Rocky Colavito: Stick it up their ***
 

Great read. These high-and-mighty HoF committees are awful for the Hall. Someone is either Hall of Fame worthy or they aren't. I'm sick of these "tribute" inductions after someone passes.

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news...i13j9d9q83m6b7

Colavito was a good player, but not a HOF'er. He only had 4 what you'd call "HOF'er type seasons" and his career declined so fast that it hurts him with both the counting stat and metrics people.


But, as far as the entire issue of the HOF voting system, they culd solve these logjam problems by allowing a "yes/no" vote on all eligible players rather than the stupid "you can only pick 10" system they use now. THIS is why guys don't get in 100% and is also why it gets dragged out for so long.

Let's say you are a big Vlad Guerrero fan and you want to make sure he doesn't drop off the ballot, so you end up having to sacrifice your Chipper Jones vote to ensure that Vlad gets a higher %. You didn't vote for a first ballot guy, which makes you look bad, but you did it because you KNOW that guy is getting in, and you don't want to have another guy you think deserves a longer look, falling off. That's a dumb position for a voter to find himself in. If they got to votefor every eligible player "yes or no" then we'd have maybe one huge HOF class, and then it would settle down. (give em say 5 years on the ballot)

As far as the old players go, I think most if not all the deserving one's are in. (and a lot who probably didn't deserve it)

Agreed on Colavito. I mean I am sure you could find a few guys or even more who are in but deserved it less, but that can't be the yardstick. Very good player, but a clear step below the Hall IMO.

I agree, it also opens the door wider to quite a few other marginal players who had truly good careers but not HOF worthy. It could lead to quite an influx of members. Something telling to me is the drop off in stats. It's unfortunate when injuries happen to what could be great players but that's life, it's bound to happen in sports. Another player I can think of in the same category as Colavito, is Bill Buckner..2800 some hits irc.

There are lots of players who had great careers that are still short on qualifications for the hall of fame. OTOMH: Tony Oliva, Dick Allen, Bret Saberhagen, Colavito, Albert Belle, Bob Caruthers (to pick an oldie-but-goodie). Some of these guys will get through future versions of the vet's committee, just like some current hall of famers are no better than this class.*

*And lots who were inducted by the Frisch-led vet's committee were much worse.

Mattingly, Baylor, Tiant, Parker, Kaat, Hodges come to my mind as more guys one level or so below.

While I do not think Colavito himself is a Hall of Famer, these Veterans Committees are remarkably terrible at what they do and an insult to living players.

What they did to Ron Santo, in particular, was unforgivable!

You should compare Luis's record with Drysdale and Hunter.

That they are undeserving does not make him deserving.

all stats career stats

Luis Tiant : 229-172 record (silly stat) - 3.30 ERA, 3.40 FIP, 6.24 K/9 , 2.85 BB per 9 54.8 career fWAR over 3485 inn



Don Drysdale: 209-166 - 2.85 ERA, 3.02 FIP, 6.52 K/9, 2.24 BB/9, 59.3 fWAR over 3433 inn


Catfish Hunter:224-166 3.26 ERA, 3.66 FIP, 5.25 K/9, 2.49 BB/9 37.2 fWAR over 3449 inn


I think Tiant and Drysdale have good cases to be made, But Hunter is pretty far below what we'd accept as HOF level these days.

Those sound like Roy Halladay numbers.

PS I am really surprised Cliff Lee and Roy Oswalt didn't have better career numbers.

Lee's problem is that he didn't really learn to pitch until he was quite old. He was 29 in his first actually good season.

Halladay will be an interesting case for the hall of fame. He was perhaps the best pitcher in baseball for a number of years, something that neither Tiant nor Drysdale can say (Hunter really doesn't belong in this group). But his career doesn't have much bulk to it. I could see him getting elected quickly, but I could also see him sitting around 30% of the vote for years and never getting in. I really don't have any idea what they're going to do with him.

Catfish did have 5 straight 20 win seasons including a 25. His overall numbers were clearly hurt by the fact that he was done at 32.

Catfish was never really a great pitcher. He had three good years: 72, 74 and 75. But outside of that he was pretty ordinary. He *looked* like he was great because he was pitching in front of great teams. And it's his teammates that are largely responsible for his 20 win seasons. For his career, once you adjust for the parks he was playing in, his ERA was only about 4% better than average.

1973 21-5 3rd in Cy Young and only a 1.8 WAR crazy.

He was a lot of fun to watch! So graceful!

His delivery reminded me of Floyd Bannister when he was here (in Columbus) while in the minors...so smooth.

Seems like, however, that type of delivery would be very easy to time...unless your breaking and off-speed pitches are sufficiently similar coming out of your hand.

