Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Looks like Sutter next year.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Sutter and Rice and Gossage will have their LAST great chance to get in NEXT year...<br /><br />because the list of FIRST-time eligible players in 2006 has ZERO players that will ever make it in:<br /><br />Rick Aguilera, Tim Belcher, Will Clark, Alex Fernandez, Gary Gaetti, Dwight Gooden, Ozzie Guillen, Juan Guzman, Orel Hershiser, Gregg Jefferies, Lance Johnson, Doug Jones, Roberto Kelly, Mickey Morandini, Hal Morris, Jaime Navarro, Luis Polonia, Mike Stanley, Walt Weiss, John Wetteland, Mark Whiten

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>steve k</b><p>Well, Boggs of course and even though I wouldn't have choosen Sandberg, I'm not upset about it and I'll consider him a marginal Hall of Famer - but there are a number in there which I will never consider HOFers even though they get inducted - and that includes many of the Veterans Committee selections.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I don't get how people think Sandberg is a not worthy of the HOF? Simply he put, he was the greatest 2B of his day and was the prototype for the 2B we see today. It's not like his numbers are puffed up by smaller ballparks or anything. Joe Morgan is probably the only 2B better than Sanberg to ever play the game.<br /><br />It still find it sad that Jack Morris, THE dominant pitcher of the 80s with 162 wins in that decade, gets zero respect. In the 80s, if I needed to win one game, I'd have wnated Morris on the mound and was damn glad he was there for Game 7 of the 1991 WS.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p>but Jay, you have to remember - there is no HOF handicap that allows Twins in automatically!

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Even though Morris pitched for the Twins, He will always be a Tiger in my mind.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Kenny Cole</b><p>Morris also had that memorable quote about female reporters in the locker room. It was something to the effect that the only time he ever wanted to talk to a woman naked was when he was on top of her or she was on top of him.<br /><br />I have to respect a guy who said what I imagine most of the players were thinking, even if his comment wasn't exactly PC. Morris is a HOFer in my book.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Jay--Ever hear of a guy named Rogers Hornsby

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p>That is right up there with some of the things Dave Kingman said.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>mfricke</b><p>The reason I don't think Sandberg should be in the Hall of Fame has less to do with his ability and more to do with the voting process.<br /><br />Sandberg was eligible last year but didn't get enough votes. What suddenly made him qualified this year? He didn't hit any more home runs or make any more catches. There isn't a limit on the number of players that can get in each year but the voters last year didn't think enough of him to vote him in. Just having weaker competition shouldn't suddenly make him a qualified candidate.<br /><br />The whole system makes no sense. Players should get one chance. They're either good enough or their not. I have no problem with a verterans committee to catch any that fall through the cracks but this voting system is silly. It cheapens the Hall of Fame (in my opinion)

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>The only problem with the "one shot" rule...<br /><br />is that some years you have a TON of very qualified candidates up for election...<br /><br />and it would NOT be fair to the other eligible players if their "one shot" was ruined by being up against McGwire, Gwynn and Ripken in the same year...<br /><br />because the voters would probably ONLY vote for those "Big 3" in order to honor them properly.<br /><br />In other words... because the voters now know that candidates will be on the ballot for several years...<br /><br />they "send messages" by how they vote.<br /><br />They only vote for the "superstars" on their FIRST year of eligibility, to signify that these players are "better" than some of the other HOF players (like Sandberg) who get in on later ballots.<br /><br />REMEMBER:<br /><br />The baseball writers have NOT made very many mistakes over the years.<br /><br />The "mistakes" were all made by the Veteran's Committee!!

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Eddie Collins, Nap Lajoie, Charlie Gehringer, Hornsby, even Jackie Robinson - all better than Sandberg. Sandberg is more comparable to Lou Whitaker or Bobby Grich. And, obviously, Morgan was much better.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p>The first batch you listed were better than Sandberg, but Sandberg is MUCH better than Grich and Whitaker, and I would also take him over Joe Morgan.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p>because he's such a pain in the *ss as an announcer...on second thought, he was probably better than Sandberg.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>steve k</b><p>To state that Sandberg is better than every other 2nd baseman except Morgan is absolutely rediculous! Hornsby is on &quot;everyones&quot; list, including mine, as the greatest 2nd baseman of all time! Morgan better than Sandberg? - this is definitely true and it's not even close. What about Jackie Robinson? What about Collins? What about Lajoie?Sandberg was an excellent player. But the players I mentioned were outstanding players and in my view only outstanding players, not excellent players, should be in the Hall of Fame.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Whitaker was the best of the three. Also, we shouldn't forget Johnny Evers. Many people feel he doesn't really belong, and I had my doubts too, until I read Bill James' analysis of his offensive value. Despite his so-so BA, he was great at creating runs for his team, and was one of the top glove men of his time. I know they didn't really make that many double plays, but it wasn't Evers' fault. I don't know that I would take him over Sandberg, but he does belong in the Hall.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>steve k</b><p>&lt;&lt;&lt; The baseball writers have NOT made very many mistakes over the years.<br><br>The &quot;mistakes&quot; were all made by the Veteran's Committee!! &gt;&gt;&gt;<br><br>I agree with this 100%. Hey, I last went to Cooperstown two summers ago and it will always be one of my favorite places to visit, despite the Veterans Committee voting in these &quot;only excellent&quot; ballplayers.<br><br><br>

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i think sandberg by retiring the first time ruined(not sure of this term here) his career stats. when he came back he was not as good as when he retired. <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sandbry01.shtml" target=_new>http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sandbry01.shtml</a>

