

Played a long time - has a WAR of 37 but not in New York. I believe if he had played on some other team he would have been voted in by the Veterans Committee. Do I believe he belongs in the HOF? No, but he was better than some of the ones in.
Just my opinion.

I didn't know 10 of those guys were even in the hall! :confused:

I agree 100%. Absent the strikes baines most likely gets 3000 hits and easily gets in before needing a committee.as is though he is one of the 25 worst. Just not the overall worst.

"Even if there were an anti-reliever bias in the WAR calcs (and I'm not saying there is)"

Far from being an anti-reliever bias in WAR, there's a pro reliever bias. WAR has a leverage component, which means that it rates pitcher performance in late-and-close situations more than it does in other situations. Which is to say that relievers get more credit than their raw stats would deserve.

My brother posted this tidbit on Twitter recently, and I thought it was at least tangential to this conversation.

There are 268 Hall of Famers inducted as players.

Only 101 of them debuted after Jackie Robinson’s debut with the Kansas City Monarchs in 1945.

Harold Baines never hurt nobody. Jeez, leave the guy alone. :D:D

You take the 25 worst guys out of the HOF, then you still have the 25 worst guys in there.

People take this sh*t way too personally. It's just a neat way to honor the old-timers of the past. No more, no less.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I thought I was the only one who lost a little bit of his soul every time I heard this phrase or saw it in print. ;)

I don't like the WAR average stat as the sole benchmark either. It definitely has its uses: Milt Pappas always complained that he had basically the same record as Don Drysdale, but his WAR is only 2/3 of Drysdale's. It does matter how you get to a record, not just getting there. That said, the methodology hammers defensive players and players who did not meet the mould of what the position 'should' be. How do you say Maz was the Babe Ruth of 2nd basemen, yet label him a bad choice? Or Pie Traynor, whose sin appears to be light hitting? Or Aparicio, who was both a pioneering Latin American player (1st Venezuelan in the HOF) and a tremendous shortstop? My favorite example of this position bias is Mark Grace. His WAR is 46.7 (better than quite a few HOFers), four Gold Gloves, lifetime batting average .303. His sin is that he was a singles hitter at a position where players are 'supposed to be' boppers.

Maybe we need a tiered system like Japanese HOF? Achieving specific statistical milestones gets a player into the HOF automatically, but the inner circle takes an actual vote and is reserved for the players who pass that layer of screening.

Agree on Baines, and the Morris selection almost felt like a "FU" to anyone who uses modern analytics (you know, in our mom's basements with our stained t-shirts).

I don't know enough about Manley to comment, although generally I think owners shouldn't be in the HOF.

To me, Sutter is borderline but not that awful. He's got 24.0 WAR on BBR. That's 26th on their list of relievers, but at least a dozen guys ahead of him on the list started a lot of games, so really he's probably top 15 for pure relievers.

Looking at relievers ahead of him on the list, I see a lot of guys who aren't in the Hall that could/should be - Wagner, Nathan, maybe Rodriguez, plus guys I'd consider borderline like Quizenberry. I also see a handful of guys who were relievers who I don't think of Hall of Famers, like Kent Tekulve.

So, the number of relievers who were pure relievers, had 300 career saves, and a WAR higher than Sutter isn't a long list, and I don't find them offensive as Hall of Famers.

So, maybe Sutter IS the borderline/floor. He's certainly a borderline candidate, but making him the floor doesn't seem to cause major issues for me.

I thought the HOF was just a pump and dump for the city/hotel that somehow stuck like the silly pump and dump on the centering on cards has.:eek::D

Morgan Bulkeley is the single worst selection ever made.

His association with the game of baseball was really short and uneventful. He just happened to be the 1st NL President (he was also only President for 1 season) He got in based on him being 1st… that is it.

He was also part of the Mills Commission that gave life to the Doubleday myth.

Agree...and it's worth noting that the 268 players in the hall still represents rough 1.2% of all major league players in the history of the game.

i had forgotten he was in. Shocking

I think the Manager section of the Hall of Fame is the weakest and hardly anyone in should actually be in.

Tony La Russa won 3 titles, that's nice. But over 37 years. He's lost over 2500 games.

Tommy Lasorda won 2 titles in 22 years. Ok, I guess, but what about his nearly .500 record as a manager?

Earl Weaver won exactly one title in 18 seasons. Why is he in? Aren't managers with one title a dime a dozen? Someone wins one every year.

I agree. I usually say...if he's got a 50 WAR, he would have a closer look. If he has a 60, he really needs a better look. If he has a 70, the voters probably messed up.

The list of eligible players who do not have steroid or gambling issues and have a WAR over 70 is short: Schilling, Jim McCormick (1800s pitcher), Bill Dahlen, Lou Whitaker, Bobby Grich, and Scott Rolen. Carlos Beltran become eligible next year and will be a difficult case. I may have missed somebody. BTW, Rick Reuschel I pretty close at 69.5.

