HOF is a Joke
 

Rank------Player--------(yrs)----Career WAR
78.---Lou Whitaker------(19)---------74.9
93.---Alan Trammell----(20)---------70.4
604.--Bill Mazeroski-----(17)---------36.2 <---HOF

Ridiculous.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...R_career.shtml

I think you're forgetting Tommy McCarthy of the 16.1 career WAR, so low he doesn't even make the top 1000 cutoff.

Frankly, I grew up during the age of those great Tiger teams of Trammell and Whitaker. I always thought of those two as solid All Stars, but not HOFer material. I thought those Tiger teams were led by Gibson and Morris, and Gibson will never sniff the Hall of Fame, and Morris might only get in through generosity of the Veteran's Committee. (Frankly, I think Morris deserves to get in.)

What there should be is a section at the Hall of Fame for "Hall of Fame Moments". That's where you could find Maz, Joe Carter, Vandermeer, etc. Would also take away the pressure of voting someone like Maz in.

Rhof
 

The wayyy more interesting HOF:::
http://www.baseballreliquary.org/awa...-the-eternals/

Yes, but at the same time, the hitting thresholds are lower for middle infielders. That said, I don't see either of those guys as worthy. Of the four you mention, Morris seems the closest.

I know we have a lot of 1800's guys here so can someone explain why Mcarthy is in the Hall? Clearly WAR can't be used as the end all be all, since the game is about as different as you can get then how it was played then.

WAR is WAR if it is calculated correctly which means rule changes are considered.

But if WAR is the true determination of value, then WAR above a certain number means you are in. Case closed. Just pick a number and voters are no longer necessary.

Jimmy Ryan


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

McCarthy and Hugh Duffy were known as the "Heavenly Twins" when they starred for the championship Boston teams of the early 1890s, and were commonly linked together as good players who were also innovators in the way the game was played. McCarthy was widely thought to have invented the hit-and-run play, though modern research has shown that he did not actually do so. (He did probably help popularize it, and other tricks such as deliberately trapping balls in the outfield to force out a runner.)

McCarthy and Duffy were voted into the HOF in 1945-46 by the Veterans' Committee during a two-year period when the Hall inducted 21 new members, following a six-year break during World War II when it only inducted two. These 21 men inducted in 1945-46 were mostly from the 19th century and the dead-ball era, and they included several other players besides McCarthy whose qualifications might be questioned by modern observers, but who were seen at the time as pioneers or important figures in their day. These include Roger Bresnahan (a pretty good player who is basically in the HOF for inventing shin guards); Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers, and Frank Chance (all pretty good players on championship teams, stars in their day, but in the HOF for a poem); and Jack Chesbro (who had one monster year and several other very good ones, but who only pitched nine full seasons, and is in the HOF mainly for having the post-1900 record for single-season wins). Hugh Duffy arguably belongs in this group as well; he's a more legitimate HOFer than McCarthy, though not a slam-dunk by the numbers (.326 lifetime BA in a hitter's era, 43.0 lifetime WAR in 14 full seasons), and a big reason for his induction was probably his record for highest single-season batting average.

I agree with Bill James, McCarthy is the worst player in the HOF. IMHO.

It just shows what a joke WAR is

Ozzie Smith WAR 76.5 OPS+ 87
Bill Mazeroski WAR 36.2 OPS+ 84

According to BillJames, Mazeroski's defensive stats are the most impressive of any player in baseball history including Ozzie, yet WAR doesn't value defense at 2b. The real crime is that Mazeroski had to wait as long as he did while Ozzie was first ballot or guys like Maranville and Aparicio, both OPS+ 82 were elected by the BBWAA.

If I were to pick between Trammell, Whitaker and Mazeroski, I would take Mazeroski, he was the better player in my opinion and I think all 3 are Hofers. I believe all 3 will end up being elected by the veterans committee. It would be fitting if they chose to elect the 2 Tigers together.

All time hit king not in

All time homerun King not in

7 time cy young award winner not in


So who is in ? Sure some greats are in of course but without these guys
What is the hall of fame ?

George Kelly...

Its not the Hall...THE VETERANS COMMITTEE IS THE WORST THING IN THE HISTORY OF HALLS!!!