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>Frankly, I just dont understand how it is that Hal thinks Luis Polonia wont get in next year. I mean how in the world do you leave a guy like that out;)

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Kevin Cummings</b><p>Hal:<br /><br />So what if in some years you have "a ton" of qualified candidates? If they are all good enough to get in, they all get in. <br /><br />Isn't the "message sending" to which you refer <b><u>exactly</u></b> what is wrong with the Hall of Fame? Isn't that message <b>really</b> "You weren't good enough to get in with the truly deserving players?" So why should they get in at all?<br /><br />I think many people wouldn't like the "One Shot" rule because there might be long stretches where nobody gets in and they couldn't have a baseball game and a party ever summer for the new inductees. But that's what would balance out the years where "a ton" of players did make it.<br /><br />Kevin

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p>...why Whitaker is in the HOF...oh, wait - he isn't.<br /><br />The system is obviously flawed, but it's understandable - just in this thread alone we have total disagreement as to the relative merits of second basemen.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Dave Williams</b><p>Why doesn't Andre Dawson get any love?<br /><br />Or Goose Gossage or Sutter?<br /><br />They all dominated the game at times, and were at one time considered to be the best in the game at their positions.<br /><br />I think the Hall of Fame voting is a joke sometimes.<br /><br />Look at some of the losers the Veterans Committee put in from the 20's and 30's like George Kelly, Lindstrom, Lloyd Waner, et al, and then look at Andre Dawson (even if Andre did steal the MVP from Ozzie SMith in 87)....

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Ryan Christoff</b><p>How can you say Sutter and Gossage didn't get any love when 2 out of every 3 voters voted for Sutter and over half voted for Gossage?<br /><br />Sutter gets in next year with Jim Rice and it might be the year they finally start appreciating relief pitchers by voting Gossage in as well. <br /><br />Gossage will likely come up short, but if Gossage and Sutter were inducted together it would not only be poetic justice but also a huge symbolic gesture that the relief pitcher is indeed part of the game.<br /><br />Sorry Jeff Nelson, it might be a while before the Hall starts recognizing those in middle relief.<br /><br />"Joe Morgan is probably the only 2B better than Sanberg to ever play the game." That one is worthy of instant induction into the network54 silliest quotes HOF. As the first inductee, it will be the PSA 8 Wagner of the board's HOF. Except untrimmed.<br /><br />-Ryan<br /><br /><br />

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>I don't believe Sandberg OR Whitaker should be in. While we're at it, Roberto Alomar is just a couple of halfway decent seasons away from 3,000 hits. However, since he tends to switch teams on a regular basis, nobody seems to notice. Do you suppose Sandberg would have gotten in with the same stats if he had played for several different teams? I don't think so. <br /><br />Andre Dawson? Should be in - no doubt about it.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Gary B.</b><p>"I think many people wouldn't like the "One Shot" rule because there might be long stretches where nobody gets in and they couldn't have a baseball game and a party ever summer for the new inductees. But that's what would balance out the years where "a ton" of players did make it."<br /><br /><br />I'm all for this. If a person isn't good enough to get in on the first try, they shouldn't be there. I think it's ONLY because the hall was allowed to become watered down with less than cream of the crop players that people like Sandberg are allowed in, but he's by far not the worst of the marginal HOF'ers. I could list off 50 names of the greatest players in the hall like Cobb, Ruth, Lajoie, Hornsby, Dimaggio, Williams, Gehrig, Young and many, many more, and then list a whole bunch of marginal players like Ryne Sandberg, Gary Carter, Kirby Puckett and the like - it just doesn't wash, does it? They're just not in the same category no matter how you want to dance around it - being the best in a position in a given 10-15 year period is just NOT enough to qualify IMHO. Either don't let these people in or have a second tier system where only the best of the best make it to the top tier. <br /><br />In the situation someone mentioned above where there are 3 great players in a year, the 4th marginal person would be voted in the next year. I say if they weren't good enough to get with those 3, they don't deserve to be there - they may be not QUITE as good as ripken, mcgwire, boggs, etc., but if they belong there, they belong there, and I think the baseball writers are highly irresponsible to vote people in they didn't think were worthwhile the first time just because that's the best choice they have for the one or two players they feel they need to have each year. It cheapens the hall of fame significantly. If we had 4 people one year, no one at all for 3 years, then 1 person, then none, than 2, etc., I'd be very happy - having at least one person every year is often just silly, like next year will be...

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Albie O'Hanian</b><p>Bill James ranked Sandberg the 7th best secondbaseman of all-time in the new Historical Baseball Abstract which seems about right. He had Morgan 1st and Hornsby 3rd.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p>So what if the HOF is smaller? In such a HOF, Sandberg clearly wouldn't have a chance. <br /><br />But think about the guys who didn't make it on the first ballot - do you think voters would vote differently if they knew anyone who didn't get in on the first ballot would NEVER get in? Would Morgan have been voted in?