I also think there is a flukey thing with WAR and the 1970s era...some of the players seem really light.

My issue with Sutter is that he represented a huge lowering of the floor. The hall will water down with time, inevitably, but when it does it should be a gradual lowering, electing the guys who just missed the previous standard (it's impossible for a hall not to do this, you elect the absolute elites the first few years and then the standard has to lower or the hall ceases). I think a big factor in highlighting terrible picks is the context of the pick, and how much the pick lowered the existing standard below just electing the best guy at that position who isn't in, which I would call the always reasonable and inevitable lowering.

Relievers in the Hall when Sutter was elected:
1985 - Hoyt Wilhelm
1992 - Fingers
2004 - Eckersley

And... That's it.

Wilhelm:
Innings: 2,254
Years: 21
Saves: 228
ERA+: 147

Fingers:
Innings: 1,701
Years: 17
Saves: 341
ERA+: 120
WAR: 25.6

Eck:
Innings: 3,285
Years: 24
Saves: 390
ERA+: 116
WAR: 62.1

Sutter:
Innings: 1,042
Years: 12
Saves: 300
ERA+: 136
WAR: 24

Wilhelm and Eck are clearly above the others. Wilhelm's saves are low, but era context eliminates that concern. Eck is greatly aided by actually being a decent full time pitcher for years before relieving (which he was elected for). Lower ERA, but he played literally three times as much as Sutter. Sutter has a good ERA, but little else. Fingers was a poor pick, elected for being on a great team with few HOF players at all, his personality and mustache (has any other player had their physical appearance appear to boost their ranking so much?) his ERA is low, he did play 70% more than Sutter which counts for a lot. Showing up produces value.

Sutter seems less egregious looking at the list today, but they skipped Smith, they skipped Gossage, they skipped Quisinberry (who still isn't in and shouldn't be, but I think the record shows was better than Sutter), they skipped Guidry who has a better ERA and double the WAR of Sutter, they skipped so many of his direct contemporaries at his position that were better. In 2006, Sutter was a an egregious lowering of the standard skipping over many better players at his position that played at the same time. Now that Gossage and Smith are in and Quisenberry is very close to Sutter, it looks more like Guidry has a good case than that Sutter is egregious. But at the time, I think it was a horrible pick.



My personal unpopular opinion, separate from who makes the Hall's general standard, is that electing pitchers who barely pitch and don't even reach 2,000 innings is something of a joke. To merit induction one must be truly dominating. Wilhelm and Rivera are about the only ones I would vote for.

This. WAR is written to dictate the general outcome. It is very specifically designed to heavily puinish nineteenth century pitchers and heavily reward modern relievers. There are numerous era biases and judgements in it that one has to implicitly consider accurate and right to use WAR as an effective measurement.

Wilhelm really was an underrated guy. What a beast of a career. Obviously lights out from the pen but given the chance start almost full-time at 36 years old he wins 15 games and leads the league in ERA and ERA+.

Guy pitched in over a 1,000 games and didn't even start his career until he was 29.

Wilhelm is the reliever who really screams "why didn't they let him start?" to me. He got to be a starter for only one full season, a season in which he led the league in ERA. Back to the bullpen after that.

A friend of mine once remarked that it called the Hall of Fame not the "Hall of Stats"...
WAR and other Uber stats (like Win Shares) purport to capture the worth of players based entirely on their statistical performances during the regular seasons. This is insufficient to measure a career for HOF purposes. Here are some of my additional factors:
1) What if the player won a lot -- doesn't that mean something (hence the abundance of Yankees with iffy WAR scores like Scooter and Ruffing)
2) What if the player was considered the BEST or among the very best at a certain aspect of the game ? Brock with SBs, Mazeroski and Maranville as great middle infielders... Sewell and Kell were impossible to strike out).
3) What if the player was recognized at the time and and years after as the BEST at his position? As Paul pointed out above-- Pie Traynor was considered baseball's greatest 3B for many many years after his career. I have a Kelloggs' 3D card of him that reflects this estimation from the early 1970's.
4) What about innovation (I don't just mean Candy Cummings) how about Bruce Sutter, Roger Bresnahan etc.
5) What about short-term greatness ?
6) What about great Post-season performances? Jack Morris for instance.
Remember: the object of the game is to win championships.
That said, I still think T. McCarthy, G. Kelly and "Sunny Jim" Bottomley and many of the others are less than worthy. We know that Frisch packed the HOF with his cronies and some like Kelly and Lindstrom simply don't measure up.... And I also think that Dahlen and some of the others discussed above belong instead.
But it's about a lot more than WAR scores...
---
Also I note that Tommy McCarthy was a big winner in his day and considered a stellar outfielder. I don't think this is enough to put him in the HOF but it does explain why the Veterans Committee back in the day picked him without the benefit of WAR (or much else given the paucity of 19th Century stats at the time). They selected someone based on legend and reputation - he was one of the "heavenly twins" of the outfield with Hugh Duffy...
https://baseballegg.com/2010/02/01/b...eavenly-twins/

If it's about being the best player at your position in your time then there's no reason Larry Doyle shouldn't be in. He was easily the best second basemen the NL had for a very long time.