If it were up to me every single veterans committee inductee would have their own wing and not be considered a HOFer

There is absolutely no need for this. If you didn't get in when you were eligible thats it.

Can someone tell me seriously why this exists?

I agree that the Veterans Committee is the worst thing that happened to the HOF historically. But, I think there should be some way of taking a 2nd look at players that didn't make the cut, for whatever reason.

In my mind, Tim Raines is a Hall of Famer, but might not make it through. Guys from the late 60's/early 70's voting like Hafey, Ferrell, George Kelly, Bancroft, Rixey should be pulled out of the Hall (as should Frankie Frisch for railroading all these players in).

To me the HOF election process is a joke. If a player doesn't get in in say the first 3 years of eligibility then he should be out. His stats stopped when he stopped playing and don't get any better so how can a guy not get voted and then in 7,8,or 10 years later be all of a sudden good enough to be a HOFer. Makes absolutely no sense. Just cause maybe there is not a good class of guys for a certain year they seem to say this guy is ok since there isn't anybody good for the year so lets put him in. Give the guy 3 years on the ballet then maybe 2 years on the veterans committee and then your done. If you don't make it in 5 years that is enough. Why drag it out for 10 years or more.

I would love to see a survey of mlb players who played during Trammell and Whitaker's era to see what they think. I have always gone back and forth, and I watched them both for 20 years. Same with Jack Morris. I thought I read once that Reggie Jackson thought Morris was the best pitcher of that era.

The Tigers had the 2nd most wins in all of baseball during the 80's and won it all in '84. Seems like someone on those teams would be hall-of-fame worthy. And I can't think of anyone who played for the Tigers in the 80's who's in the hall-of-fame.

Trammel and Whitaker aren't HOF players sorry.

The Baseball Hall of Fame is imperfect but it is not a joke. It is the most exclusive in sports. No ten players at a time like in Canton. The Veteran's Committee has made some bad choices, notably when Frank Frisch and Bill Terry got seven of their teammates elected. Admittedly, there are probably two dozen players who I would remove from the Hall and most were put in by the Veteran's Committee but there have been some good choices as well. (ie. Sam Crawford, Zach Wheat, John Clarkson and others) The rules have changed and it is much more difficult to get in through the committee. That is as it should be.

We will see. With names like Santo and Mazeroski... I think Sweet Lou and Trammel will get their day with the Veterans Committee.

Now let's talk about Vern Stephens....

No they aren't. But they should be.

The Veterans Committee exists because the baseball writers can be very biased. Seriously, it's common knowledge that writers won't vote for players for the HOF if the players wouldn't give them the time of day. Seriously, where in the criteria for the Hall of Fame does it say that you need to suck up to the writers? The writers should just vote based on the play on the field rather than the extracurricular stuff. One can argue that the Veteran's Committee has better voters because some of them are at least players already in the HOF.

I love the HOF. If they start putting in the likes of Trammell and Whitaker , they are going to have to put just about everybody in. Maybe Maz and other should not be enshrined but two wrongs dont make a right. If these Tigers are going in, I want Dave Parker and Al Oliver to follow

Of course this would be biased then.......

What about Konerko? Border line numbers, won ALCS MVP, as well as a ring..... Can't say the same for Trammel or Whitaker

McGriff?
Baines?
Raines?
Larry Walker? (Please spare the whole Colorado crap)

Have you even looked at Whitaker's numbers? Many feel he was the 6th best second baseman in history. He crushes Mazeroski in every offensive category. Defensively, we can all pretend that Maz was magical but there is no way he was sooooo good in the field that he was the savior of his team.

Notice how Whitaker's stats just got better as time went on. He played 19 seasons and still retired too early, probably because of that stupid strike in 1994/95, which cut short his final seasons, both of which were among his best offensively.

The real crime is that Lou appeared on one ballot, never to appear again. This for a guy considered #6 all time at his position and #49 overall for position players.

Trammell and Whitaker were both great players and should be in but please don't mention Santo and Mazeroski in the same sentence. Maz got in based on his defense. Ron Santo was a great third baseman, both offensively and defensively.

Agree - Voting players in should be entirely independent of who is already in. You can benchmark candidates against HOF members all day long and come up with reasons for easily another 100 to get in. Maz was probably one that shouldn't have gotten in so when you compare him with guys like Trammell/Whitaker, it makes it odd that they aren't in, too.

