Continuing the HOF debates -- Who Should NOT be in and why

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Hodes 

I figure since the last one just passed 50 I would sort of start a new one where we left off with the converse question -- who should NOT be in (among both candidates and inductees).

I'll start with a couple of categories:

Fielders only - Maz (even assuming he was about as good a second baseman as ever played I think that in the last analysis the difference between him and an adequate 2b isn't enough to warrant induction even coupled with one very big World Series homer. Conversely, a great hitter who was (at best) an adequate 2b like Hornsby clearly won enough games for his teams and established such excellance that he would be a 1st tier HOFer as would Ted Williams.
Ozzie Smith is a tougher call than Maz because he played a more important infield position and his hitting stats while not being great was certainly close to the HOF level for Shortstops which (at least until the coming of Arod, Derek and Nomar) was significantly lower than for 2nd Basemen. Rey Ordonez certainly is no HOF assuming things continue. He is a spactacular fielder but not all that consistent yet and his hitting is sub par. We can seriously talk about him after about 10 more gold gloves and a couple thousand hits...

Right place right time players -- these are "the supporting cast" players on great teams. Certainly good players (and usually good teamates, too) but really fortunate to be where they were when they were there. The best examples here are probably Rizutto, Joe Tinker a bunch of those 20-30s Giants Frisch put in, and perhaps, Rollie Fingers too. The closer calls in this group are guys like Catfish Hunter and Pee Wee Reese.
This would include candidates like the beloved Hodges, Ruelbach (sorry Scott), Dave Concepcion and certainly Paul O'Neil. Really, these are baseball's equalivalent of Rick Fox on the Lakers (perhaps minus some of the looks and the gorgeous wife).

Anyway, that should get us started....

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

players that flat out have no business in the Hall: Rabbit Maranville, Freddy Lindstrom, Candy Cummings (although I do notice they have no moved him player status to pioneer of the game status) and another of other 'cronie' inducties that I am forgetting.

For those that say someone like Puckett and others with short careers don't belong because they didn't play long enough, you better not be saying that Niekro, Sutton et al don't belong because they played forever. You can't have it both ways.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: jeff

Seems like the rule for true HOFers should be "major star for 12+ years." Something like that. Of course, we can still debate about "major" and the number 12, but that's beside the point. Guys like Puckett didn't get the 12, guys like Niekro weren't "major" much of the time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

The larger question with Sutton, Neikro and others isn't more like this: If someone has above-average years for twenty plus seasons, does that consistent longevity add something to their careers that otherwise would not have been there? It seems like the answer is yes -- but not a resounding yes.

Even some of the True HOF-calibre players with longevity -- think of your Hank Aarons, Nolan Ryans, Pete Roses and even Cal Ripkens. Had it not been for their longevity, would history look so kindly upon them? Perhaps not. Aaron, though an amazing home run hitter, was known more for his consistent years of 35 home runs than being a powerhouse in any one of his years. Ryan, though remembered for his strikeouts and unprecedented seven no-hitters, played for marginal teams and had a marginal winning percentage (he is nearly in a very exclusive club -- the 300 loss club). Longevity shows an endurance that many other players either do not strive for, or whose health or luck does not permit. But there have been a significant number of players who perhaps made the All-Star team four or five times over a 20 - 25 year career, and really were never considered among the most dominant players of their season, decade or generation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

Puckett did play 12 seasons. Incidentally, Koufax played 12 and Kiner 10.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

There's a lot of disagreement, even in the California Bay Area, about Eckersly. In or out?

My Enclyclopedia of Baseball only goes to 1989. Who had the longest major league career? Ryan? I mean, of all time. I would include the 19th century players, though i don't think any come close (American Assoiciation, National League and National Association, too). No fair counting skipped years, though, no matter what the reason.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott

...all big "NO"s...Ryan should be in because he was a super-star - period. This gets back to my litmus test - how badly did kids want to pull his baseball card from a pack?

[Archive]

Posted By: glenv

I still am miffed at Eck winning the MVP while only pitching in 90(?) innings all season. To be a good
closer, you have to be on a good team where you can keep coming in to the 9th with a lead. Then just get
3 outs before giving up 1-3 runs. Hershiser once pitched 60(?) straight scoreless innings - should he be in? Eck gave
up runs and still got saves.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

then by your litmus test, Puckett is in. When I was dealing in the 80s I can't think of anyone that said said "Damn, got another Puckett". Part of the reason he got into the Hall is because of his national appeal, not just local.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: scott

As a child, I once got a 5-card pack of '68s that had Mays on top, Killebrew,Mantle, Oliva and one I can't remember. This was the dream pack of all time (not because it had two Twins Jay). I was glad to get Oliva, but only because I didn't have him - Mantle, Mays and Killebrew were on an entirely different plane...gee, maybe that plane would be called the "Hall of Fame" - it actually was at one time!