Lee's were...but injuries stopped him...just as it has many before and since him.

As I said, they were fun to watch, but not in the 1%.


As far as Halliday is concerned, he is a border line case for Cooperstown but he did author what I believe is the best pitched game I've ever seen...

His Playoff No-Hitter vs. the Reds - IMO - it was better, even, than his Perfect Game that same year...and, dare I say it, better also than

Kerry Wood's one-hit, no-walk, 20-strikeout game...which remains the highest game-score ever.



.

Colavito is one of my favorite players and I have all his cards (except 1959 home run derby), but I don't think he's a hall of fame player. that doesn't mean he isn't beloved, and still relevant, still interviewed.

I also love Minoso and Oliva, in fact I like to collect these near-HOFers because they each have great stories and near-greatness.

It's too bad he's worried about it, but I understand that he would love to be a hall of famer - who wouldn't

I also don't have his 1959 Kahn's. If anyone has one - let me know!

I would like to Maris in the HOF well before I ever saw Colavito there.

Same! Not that I know if someone has greater numbers or is more deserving of being in the HOF than Minoso, but he is my number 1 choice of someone who should be in. (JMO)

Off-topic I guess, but two cards I'd love to see:
- 1949 Bowman Minnie Minoso in an Indians uniform, given his call-up
- 1951 Bowman Minnie Minoso in an Indians uniform, when he finished 2nd in ROY voting.

I think Gil McDougald got the 1951 AL ROY because he played in NY and not Cleveland:

From Baseball-Reference.com
1. Gil McDougald 14 HR, 63 RBI, .306 BA, .884 OPS, 14 SB
2. Minnie Minoso 10 HR, 76 RBI, .326 BA, .922 OPS, 31 SB

This is EXACTLY how I feel about Dale Murphy. My favorite player growing up, and a fine member of the Hall of the Very Good, but his career ended too quickly and his peak just wasn't long enough to make him a HOF'er.

But, I could care less! He's still the man in my heart!

A Better Season Than Gil McDougald?

From 1951 to 1961, Minoso hit .305 with a .395 on base average and a .471 slugging percentage. He averaged 16 home runs, 89 RBIs and 18 stolen bases a season.

If the 1922 birth year is correct, then Minoso lost many seasons to racism. He was the Sporting News 1951 Rookie of the Year, out-hitting the Baseball Writers Association of America winner Gil McDougald, .326 to .306, out slugging Gil .500 to .488 and topping Gil in on base average, .422 to .396.

Pretty clear to see he didn't win the ROY due to racism. What a shame! :(

Only Williams and Musial Were Better

While there is doubt with respect to Minoso being a Hall of Famer, there is no doubt that he was a great player.

He was the third best left fielder in baseball, behind Ted Williams and Stan Musial during the 1950s—and he was to Hispanic players almost what Jackie Robinson was to American players.

Minnie Minoso belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Minoso had the same number of 100 RBI seasons as Mantle -- 4. It's still shocking to me that that's all Mantle had. Part of it of course is that he walked so much.

The latter half of his career he missed a lot of games to injury too.

Not to mention that RBI's are pretty contingent on how good the people are on getting on in front of you, and if there is another power guy hitting in front of you taking a lot of of the RBI's with homers and not being on the basepaths for you.

I have a feeling that the Yankees of the 50s and first half of the 60s were pretty good at getting on base. As for the latter point, Gehrig still managed to have a few RBIs :) despite hitting behind Ruth, so I am not buying it. Even when Maris hit 61, he was still probably on base another 140 times.

It's great to see how many folks agree with me about Minnie Minoso...bet he was fun to watch!

Speaking of fun to watch, I wish I had witnessed some of Colavito's legendary outfield throws.

Through the magic of television, I have seen a few Clemente throws...just wonder how Colavito compared.

Hunter 5 rings
Drysdale 3 rings
Tiant 0 rings

Buy it or not it's a fact that RBI's are team contingent and extremely volatile. They are next to worthless for judging individual production because the batter has no control over who is or isn't on base when he comes to bat. Plenty of great seasons have come without 100 RBI's just because they played on a bad team who sucked at getting on base.

Oh, and Ruth is like #2 or 3 in walks and BB% all time, of course Gehrig got a ton of RBI chances!

Judging an individual by team championships is like judging a golfer only by the Ryder Cup

Maris got on base a decent amount but from the late 50s through the early 60s the Yankees had out machines Bobby Richardson and Tony Kubek batting first and second.

Remember also that in the '60s and '70s there was no ESPN or MLB Network. The only baseball on television was the local team and the Saturday game of the week. It wasn't unusual to only see a pitcher once or twice a year. But in October everything was televised, and every result was magnified. I think that Hunter got a lot of credit not only because he was on a winning team, but also because he pitched very well in the postseason (mostly with Oakland), when we were all watching.