Put them in (not talking specifically about Trammell/Whitaker) and you have a whole slew of others saying 'What about me?' As someone said earlier, a big problem is also allowing guys to stay on ballots for so many opportunities. I'd give players two initial years. If they don't get in, wait like ten years and give them one more shot with what would by then include some new voters. That's it.

Outside of unique cases (Rose) and the steroid group, when there's a fierce debate if someone should be in or not, they probably don't need to be there.

I've never understood how a player can become a HOFer in their 13th or 14th year on the ballot, but not in the first 12 years. If you were a true hall of famer you shouldn't be voted in out of the fact that it was a weak ballot year.

Sometimes the way that their careers are looked at gain better perspective the longer away it is. Bert Blyleven's numbers came to be viewed in a much different way once sabermetric stats starting coming into vogue. I have the feeling that, if Lou Whitaker and Ted Simmons and (this year) Jim Edmonds had remained on the ballot beyond that first year, their numbers may have been looked at more closely in subsequent years and there could have been a ground swell similar to that which happened with The Flying Dutchman.

Tom C

Well, they did originally sign John Smoltz, but they traded him to the Braves at the trade deadline in 1987 for Doyle Alexander, before he reached the majors. Alexander did go 9-0 with a 1.53 ERA down the stretch and help the Tigers win the AL East, but it didn't work out for them so well in the long term.

Smoltz was a local boy from East Lansing, Michigan, where I was living at the time, and when the Braves brought him up to the majors the following year, it made the local papers.

If the Hall of Fame voters were all qualified for their job then 50.1% of the votes should be enough to get a player elected. The hall knows that all the voters aren't qualified and they don't give them a benefit of the doubt either, so they require 75%. The Hall of Fame ballot should come with a test first before you're allowed to vote.

I did look at the stats before I posted. They were good but not HOF in my mind. Not sure how you come up with 6th best 2B, is that a new metric? How about:

Morgan
Hornsby
Collins
Robinson
Lajoie
Biggio
Carew
Alomar
Sandberg
Gehringer
Grich
Kent
Frisch ?
Doerr ?

I can't take that seriously when Jackie Robinson and Rod Carew are missing from that list.

yep
 

+1

Robinson played just over half of his career games at second base, and Carew played less than half of his at second. I suspect that's why they're not on the list. Plus, Robinson only played 10 seasons, so if you're looking at career numbers (as this site apparently is), he's at a disadvantage to guys who played a full career, even though he played brilliantly during those 10 years.

-1

Did you even click the link?? That isn't "the list", it's the first few. It goes to 200. For 2B, Robinson is ranked #13 and Carew is listed as #8 at 1B because the majority of his games were there, just inching out games at second base.

If you have a problem with Robinson being #13, realize that he played only 10 seasons while Whitaker played 19. Blame the racists of the time for making Jackie wait until age 28 to get to the majors. At least he's in the Hall. Whitaker was dropped after being on just one lousy ballot.

The thing about Whitaker, and I know it looks like you really like him, but many of his playing years in the 80s were my prime baseball card collecting years as a kid. I know you are thinking that this is some kind of joke, but seriously, at that time, no one was stocking up on Lou Whitaker cards (and I grew up in Indiana, so I was still in the Midwest). Nobody was trading their crotchety Pete Rose cards for Whitaker or their other star cards. Heck, I think if you wanted to trade a Whitaker card for a Ron Cey card, there would be a lot of pause there on whether to give up the Cey card. Back then, everyone was stocking up on Pedro Guerrerro and Cecil Cooper before or course, Donnie Baseball came along. However, Whitaker during those days was just though of as a minor star, above a common, but no one was thinking that this guy was going to make the HOF.

And don't even get me started on this Bobby Grich guy that is getting resurrected in these threads. Of course, he was before my time, but I was lucky to inherit some of the cards from my older cousin, including that 1975 Topps Grich card that I distinctly remember still. Seriously, that guy was a complete common player when doing baseball card trades.