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

you need to go take a look at Eck's numbers as reliever, especially when he was MVP. It will be a long time before another reliever has that type of season. Here's Eck's MVP season: 7-1 48 saves, 63 games, 72 IP, 41 hits, 4 BB, 73 K, 0.61 ERA. He had an impact on over 1/3 of his teams games, as opposed to a starting pitcher today that barely impacts 1/5 of the teams games. I hate seeing pitchers given the MVP award beucase everyday players cannot win the Cy Young award, but this is propably the only time where I would agree that a pitcher was the MVP that year. Besides, the next best year by an everyday player was Puckett, and I would have voted to Eck.

Bringing up Eck reminded me of few other players that belong in the Hall, all relievers, Quisenberry and Sutter. Simply the dominant relievers of their time. Same for Eck, and he has the added bonus of having been a top notch starter before moving to the closer role.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Hodes

I like the way that your "pull-test" sounds but how many years did they have to want to "pull them" for ?Otherwise we get Hofers like:
Doc Gooden, Daryl Strawberry, Don Mattingly, Eric Davis, Mark Fydrich, Denny McLain etc.
And what about pulling an Anson (from a pack of Old Judge, I guess), Josh Gibson etc.
OK, I know you weren't entirely serious about that as a litmus test.
--
Another group I would bounce -- "one hit (or maybe 2 hit) wonders" -- Hack Wilson, Rube Marquard and Jack Chesbro come to mind but this would also apply to Roger Maris and Smokey Joe Wood .
Others I don't think make the cut are: Vic Willis; Rabbit M.; Tommy McCarthy (could save alot HOF collector headaches if he weren't in there); Roger Bresnahan; George Kelly; Travis Jackson; "Pop" Haines; Ted Lyons; Waite Hoyt; Herb Pennock; Freddie Lindstrom; Edd Rousch; Earl Combs; Ray Schalk; Stan Covaleski.
I think Niekro is a keeper probably Sutton too. And Eckersley, Gossage and Sutter should get it because they (like Mariano Rivera today) were really dominant (not Reardon or Orosco). I can't make up my mind on Lee Smith.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

And I'm sure many of you will disagreee with a lot of what I say, but, in general, there are far too many players in the Hall of Fame.

I just ran through the list of names and broke them into two categories - "questionable" (not necessarily in a negative context, but rather those for whom a passionate argument could be made that they are not of such superior talent that they unquestionably belong) and "no freakin' way" (self-explanatory). My rationale is that I didn't think they'd be in the top 25 - 50 or 51 - 100 all-time players for overall performance (batting, fielding, running and intangibles) at their position.

I know this is flawed, but opinions are like noses - everybody has one.

Let the fighting begin!

Catcher - Questionable - Ferrell, Lombardi, Schalk

First - Questionable - Bottomley, Chance, Sisler, Terry
No Way - Beckley, Kelly

Second - Questionable - Evers, Mazeroski, McPhee

Third - Questionable - Kell, Lindstrom

Shortstop - Questionable - Bancroft, Jackson, Maranville, Tinker, Wallace

Outfield - Questionable - Carey, Clarke, Combs, Cuyler, Flick, Hooper, Keeler, Kelley, Kelly, Klein, O'Rourke, Rice, Thompson, Waner, Wheat, Youngs
No Way - Hafey, McCarthy

Pitcher - Questionable - Bunning, Drysdale, Lemon, Lyons, McGinnity, Newhouser, Niekro, Plank, Radbourne, Rusie, Sutton, Wilhelm, Wynn, Vance
No Way - Coveleskie, Faber, Fingers, Grimes, Gomez, Hoyt, Hunter, Joss, Keefe, Pennock, Rixey, Ruffing, Waddell

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Hodes

Mike I agree that defense is imporant but most of defense in baseball is pitching. Also, in terms of position the most important defensive (non-pitcher) is probably the Catcher and then the SS at least in terms of the difference between average and great.

Faber's ratings are interesting but he seems to have a special thing for Second Baseman. He rates McPhee as the BEST 19th century player (good yes but better than all of the 300 game winners, Anson and Bouthers?) and Lajoie among the best players EVER(Lajoie is great but not on par with Ruth, Johnson, Wagner, Mays and I guess Bonds too).

Ultimately, I think Maz probably shouldn't be in and neither should Rabbit (who played a slightly more important position)they were among the best fielders ever at their respective positions but how much does that matter in terms of winning and losing given they were probably little more than average as hitters? (except for that little homer in the 1960 series!).

Also, Kevin I'm shocked at you questioning 19th century greats like Radbourne (considered the greatest Pitcher of the 19th century). Have you been reading too much Bill James ??? (kind of inside joke here because Kevin is a 19th century buff).

Relievers (as in closers) are a new thing and the dust hasn't settled on exactly where the line for true greatness is. Personally I like Sutter, Eckersley, Gossage and now Rivera (when they came in it really was the end for the other team). Conversely, Fingers' best attribute may have been playing well (but not quite great) on great teams (I am somewhat parotting Bill James here I must admit).