If Baines and Sutter are your guys punching bags, consider yourselves lucky.

I’m all for putting in just about anybody into any specific HOF for any particular reason, as long as they made their mark on the sport. Now go look up Jackie Tonawanda. International Boxing Hall of Fame recently put her in the hall.

I’m all for trailblazing female boxers getting in. Problem is, there’s no record of her actually being a boxer, or fighting any other women. She happened to fool a bunch of writers in the 70’s and 80’s that she was some sort of gym warrior. Most have admitted they got taken by her, through made up news clippings and press releases.

She was one of the first women to get licensed to box in the state of New York, but never actually used it. She called herself “The female Muhammad Ali”, and even conned Ali into taking pictures with her and talking her up, but she ignored any women who actually wanted to fight her. She was a manufactured persona.

Weird thing is, she was dead 10+ years before she got elected into the HOF, so somehow she conned a bunch of people from the grave to let her in. It’s basically the equivalent of Sidd Finch getting into the Baseball HOF.

I agree with much of this. I don't think there's much of a Yankee bias (For every questionable Yankee in, there's one you would expect to have made it if there was a Yankee bias, like Mattingly). Winning doesn't matter much, even the absolute best couldn't win championships on their own, in a game where the impact of a single player is limited over the course of a season it's not a good measure of an individual. Context of the election is important, and why I wouldn't put Cummings on a list of the worst choices, or necessarily even McCarthy.

Cummings was not elected for his statistical performance, he was elected because he was thought to have either invented the curveball or popularized it and brought it to the mainstream game. Which seems a clearly worthy innovation.

McCarthy was in the AA and WAR hates him and OPS+ hates him, but these didn't exist. He stole a ton of bases, scored a ton of runs, and hit .292. He had a reputation for wonderful defense and developed new plays and styles that were a counter to an unpopular-among-baseball-elitists thuggish style of play. I'm not even clear that they had available full statistics of the traditional stats for him in 1947 when he was picked.

Maranville, Mazeroski and Schalk were elected for their defense. It is reasonable to posit that defense of non-pitchers doesn't have enough of an impact to merit induction for it alone, but the use of batting stats to deride the choices that is usually done instead completely misses the context.

I think it much worse when the reasons actually present in that time for the selection are A) completely unreasonable, B) inconsistent or C) openly corrupt. Waner, the Fritsch appointments, Baines, Sutter, Morris, these types where the standards used for them are corrupt or pretty inconsistent and unreasonable are much worse picks.

Excellent post. The value of a player to his team is more than statistics. There are intangibles involved. Also, how a player is viewed by his peers is important. By this I mean that teammates know who they value most and opponents know who they fear most.

This would only be true in general if new players didn't become eligible every year. In terms of say the various "veterans" committees, it is true though....no new games are being played in the 1920's.

I don't disagree with your comment on context, it's very important. But one thing with the reliever example is that the entire context at the time was "three completely dissimilar things". You had Wilhelm, a non-closer reliever with a ton of innings, Eck who was a hyrbid, and Fingers.

So, really the comparison is:

Fingers:
Innings: 1,701
Years: 17
Saves: 341
ERA+: 120
WAR: 25.6

Sutter:
Innings: 1,042
Years: 12
Saves: 300
ERA+: 136
WAR: 24

Fingers pitched longer, for sure. But he didn't have THAT many more saves, and not THAT much higher WAR, and a lower ERA+...not that voters at the time were looking at those things, but are Fingers and Sutter's stat lines THAT dissimilar?

Strike out rate for batters.... interesting list that includes many of the less "worthy" HOFers under WAR.

I'm just putting this out there. I think it's hardly the most important stat in measuring greatness.

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/hit...istrkop1.shtml

baseball reference has a slightly different list (with Keeler on top instead of Sewell and includes 19th century guys)

https://www.baseball-reference.com/l...t_career.shtml

Modern, analytics-driven baseball does not devalue players who strike out so much. I think it used to be more shameful for hitters to strikeout and that may explain why those who were "harder to strikeout" were considered "great" before anyone was thinking about things like OPS (let alone WAR).

Eppa Rixey just because of his name.

I think Tinker, Evers, and Chance are all UNDERRATED.

The Cubs were a powerhouse with them and then became losers after they left. Also, Evers went to the Braves and was the MVP of the whole league and helped that sorry franchise win the WS.