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Boggs: what idiots did not vote for 5 batting titles, a .328 BA and 3000+ hits? <br /><br />Sandberg: a marginal HOFer in my opinion. I'd probably vote for him based on the fielding aspect as a second baseman, but with some misgivings. <br /><br />

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Boggs -- a relatively weak HOFer because his statistics were deceptive. I live in Boston and watched him throughout most of his career, and he was selfish to the core (sitting out games to preserve batting titles, and the list goes on and on) and couldn't hit worth a damn in the clutch. Still, the batting titles and 3000 hits (even more noteworthy because the Sox did not bring him up to the bigs until age 24 or even 25) qualify him. As some of my friends and I used to say at a point where he was in the top three all time for BA, he was the worst .350 hitter the game had ever known <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <br /><br />Sandberg? No way. A very fine player, yes, but a HOFer? I don't think so.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Had a lifetime 3.90 ERA. Yes, you read that correctly. Won 20 only 3 times. Never finished higher than 3rd in Cy Young voting. Total of one strikeout crown. In my opinion he is not particularly close to being a Hall of Fame pitcher. He had a few excellent seasons and a very good overall career, but not a HOF one.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>There is an accepted tradition--I'm sure you all know this--that a "first ballot HOFER" is an honor awarded to only a few, and that the baseball writers balk at admitted more than three a year. (four max). So lesser, but still deserving player have to wait longer.<br /><br />I for one am glad that Reese is in...look how long it took him!<br /><br />Unfortunately, still following Hal, we also look at the YEAR the guy got in, and mistakes by the Veterans' Committee has really mucked this up. Guy on the Veterans' Committee gets a bunch of his cronies in, and "1945" doesn't seem like such a great date to be admitted anymore<br />(actually, I took "1945" at random--I think they did pretty well that year).<br /><br />This sure is one topic on which everyone has an opinion!<br /><br />

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Andrew Parks</b><p>Boggs definitely deserved being named to the Hall-of-Fame. The man was the greatest American League Hitter of the 1980's and early 1990's - not necessarily the most prouductive, though. But still the best hitter in that League - Gwynn being the best in the NL.<br /><br />To use selfishness as a reason to keep him out is no good. We could nit-pick a number of reasons for other players to keep them out, but I guarantee, Boggs' hitting won Boston more games than his selfishness lost them. He may have been a bit selfish but he was a great player and highly productive. A high on-base percentage is undervalued because it's a quiet type of statistic - not flashy like the HR, the SB, the batting title, the RBI, etc...However, Boggs was the second best table-setter of the 80's and early 90's behind Rickey. The guy was ALWAYS on-base.<br /><br />Boggs also turned himself into a Gold-Glove fielder. He worked extremely hard at it and by the end of his career carried a pretty good glove and even won a GG, I believe.<br /><br />Sandberg is not a marginal HOFer compared to other secondbasemen. Hornsby could hit, but couldn't field and we know of his legendary attitude. Lajoie could field and hit but was an average runner and Collins could hit, field run but hit with no power, Morgan was all-around, and Gehringer could field but not run too well with a little pop.<br /><br />But Sandberg had what only Morgan had - speed, power and an incredible glove. In fact, his glove was better than Morgan's. Sandberg once stole 50 bases in a season, won an MVP, had that season where he was going for 20 doubles, 20 triples, 20 homers, and 20 steals - in the eighties was special, had a 40 Homer season, won gobs of gold gloves, and set fielding records. He could do it all but hit for a high average - which is a stupid stat anyway...<br /><br />I mean what stat is a good indicator of performance that says:<br /> a single = a double = a triple = a home run and walks = 0?<br />Batting average is a stupid stat.<br /><br />I'm not saying he's better than Hornsby or Morgan or Lajoie or Collins or Jackie R, but I always felt Sandberg was one of the all-time great secondbasemen - right up there with them.<br /><br />Boggs and Sandberg are good choices...way to go voters!<br /><br /><br /><br />And lastly, I had to address the poster who called Dawson at his position in his league. That's not correct - especially when Dale Murphy was around.<br />

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Jason</b><p>Boggs without a doubt should be in the hall. There was a five year span in the late 80's where he could have won the MVP every year. (He should have won in 86, 87, 88 for sure)<br /><br />Alomar and Kent will be ranked pretty high as far as second basemen go. As a Jays fan I remember how dynamic Alomar could be and at the time of their world series was probably one of the best players in the AL.<br /><br />Kent has done some things with the stick that I don't think anybody had done at that position. (Using the OPS stat)