Would you say the same about Ozzie Smith?

http://baseballhall.org/hof/mazeroski-bill

Bill Mazeroski is widely regarded as one of the best fielders the game has ever seen, at any position. Not only could he make the routine plays, but he could make plays no one else could and could make them look routine. Teammate Vern Law said, “Maz would constantly come up with balls we thought were base hits. You’re running over to back up a base and here Maz has got the ball and he’s throwing that hitter out.” Bill Virdon recalled what it was like playing behind him in center field. “The impressive thing about Maz was that he did everything at second base. I backed him up for six years and never got a ball,” Virdon said.

Teammate Bob Friend recalled, “He was one of a kind out there. Maz did so many things that never showed up in a box score.”

“Over 17 years, saving thousands of runs is like driving in thousands of runs. It’s the same thing. So, what’s the difference?”

"It's an honor just to be put in Maz's class. I don't mean to sound corny. For years, I've watched Maz make the tough play look easy. The way he makes the double play is a thing of beauty. "
– Glenn Beckert

http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/a5cc0d05

Years later Alley confessed that he was intimidated seeing Mazeroski take groundballs during spring training. He thought, “If you had to be that good in the majors, I’ll never make it!”

Bill was known for his quick feet around the bag but was also nicknamed “Tree Stump” because sliding baserunners usually were unable to take him out. Dave Giusti recalled the time a young Ron Stone of the Phillies went into second with intentions of taking Mazeroski out. As Giusti described it, Stone went in and upon contact, slowly melted into a clump and was rewarded with three broken ribs.

Mazeroski was that good defensively. Like I said before, I think Whitaker is a Hofer, but he is no where close to the 6th best 2B and he is not better than Mazeroski. I would take the runs he saved over the ones Whitaker created.

Yeah because baseball card trades accurately predict who goes into the Hall. I'm sure you were stocking up on all future HOFers, the "big guns" like Gaylord Perry, Tony Perez, Paul Molitor, Dennis Eckersley, Billy Williams, Bruce Sutter, Phil Niekro, & Bert Blyleven. Everyone predicted they'd be enshrined.

I'm going to take it easy on you since you support Whitaker, which I respect. All I'll say is that if I was a Pirates fan during the Maz years, I'd groan every time he stepped up to the plate, just like Tigers fans did during the Brandon Inge era. Both were great defensively for sure. But that's not enough. In fact, Inge was arguably a better hitter than Maz (.685 OPS to .667 for Maz) and there is absolutely, positively no way in anyone's lifetime that Inge should get within 1000 miles of the Hall of Fame.

Gaylord Perry was a hell of a pitcher. Bill James lists Perry as having the 10th best career of any right-handed starting pitcher.

Yeah, but who was stockpiling his baseball cards? Nobody.

[QUOTE=Joshchisox08;1489060]Of course this would be biased then.......

What about Konerko? Border line numbers, won ALCS MVP, as well as a ring..... Can't say the same for Trammel or Whitaker

Your right, if I remember correctly Trammell didn't win an ALCS MVP, he won a World Series MVP with his ring....

When I played rbi baseball on my Nintendo trammall and Whitaker were pretty good but Darrell Evans would get you a home run every time. So my vote is for him.


On a serious note i think the hall is too broken to be fixed and just needs to be enjoyed for what it is. The stuff is still cool, as is the building, ceremony and idea. I spent a lot of time as a kid studying to try to perfect a list with a statistics based cutoff. I realized at some point that it was impossible.

Maz 2094 games at 2B
204 errors
.983 Fld%
5.72 Range Factor per 9 innings

Whitaker 2308 games at 2B
189 errors
.984 Fld%
5.39 Range Factor per 9 innings

I don't see where Mazeroski is the best fielding second baseman ever with those stats. There is a good chance that Maz's better range factor is directly related to more balls in play due to less k's by Pirate pitchers in the 50s, 60s & 70s compared to Tigers pitchers in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

I agree with this comment. Only 217 out of 18,336 MLB players in the HOF. They get it right more than any other HOF.

I think we know he was a better fielder because people who watched him play and played with him say he was one of the best ever.

Carew is a guy who the sabrmetrics are not kind to despite his wealth of batting titles, 3000 hits, and a very high average. On BR, where he is listed at second, he is only sixth.

How does Brooks do on fielding stats? I always suspect them because guys with great range are going to reach more balls but probably as a result commit more errors. And I don't know how you could account for this unless you had tape of every fielding chance. Maybe "range factor" somehow figures this in through some algorithm?