I was beyond taken aback when Sutter went in. Never thought I'd feel more strongly about an induction; then came Baines. Will there ever be anyone lower than Baines inducted in the future? Guess we shouldn't be surprised.

It does stink on a personal level that these two nice guys always bear the brunt of such conversations, but alas, it's not solely a wonderful disposition that gets you through the hallowed doors.

I knew Rick Ferrell and am not really sure he belongs. How has Wes been overlooked all these years? He was a very strong pitcher on some classically terrible teams. Oh, there's the answer to that.

Baines, Haines and Raines. Hey, that rhymes! It should make it that much easier to remember when getting out my imaginary eraser.

There was that long-forgotten guy in between Pie and Brooks who was always touted as the greatest defensive 3B of his era. Many who saw him actually said he was the best, and many of those also saw Traynor! See my username.

I have a handwritten letter written to me from none other than that wonderful man, Brooksie, letting me know that he concurred about Cox' prowess (although Brooks would have never seen Cox in his prime as far as I know).

Just interested on Sutter...do people think that relievers other than the top few shouldn't go in, or that there are more deserving closers than Sutter NOT in, or both?

Don’t think it has more to do with the pitching staff leaving or falling apart then too? I don’t see a mathematical argument for Evers. Perhaps I am missing something. He’s slightly above league average at the plate, excellent glove. I’m not seeing much to make a HOFer, using the modern analytics or the traditional. Tinkers bat was below league average. I personally don’t find poetic/romantic arguments compelling and I don’t see one besides this.

Chance was a regular for like 6 years, but he gets major points for his managerial success and I’m fine with him overall. If a player only, he’s an egregious choice.

How about Bill Mazeroski. Do you think he was inducted into the Hall of Fame because of a game winning home run to win the 1960 World Series?

I think it was his reputation as the GOAT 2B that did it. Big bomb doesn’t hurt.

+1

It is bizarre that Rick Ferrell is in the HOF, considering that his brother and frequent battery mate Wes, is not.

In addition to being a fine pitcher, Wes Ferrell is probably the greatest hitting pitcher ever not named Ruth or Ohtani, and was frequently used as a pinch hitter. In 1935 Wes led the league in wins (25), complete games (31), and innings pitched (322). And in 179 plate appearances, Wes' slash line was .347/.427/.533 with 7 HRs and 32 RBI. It was good enough for 2nd in MVP behind Hank Greenberg. But Wes led the League in WAR with a towering 10.6 compared to Greenberg's 7.5. Over the course of his career, Wes hit .280 with an OBP of .351 and 38 HRs (37 of which were hit as a pitcher, which is the most ever).

I'm a small Hall guy, so I don't think Wes necessarily deserves to be inducted. But compared to his brother? Wes' career WAR of 60.1 is almost double his brother's 30.8. What a joke.

I saw Billy play at Ebbets Field a couple of times in the '50's. He played a mean 'hot corner'. There were a couple of rifle arms playing with Brooklyn in those days; Billy and Carl Furillo.
Ebbets is now a project and not a very nice one.

Ripken is overrated in the sense that he was often called the greatest, or nearly the greatest, SS ever during his career. Not even close to that. He won two MVPs - a tremendous accomplishment! But he also hit .264 or lower TEN times during his career. He hit a ton of home runs - at basically the same rate as Travis Fryman.

But, yes, he was a great player and very deserving of his place in the Hall.

I would argue Eck doesn't belong in the Hall. He's incredibly overrated as a reliever. Does 3 great seasons plus one very good one make somebody an all-time great reliever?

Look at the list. In the context the statement was made, it was the 4 relievers in the hall of fame through 2006. Is Eck “clearly ahead” of Fingers and Sutter in his careers value? Obviously yes. I also specifically said later in the post I would not put Eck in the hall. When did I say he was an all time great reliever?

His being in the Hall implies he's an all-time great.

I suppose you could argue that Eck has more career value than Sutter but that's just because he has a decade+ of mediocre years as a starter. Sutter, who also doesn't belong in the Hall, was clearly a better reliever than Eck.

Didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

For my money its Alan Trammell
Jim Kaat for honorable mention

Fred McGriff is reading this and grinding his teeth

I would say without that HR, he's not in.

And shouldn't be in. One shining moment + a solid, albeit not great career does not = HOF.

Two incredibly gifted Pennsylvania boys. Billy let his arm do the talking; Carl should have taken from Cox' example!

You're so lucky to have seen them play; I had the misfortune of being born too late and too far away. I did visit the Jackie Robinson Housing Project about 30 years ago; it wasn't too bad at that time, although the surrounding neighborhood was pretty dangerous.

While I never did get a chance to meet Billy, I did speak with his widow and became good buddies with his closest lifelong friend.

Interesting that the card market for all these players agrees with the article EXCEPT with Brock.