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>The Voting process works JUST FINE!!!<br /><br />If you EXCLUDE any player who played before 1920 ... since THOSE guys were the one who the "Veteran's Committee" was originally designed to address...<br /><br />then the BASEBALL WRITERS have been PERFECT!!!<br /><br />Look at this list of PLAYERS who have been voted in by the WRITERS...<br /><br />and then tell me ONE player who played after 1920 who was BETTER than ANY of these guys:<br /><br />Walter Johnson<br />Christy Mathewson<br />Babe Ruth <br />Honus Wagner <br />Ty Cobb <br />Nap Lajoie <br />Tris Speaker <br />Cy Young <br />Pete Alexander <br />Willie Keeler <br />George Sisler <br />Eddie Collins <br />Rogers Hornsby <br />Mickey Cochrane <br />Frankie Frisch <br />Lefty Grove <br />Carl Hubbell <br />Herb Pennock <br />Pie Traynor <br />Charlie Gehringer <br />Jimmie Foxx <br />Mel Ott <br />Harry Heilmann <br />Paul Waner <br />Dizzy Dean <br />Al Simmons <br />Bill Dickey <br />Rabbit Maranville <br />Bill Terry <br />Joe DiMaggio <br />Gabby Hartnett <br />Ted Lyons <br />Dazzy Vance <br />Hank Greenberg <br />Joe Cronin <br />Bob Feller <br />Jackie Robinson <br />Luke Appling <br />Ted Williams <br />Red Ruffing <br />Joe Medwick <br />Roy Campanella <br />Stan Musial <br />Lou Boudreau <br />Early Wynn <br />Yogi Berra <br />Sandy Koufax <br />Roberto Clemente <br />Warren Spahn <br />Whitey Ford <br />Mickey Mantle <br />Ralph Kiner <br />Bob Lemon<br />Robin Roberts <br />Ernie Banks <br />Eddie Mathews <br />Willie Mays <br />Duke Snider <br />Al Kaline <br />Bob Gibson <br />Frank Robinson <br />Hank Aaron <br />Juan Marichal <br />Brooks Robinson <br />Luis Aparicio <br />Don Drysdale <br />Harmon Killebrew <br />Lou Brock <br />Hoyt Wilhelm <br />Willie McCovey <br />Catfish Hunter <br />Billy Williams <br />Willie Stargell <br />Johnny Bench <br />Carl Yastrzemski <br />Joe Morgan <br />Jim Palmer <br />Rod Carew <br />Fergie Jenkins <br />Gaylord Perry <br />Rollie Fingers <br />Tom Seaver <br />Reggie Jackson <br />Steve Carlton <br />Mike Schmidt <br />Phil Niekro <br />Don Sutton <br />George Brett <br />Nolan Ryan <br />Robin Yount <br />Tony Perez <br />Carlton Fisk <br />Kirby Puckett <br />Dave Winfield <br />Ozzie Smith <br />Gary Carter <br />Eddie Murray <br />Paul Molitor <br />Dennis Eckersley <br />Wade Boggs<br />Ryne Sandberg<br /><br /><br />I agree that if NOBODY else after 1920 had EVER been inducted into the HOF...<br /><br />then I wouldn't complain a bit.<br /><br />THIS GROUP is the real "meat" of the HOF.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>I acknowledge it doesn't take his fielding into account, but according to baseball reference.com's formulas the players his statistics are most comparable to are Lou Whitaker, Steve Finley, Joe Torre, Barry Larkin, Alan Trammell, and Ken Boyer. HOF is not jumping out at me. Granted, if Bill Mazeroski deserves to be in, Sandberg is far more worthy, but I wouldn't vote for either. Or Andre Dawson or Dale Murphy. I think the HOF should be reserved for true all time greats, not every excellent player who amasses respectable lifetime statistics over a long career.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>I would take Jim Rice and Luis Tiant over several of those players.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred</b><p>Hal,<br /><br />What happened to Tinkers to Evers to Chance? Ok, I think I understand the omission.<br /><br />I didn't see many 19th century players on your list.<br /><br />In any case, nice list.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Hal, your list is impressive and makes a good point. It is reasonable to question the qualifications of Pennock, Ruffing, and Lyons. But three questionable calls in a group that large is not bad. Three cheers for the disbanding of the old veterans committee.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Tim Mayer</b><p>Boggs deserves it, bum and all, as for ryno, I am unsure. I will say this Rice gets no love and was the best hitter in the AL for 5 or 6 years running. To me thats a HOFer.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Greg Ecklund</b><p>The huge backlog of players to be inducted at the time of the Hall's founding is probably the reason for the lengthy eligibilty period. Imagine the players who might have been left out of the Hall in 1936 if the rules had been that you had to get in on the first ballot (Lajoie, Speaker, Cy Young, Eddie Collins, Alexander). I imagine they put the rule in place in order to clear the backlog and then never bothered to change it.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>mike</b><p>Does anyone know first ballot hofers only?<br /><br />I know Carlton Fisk didn't go in on the first ballot; I am not sure Joe D. didn't go in on the first ballot, But he was a great clutch player.<br /><br />I have to agree with some of the sentiment here: Most of the obvious selections now go in on the first ballot.<br /><br />I am a huge Cubs fan. I think Sandberg was a great player, but I am not sure he's HOF material. I'll never forget the job he did on the Cards in that game during 1984 (I was a teen and in summer school <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> so I had a lot of free time). After that game, the Cubs seemed to find a way to win. I think the biggest criticism with respect to Rhino would be that he was too conservative a fielder. Morgan got two MVPs while on the Big Red machine.<br /><br />I'd take 1964-1971 Santo at third base and I wouldn't be upset with Jack Morris as my staff ace.<br /><br />Mike