These games were often the only time people would see him pitch, and this made a very favorable impression. Tiant only got into the playoffs the one time, and that was well past his prime, so he didn't get this "October bump" the way Hunter did.

That may not be fair, but that's the way it worked.

That's a good point. Had Tiant won game six he certainly would have been the series MVP and may well have a plaque in Cooperstown today. Instead his two complete game victories (and another in the AL championship series) are basically forgotten.

At .342 lifetime I think Ruth probably had a ton of hits where he ended up on base too. Is there an advanced stat for runs driven in/runners on base or something like that, that would be informative?

you could look at situational hitting, but it tends to be all over the place from one year to the next (and over a career tends to be similar to their hitting in ALL situations)

But, it tends to be true that good middle of the order hitters will get more RBI's if the guys in front of them are better at getting on base than an equally good hitter on a lesser team.

Yes that certainly makes sense I would have thought without researching it that a team (50s mid 60s Yankees) that was perhaps the greatest dynasty in history would have been quite adept at putting men on base, but perhaps not?

They looked to be above avg at getting on base. But here's something i just noticed:

Mantle only got 100 RBI's 4 times true, but he got 90+9 times and got walked 90 or more times in 13 seasons. So, with all those walks, he was missing out RBI opps.

Yeah, that was the first thing I mentioned, all those walks. He was ahead of his time. It's interesting that even in his last two mediocre seasons, he walked over 100 times in each. Odd that. And .421 OBP lifetime.

You wanna see real sickness?

Ted Williams - career .482 OBP and 20.6 BB%

Yep. Early on hornsby told him, get a good pitch to hit. He took it to hesrt.

Golf is an individual sport. Baseball is a team sport. Championships are important. Hunter would have no shot at the HOF without 5 championships in 7 years.

And zero rings. Maybe he should have swung at a few more pitches, then he would have won a few.

Lol at Boston fans. When it comes to Bill Russell or Tom Brady, rings are the only thing that matters. When it comes to Ted Williams or Larry Bird (vs. Magic Johnson), rings are irrelevant.

Bill James did an interesting experiment where he compared the effect on an average team over a full season of adding a guy who just walked in every at bat versus Babe Ruth in his best season. The team was better with the walking guy. Williams drawing a walk was, I suspect, more valuable than Williams swinging at pitches he did not feel he could hit that were out of the strike zone. Anyhow it's just wild speculation on your part.

No, it is my opinion from playing the game most of my life. No one is going to walk every at bat, but I do know that you rarely score a run by walking. It is a poor team concept when your best player is trying to walk instead of driving in runs.

We are never going to agree on this, but to me zero rings is evidence that this walk first approach wins at fantasy baseball, but doesn't produce real championships. It's not like Williams didn't play on some good teams. You can give him a pass, I won't.

Historically, walks correlate very nicely with scoring runs. Take a look at this table. This is a run expectancy table. Basically, it's a calculation of how many runs teams score, on average, given a particular combination of base runners and outs. From 2010-2015, the no-one-on, no-one-out state, led, on average, to a team scoring .481 runs. A runner on first, no one out, led, on average, to a team scoring .859 runs. There's nothing fantasy baseball about this, it's just a record of what happened over a five-year stretch in MLB. Getting a runner at the start of an inning almost doubles the number of runs you can expect to score.

Other base-out states may be less dramatic, but a walk is still really good. Consider runners on 1st and 2nd, no one out. On average, that leads to 1.437 runs. Now look at bases loaded no one out. On average, that leads to 2.292 runs. The number of runs you can expect to score goes up, even though you didn't drive in those runners, because now there are more runners on base who can be driven in. (Even by a walk, in this case!)

championships are 0% relevant when discussing the production of a player. It takes some serious levels of sports ignorance to say otherwise.

Ted did not try to walk first. He took walks when he did not get a good pitch to hit. It's absurd to say someone with his hitting stats, arguably the best of all time, was trying to walk first. What's the basis for your assumption that on balls outside the strike zone it would have been better for his team for him to swing anyway?

appeal to authority logical fallacy. FACTS ARE FACTS and your amusing anecdotal, based on nothing, made up bunch of silly nonsense claims only tell us one thing. ex players are generally the worst people to ask about the game.

anyone who would dismiss Ted Williams' frankly AMAZING career because they walked too much and didn't win a ring is so amazingly obtuse that their opinion on everything from soup to nuts should be called into question as well as their sanity.

I'm not sure that's true in basketball where you have five men on the floor at once and all sorts of complex interactive things are going on and a lot of things great players do don't show up in the box score. Baseball, where it's a succession of mano a manos and nearly everything can be measured, for sure.