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I will admit, I suffered a major brain fart and was rushed to head out the door, so I didn't ahve time to look up other players. Hornsby easily had the greatest 5 year stretch of hitting that anyone ever had, including Ruth. I love Bonds, but Bonds still hasn't hit .400 with 40HRs in the same season.<br /><br />I still a firm believer in putting the dominant players at their position while they played. Sandberg was THE 2B of his era. Same goes for Jack Morris. There was no better pitcher for the entire 80s. He won more games than anyone else int hat 10 year span and was a feared pitcher. What more do you what. <br /><br />Everyone can't be Grover Alexander, Matty or the Big Train. You simply have to honor the best players of their time becuase, no matter how hard you try, there is no way to compare players across. And this comes from a numbers a geeks that eats up everything put out my James, Palmer, THorn, etc. You can come up with good generalizations, but you have no way of knowing how Morris would have fared in the DEadball Era, or how Matty would have performed today. This leaves voting in the best players compared against their peers. And Morris was the best of his era.<br /><br />Rice should be in under the "Koufax" rule. Rice was easily the most fear hitter of his day and put numbers that were jsut staggering for their time. He was first player to get over 400 total bases in over years and took about another 15 years before someone else did it again.<br /><br />Hell, take Dwight Gooden's career, flip it around, and you have Koufax. So why shouldn't Gooden get in if he has the same type of performance? He burst onto the scene dominating the game and fizzled out instead of sucking ass for 6 years then becoming a dominant player. So why should he be penalized for having Koufax's career in reverse?<br /><br />The reliever not getting any love at all is Lee Smith. Looks like he is the Paul Krause of baseball, but I fear Smith will enver get in. How do you not induct the All-time leader? I don't think anyone is gonna be closing in on this record any time soon.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p>If the voters knew at the time that ONLY 1st-ballot HOF'ers would EVER get in, I think they would have voted differently in the past.<br /><br />So, no, applying the rule retroactively would certainly be a bad thing, but starting it now might work.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Guys...<br /><br />The list of players that I published is STRAIGHT from the Baseball Hall of Fame.<br /><br />Those are not "my" choices... those are ALL of the players who have been voted into the HOF by the WRITERS!!<br /><br />The reason for the lack of players from 1850-1920 is because THOSE players were elected in by the VETERANS COMMITTEE...NOT the writers.<br /><br />SO... if they have DISBANDED the "Veterans Committee" after about 10 years when all of the GREAT players from 1850-1920 had already been inducted...<br /><br />then we would NEVER have had any "lesser" players elected to the HOF and it would NEVER have been "cheapened."<br /><br />GET RID OF THE VETERANS COMMITTEE!!!<br /><br /><img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />History shows us that if a player is GREAT enough to be elected by the WRITERS... he WILL BE elected.<br /><br />There is NO NEED for a "backup" plan any longer.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>I would bet you can find lots of excellent but not HOF caliber pitchers who won the most games in any given 10 year span. I am pretty sure there is a ten year span where Andy Pettite won the most games. Is anyone here seriously suggesting Andy Pettite (assuming he doesn't have some dramatic upswing or last forever and win 300 or whatever) belongs in the Hall of Fame? So what if Morris won the most games from 80-89? Is that any more important than who won the most from 84-93, probably Clemens? Or from 87-96, probably Clemens or maybe Maddux? The point is his ERA was 3.90, he didn't even come close to winning ONE Cy Young, and so forth.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Jason</b><p>Baseball Prospectus wrote a really good article about Morris' hall of fame canidacy and made a convincing case for me that he doesn't deserve the honor.<br /><br />I mean we could split hairs. I could say Dave Steib was a better pitcher then Morris in the American league that had some pretty bad Jays teams in the early 80's until they put it together.<br /><br />It should also be mentioned that Baseball Prospectus had another article that made the case as to why Rice shouldn't be in the hall either.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>steve k</b><p>&lt;&lt;&lt; I still a firm believer in putting the dominant players at their position while they played. &gt;&gt;&gt;<br><br>I agree with that but just because a player is dominant at his position during a particular era, doesn't mean that he should be in the Hall of Fame. If all the players at a particular position during a particular era all stunk, whaddayagonnado put the player who stunk the least in the Hall of Fame? Of course not. It's the Bill Mazeroski thing. Was he an excellent player? Yes. Was he the best player at his position, 2nd base, during his era? Arguably yes. Should he be in the Hall of Fame? Absolutely not! Anyone who knows baseball understands that overall almost always the &quot;weakest&quot; ballplayer on the field is the 2nd baseman. So sometimes the best 2nd baseman in a particular era is like saying he was the tallest midget in the circus.<br><br>Jack Morris, Jim Rice and some other players mentioned in this thread were excellent players, but in my opinion not Hall of Famers. Morris is close but not quite. Rice arguably but not quite good enough. Morris and Rice were not &quot;midgets&quot; by any stretch of the imagination - both were excellent ballplayers, but let's not put them in the Hall of Fame just because they may have been the best at their position during their era.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Greg Ecklund</b><p>Scott,<br />Not sure if you are repeating your point because of my post, but just let me clarify. People certainly would have voted differently in the past if it was first ballot only, but the backlog was so large at the time of the 1936 vote that it would have been difficult for the writers to reach a consensus (especially since you could vote for active players at the time - Gehrig, Foxx, Grove, and others were getting votes). <br /><br />If your rule would have been around then, I would guess guys three or four more guys would have gotten in, but many deserving Hall of Famers would have been left out permanently. Once the writers cleared the backlog of deserving players (probably by the mid 50's) the rule should have been changed to two or three years of eligibility at most.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p>there really isn't any perfect way of doing it - someone would always get screwed.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>mike</b><p>The following list may not be entirely correct, but it's what I found quickly at <a href="http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hof/hofstat.shtml" target=_new>http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hof/hofstat.shtml</a>. I think several names are missing, primarily from the earlier elections.<br /><br />"First Ballot Inductees In Chronological Order<br /> <br />Name Year Inducted<br />Bob Feller 1962 <br />Jackie Robinson 1962 <br />Ted Williams 1966 <br />Stan Musial 1969 <br />Sandy Koufax 1972 <br />Warren Spahn 1973 <br />Mickey Mantle 1974 <br />Ernie Banks 1977 <br />Willie Mays 1979 <br />Al Kaline 1980 <br />Bob Gibson 1981 <br />Hank Aaron 1982 <br />Frank Robinson 1982 <br />Brooks Robinson 1983 <br />Lou Brock 1985 <br />Willie McCovey 1986 <br />Willie Stargell 1988 <br />Johnny Bench 1989 <br />Carl Yastrzemski 1989 <br />Joe Morgan 1990 <br />Jim Palmer 1990 <br />Rod Carew 1991 <br />Tom Seaver 1992 <br />Reggie Jackson 1993 <br />Steve Carlton 1994 <br />Mike Schmidt 1995 <br />George Brett 1999 <br />Nolan Ryan 1999 <br />Robin Yount 1999 <br />Kirby Puckett 2001 <br />Dave Winfield 2001 <br />Ozzie Smith 2002 <br />Eddie Murray 2003 <br />Dennis Eckersley 2004 <br />Paul Molitor 2004"<br /><br />The writers elected Joe D. on his third ballot: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_DiMaggio" target=_new>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_DiMaggio</a>

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Why wasn't Hank Aaron or Willie Mays a unanimous first ballot selection? Any writer who did not vote for guys like them should be barred from voting in the future and checked for Alzheimers...<br /><br />I personally like having a good long period of eligibility. If it was up to me I would make all players eligible forever but ratchet up the cut-off levels as the years progress to cull out stale selections.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>.........

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>PSAJD, you claim that my pointing out that he won more games in the 80s invalid since it's jsut one thing. It's no more invalid your one point that his ERA was 3.90.<br /><br />ERA is an interesting stat and nice indicator, but baseball is about WINNING games. ERA helps you win games, but it's not the sole reason for winning them. Every year we see pitchers with measly ERAs with losing records and others with ERAs out the roof that lose only a hanful of games.<br /><br />Morris was a big game pitcher that always did well with everything on the line. This intangible should aslo be part of the HOF equation? People too hung up numbers. I love them, but I know there is more to a players career than purely numbers.<br /><br />When have the luxury of almost 20 years of hindsight to see the greatness of Clemens, but in the mid to late 80s, if you needed to win a game, Morris would be at the top of list of pitchers you would want to start. Clemens was still young and basically unproven, unlike Morris who had already proven.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Julie, Mays got in on the first ballot, he was asking why they weren't unanomous. I also agree that these writers taht refuse to vote for players in their first year of eligibility should have their votes yanked. There is also the race card involved with May and Aaron. There is no excuse for anyone to not vote for them, but the rationale of a few voters is that if Babe Ruth was a unanomous choice, then they are going to make sure that no one else is.<br /><br />Jay<br /><br />Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Actually Jay...<br /><br />since there has NEVER been a Unanimous selection to the HOF...<br /><br />the voters want to make SURE that there never is one.<br /><br />Seaver got almost 99% ... and he is the highest ...<br /><br />but I agree that there will ALWAYS be a voter or two who does NOT vote for someone just because they want to MAKE SURE that NOBODY is a unanimous selection.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>oops, left out the word NOT again. I have a bad habit of that. I tend to think faster than I can type<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>steve k</b><p>Be interesting to see how the voting for Ripken goes in 2007. Probably won't be unanimous because of a few jerk BBWAA members who would want to be known as the ones who didn't vote for Ripken - they probably like the negative publicity.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>His first full 5 seasons were 24-4, 20-9, 18-12, 17-11, and 21-6. By the way, it surprised me to learn that Don Drysdale, who I had always assumed was a first ballot type, didn't get in until 1984, FIFTEEEN years after he retired, and that his statistics are not exactly overwhelming (209-166 WL).

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>PASJD read bill james book on HOF lots on drysdale in there sabrjay i think you are right on about morris and lee smith.also not really that bad a comment on sandberg as only morgan was better all around.hornsby was not a good fielding 2nd baseman but he was a great hitter.jackie robinson played 2nd base for about 5 years,collins had no power.gehringer was real good all around probably the sandberg of the 30's.lajoie perhaps should be regarded as the best all-time? but i have to disagree with the gooden reverse career argument. goodens first 5 years were hall of fame good but not near koufax last 5. koufax won 20 more games, pitched 205 more innings, had 377 more strike-outs,14 more shutouts and gave up about 3/4 of a run less.he also dominated the world series he appeared in.but,i would bet the vets comittee of the future will put gooden in the hall thus making your argument correct.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Here are some articles about Morris form respected writers:<br /><br />Jayson Stark on Jack Morris today on ESPN.com --<br /><br />Suppose we told you there was a pitcher on this ballot who won 36 more games than anyone else in the sport while he was in it? And suppose we told you this pitcher started three All-Star Games -- a feat surpassed, since the 1970s, by only Randy Johnson?<br /><br />Then suppose we told you this guy pitched a no-hitter, was an Opening Day starter 14 times (more than any American Leaguer who ever lived), averaged 14 complete games a season for eight years and made 515 consecutive starts without missing a turn (a record at the time)?<br /><br />Finally, suppose we told you he was one of the most fabled postseason<br />pitchers of his day, that he started Game 1 of the World Series for<br />three different Series champs and that he pitched all 10 innings of<br />possibly the greatest Game 7 shutout ever?<br /><br />Would you say that guy was a Hall of Famer ...?<br /><br />Murray Chass in the NY Times on Morris dominating his era:<br /><br />Morris "had the most victories of any pitcher in the 1980's. But<br />figured differntly, he went through two other 10-yaer period in which he won even more games, 173 from 1979 through 1988 and 169 from 1983 through 1992." Chass points out that Roger Clemens' most victories in a 10-year period was 166.<br /><br />So much for the if-you-didn't-pick-the-natural-decade-Morris-wasn't-that-good argument. Of course, he only won games, which so many of us on this list believe was little more than mere coincidence. But while Bill James told us eons ago that ERA is a better predictor of future wins than past wins are, he *didn't* say that high ERA is a good predictor of <i>past</i> wins. Morris was the exception that proves the rule. With only 33% of the vote, though even that's an improvement, Jack remains a longshot for the Hall.<br /><br />back to my comments:<br />I was really surprised by the fact that Clemens never won more games in a 10 year period than Morris did. And 2 of the spans mentioned, 1980-89 and 1983-92 includes a year where Morris won only 6 games.<br /><br />Jay<br /><br /><br />Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>As has been stated: "ERA is an interesting stat and nice indicator, but baseball is about WINNING games. ERA helps you win games, but it's not the sole reason for winning them".<br /><br />Morris' W-L record is 254-186. That is, the total number of games he won exceeds the total number of games he lost by 68. In an eighteen year career, that comes out to a production of less than 4 more wins than losses per year.<br /><br />And it is obvious that a pitcher with a 3.90 ERA certainly won few games by himself.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>tbob</b><p>the HOF voting is a joke.<br />Tim says: "Boggs deserves it, bum and all, as for ryno, I am unsure. I will say this Rice gets no love and was the best hitter in the AL for 5 or 6 years running. To me thats a HOFer."<br />Tony O was THE most feared hitter of the 60's. In interviews with pitchers who are in the Hall and other top hurlers whp pitched during that time period, almost to a man they said Oliva was THE most feared and best hitter in the league. <br />Interviewed on ESPN radio yesterday, Goose Gossage said if there were one pitcher who SHOULD be in the Hall who is not, it is Bert Blyleven. He won 280 games for generally mediocre teams and Goose says he was THE dominant pitcher of his era. Strong words. <br />Jack Morris was a helluva big game pitcher but looking at the body of work, Blyleven deserves it more.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Gilbert, using your logic, the following pitchers are all worse than Morris based on win over loses per season: Steve Carlton, Nolan Ryan, Don sutton, Gaylord Perry, Phil Niekro, Early Wynn, Robin Roberts, Fergie Jenkins, Catfish Hunter tied Morris, Don Drysdale, Pud Galvin, Red Ruffing, Burlie Grimes, Eppa Rixie, Ted Lyons, Red Faber, Herb Pennock, Waite Hoyt, Jim Bunning. He's better than almost half the pitchers that are in the HOF.<br /><br />Do you start penalizing Whitey Ford and other pitchers that pitched for great teams because they got a ton of run support? People like to think that they make objective choices about who does and and doesn't belong in the HOF, but are all colored by our likes and dislikes of player. If you dislike him, you are going to find things that say he doesn't belong, if you like him, you will do the opposite.<br /><br />Regardless of what Morris' ERA was, there was no better big game pitcher than Morris in the 80s and pitched what is considered by many the greatest game in WS history.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>HUH? Anyone ever heard of Willie Mays? Hank Aaron? Roberto Clemente? Frank Robinson? At least for the first half, a guy named Mantle? On his own team, Harmon Killebrew? Sheesh.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Jay: it is you who stated that baseball is about WINNING games. I simply agree with you.<br /><br />As far as your examples of other pitchers who did not win as many games per year as Morris, perhaps they had even less support than he did. Or maybe, as you infer, they were worse.<br /><br />In any case, Morris' performance did not average a yield of four more wins per season than losses.<br /><br />&lt;+4 wins per season does not qualify a man for my Hall of Fame. Maybe your Hall is more lenient. I no longer have any interest in Cooperstown's hall.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Gilbert, take a look at all the pitchers in the history of the game. There are very few (around 25 if I remember right) that averaged 4 more wins than than loses per season for their entire career. Even 3 wins is pretty uncommon. Many of the guys on the list I provided were under that mark, and they are in the HOF. <br /><br />Even as much as I dislike Koufax, there is no disputing he is a big game pitcher, just MOrris was. And if a guy is a boarderline candidate, being a big game pitcher counts for something.<br /><br />As for Oliva, he was favorite player growing up. I've read a number of interviews with pitchers that have said that Oliva was the hitter that they most feared. Keep mind that if this is the case, this means that they pitched in AL and may not have pitched in the NL, so would have never faced Mays, Aaron, Clemente, etc. Killebrew could hit for power, but that was about it. Oliva, in his prime, had power, a great average and speed. Killebrew was a one trick pony.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Jay: Although I had previously not given the fact that baseball is more about winning than it is about batting averages, ERA, RBIs, etc., I agree that your observation has merit.<br /><br />I haven't yet checked which pitchers won the most games (more than they lost), but if you say there are about 25 pitchers in the history of baseball who have achieved greater than 4 games per season, I believe it.<br /><br />I wouldn't have thought the pitching impact statistic to be so meager, but it is what it is.<br /><br />I wonder how many game winning hits a clutch hitter such as Berra or Ott produce in a typical season.<br /><br />This subject may require further study on my part.<br /><br /><br /><br />Regarding Oliva, I recall him being a considerable threat - seemingly always getting a solid hit just when most needed. Much more so than the typical HR hitter. <br /><br /><br /><br />

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I only checked the top 100 in wins in a career, thus the reason I said around 25. I doubt there are too many below that level that unless they had brief careers for one reason or another. Koufax is the only one that comes to mind.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Hre's a great post from the SABR-l list taken from Blyleven's site:<br /><br />And here is Blyleven writing via his website the other day:<br /><br />"I would love to have all those writers that didn't vote for me step<br />up to the plate and let me pitch to them. I would love to throw a high hard one inside. I would love to watch their knees buckle when I throw them my curveball. Yes, some of the writers might make contact but they will remember one thing after facing me. It's hard to hit from your butt!"<br /><br />Another interesting note from the post was that only 8 pitchers since 1900 have thrown more innings than Byleven has. And if you look at the baseball-reference.com, the only HOF measure he doesn't pass is black ink.<br /><br />And here's an interesting Koufax v Blyleven article<br /><br /><a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/050107" target=_new>http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/050107</a><br /><br />Jay<br /><br />Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p>...but I do know that Jack Morris NEEDED a lot of run support - the guy was a meatball pitcher with a massive lifetime ERA. It's great that he won slightly more than he lost, but you wouldn't ever see him turn in the kind of season that a TRUE HOF'er like Steve Carlton did for a lousy team...you know the season I'm talking about - Morris would have gone 3-27.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Scott, you are correct, but Morris never came close to losing 20 games in a season. And Carlton did it the year after he won 27. If that's what ya call HOF pitching, then that's your choice. Not that I'd argue CArlton isn't a HOFer. I wouldn't even argue Morris is a good Carlton, but he does belong in the HOF. <br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p>Morris was very consistent. The danger with admitting someone because they had comparable stats to a bottom-tier existing member is that the voters might start comparing future candidates to Phil Rizzuto.<br /><br />I really like Jack Morris, I just don't think he's "great".

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>steve k</b><p>&lt;&lt;&lt; And here's an interesting Koufax v Blyleven article &gt;&gt;&gt;<br><br>Interesting? How about nonsense! Any team owner who really wants to win would take Koufax in a second. This is more dribble from the anti-Koufax clan.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>I refuse even to read an article suggesting Bert Blyleven is remotely comparable to Sandy Koufax. That's like saying Curtis Martin is better than Jim Brown because lifetime he has more yards. If Casey Stengel thought Koufax was the best pitcher he had ever seen, and he went all the way back to near the beginning of the century, that's good enough for me.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Who hit just about 600 HR. Pretty neat trick. Yeah, if only he had been more diverse and hit more singles instead of those homers. Sounds about as meaningful as criticizing Koufax for only having two pitches, the fastball and the curve.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Dave Williams</b><p>The problem with the Morris issue is he is better than half the pitchers in the hall....(As Jay points out).<br /><br />Red Ruffing, Ted Lyons, Pop Haines, etc....<br /><br />The problem is that the Veterans Committee did such a lousy job taking anyone who had any sort of a career for so long, they diluted down the hall.<br /><br />The writers are trying to take it back I suppose, but in the meantime the former Vet committee diluted it way down, and now guys better than those the Vet put in, aren't going to get in. <br /><br />Blyleven, Morris, Rice, Oliva, Santo just need to have the Vet committee to be revived.<br /><br />They revive that and in 30 years Fernando Valenzuela will make it.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred</b><p>I read the article. It was interesting. I don't think that the article suggested that Blyleven was as good a pitcher as Koufax. The article asked the reader to decide which pitcher they would take if they had to chose between the two. The question basically boiled down to whether you would chose a consistent pitcher with longevity or would you chose someone that was dominant for a short period of time. Which would help a ball club more?<br /><br />Personally, adding Blyleven to the HOF would be like adding another player that had longevity but not a lot in the area of dominance. Blyleven had the type of career that any player could be proud of. The difference between Don Sutton and Bert Blyleven is that Sutton won 300 games and that's what ultimately got him into the HOF. Neither of those two pitchers was a slouch by any stretch of the imagination. If Blyleven would have won just 13 more games he'd be in the HOF. Look at Early Wynn, he had 300 wins (and less losses, not by much), a higher ERA and less K's and he's in. <br />

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Speaking of longevity and consistency, ironically Harold Baines would probably be a Hall of Famer as the players strikes of 81 and 94 deprived him of 2 benchmarks...<br /><br />300 hits and 400 Homeruns.<br /><br />He was just short in both categories, and would have reached both with another 100 games in his prime.<br /><br />Can you imagine Bainsey a Hall of Famer?<br /><br />Good player forever but enshrined in Cooperstown?<br /><br />Or he could have become the first player to reach 3K and not make it.<br /><br />So maybe the players strikes actually served a purpose.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>tbob</b><p>&lt;&lt;Tony Oliva the most feared hitter of the 60s? HUH? Anyone ever heard of Willie Mays? Hank Aaron? Roberto Clemente? Frank Robinson? At least for the first half, a guy named Mantle? On his own team, Harmon Killebrew? Sheesh.&gt;&gt;<br /><br />Since interleague play was not invented in the 1960's OBVIOUSLY AL pitchers never faced Mays, Aaron, Clemente nor Robby (until the Reds traded him at the end of the decade). We are talking most feared HITTER not SLUGGER. Would you rather have a guy with a whole room full of Silver batting chanpion bats come to the plate with the winning run at 2b or Killebrew batting about .265 with all those strikeouts who might hit one out but could just as easily whiff or pop out? <br />Mantle during the 60's vs. Oliva during the 60's? Mantle did a swan dive after the '63 season. Oliva was clearly better. I am not comparing the 1952-1959 Mantle. I said 60's. You probably aren't old enough to have seen these guys in person. I am and I did. Oliva was the AL answer to Clemente with his rifle arm, speed, reckless play and tremendous hitting. Just as injuries (and his own dissipation) cost Mantle true greatness, injuries kept Oliva from being one of the greatest hitters EVER. I am glad you are so appalled that Oliva was named the most feared hitter in the AL in the 60's but I hardly think you are in a position to know more than the American League pitchers who faced him said he was the best. <br />

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>tbob</b><p>if Oliva had played in New York instead of Minneapolis he would have been in the Hall long ago.