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

That is your problem right there. You cannot sit back and wait to see what the standard 'should' be for HOF. The best you can do is look at that player in context of how good he was while he played. You can't compare them against some standard set in another era. Fingers and Gossage were the best relievers in the 70s and they belong. Sutter and Quisenberry in the 80s. After them, only Eck comes to mind.

Someone had mentioned in another post that saves were sort of meaningless beucase you only had to be a good pitcher on a good team to rack up saves. This is definately not the case. Thigpen set the record with a mediocre White Sox teams. Montreal and several other bad teams have had relievers lead the league in saves. There is a lot more to saving a game than just stepping on the mound for a good team when they are ahead.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Brian --

Charles Faber ranks players through analysis of both batting AND fielding statistics -- the Hall of Fame does not. Batters gain points on defense based on positive attributes, such as putouts and assists, and lose points based on errors.

Combining Mazeroski's offensive numbers with a statistic known as "fielding runs" and "fielding wins," a total player rating can be determined. Where does Mazeroski rank? 77th with a Total Player Rating of 36.3. He's above such notables as Yogi Berra, Paul Waner, Bill Dickey, Frank Baker, Willie Stargell, Rod Carew, Mickey Cochrane, Richie Ashburn, Andre Dawson, Kirby Puckett, Ralph Kiner, and a host of others.

Fielding Runs is the measure of runs saved beyond what a league-average player at that position might have saved. Fielding Wins is the number of Fielding Runs divided by the number of runs required to create an additional win beyond average.

Even in Total Player Rating by era, Mazeroski is ranked 10th (1961-1976).

Finally, I think you grossly underestimate Bid McPhee. I'm not saying he's the top 19th century player, but you can't judge him on offensive numbers alone. It's easy to fall into the trap of glancing at batting average, RBI, HR's, and runs scored and quickly form a judgment as to the HOF worthiness of a particular player. But there's so much more to baseball than those statistics. To exclude a player's defensive prowess or to separate it from his offensive performance is a recipe for errant judgments based on fractional data.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

It made all the work worthwhile!

Seriously though, as I replied to Jay, ranking players with statistics is useful up to a point (pretty valid when comparing players of the same era, but somewhat flawed when comparing players from different eras), but some consideration has to be given to intangibles such as to whether the player was a catalyst for a significant change in the sport or was so adept at his one distinct skill for an extended period of time that it overrides average skills in other areas.

Of course, Hoss Radbourne belongs in the Hall. I don't think he was the 19th century's premier pitcher, however - Kid Nichols was. Hoss is probably second best, although I could be convinced that he was third behind Amos Rusie.

I'm also a big fan of pinch hitters and relief pitchers - clearly not careers for the weak of heart - but it's harder to justify these contributors as HOF worthy. I've said it before in this forum - I think the save statistic as it is currently configured is a joke. Unless it were significantly tightened up retroactively, relievers would have to be judged in some other way in addition to this criteria.

I guess it really comes down to this - was the player superior or better yet dominant at what he did for an extended period of time so that he elevated his team or the game in general to a point where it would not have been had he not played. Easy, huh?

[Archive]

Posted By: HalleyGator

Have you guys forgotten one little fact that will ALWAYS exist...

and which is why second basemen like Maz and McPhee will ALWAYS have such GREAT fielding statistics that are MUCH BETTER than all the shortstops and third basemen in history???

Second base is a LOT CLOSER to first base!!!

When a shortstop bobbles the ball for even a split second, the runner is already safe and the shortstop gets an error. The second baseman can make the exact same bobble and still get the runner out.

Furthermore, when a shortstop fields the ball cleanly, he still has a long tough throw to make in a hurry. The second baseman (other than Sax & Knoblach) has a nice easy throw to make with less reason to rush it.

And if a second baseman can't turn a double play ... it isn't an error because the official scorer cannot "assume" a double play would have been turned.

And unlike first and third base... second base is a LOT FURTHER from the batter!!

Thus, the second baseman has more time to react to hot shots than the guys at the corners, and again, more time to recover and make the throw.

Given all of this, I would expect second basemen to be much better statistical fielders than guys at other positions, so I am not truly impressed by Mazeroski or McPhee's stats.

Should they be in? I doubt it.

MY IDEA ... however ... has always been that there should be a "BASEBALL GREAT EVENTS" Hall of Fame in addition to one just honoring the greatest players.

In other words ... if Roger Maris was in the "Great Events" HOF for hitting 61 in 1961 ... and Maz was in the "Great Events" HOF for his game winning homer in 1960 ... and Johnny VanderMeer for his back to back no-hitters ... and Jack Chesbro for winning 30+ in one season ... and Pete Gray for playing with one arm ... and Lee Smith for being the All-Time Saves leader ... and so on and so on ...

then there probably would never be a push for players like Maris and Mazeroski and Lee Smith to get in to the "Great Players" HOF in the first place.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cy

I am a Pirates fan and because of this I want Maz to be in the Hall. But I truly feel that he should be there. He was the best defensive 2nd baseman, period. And he was the best 2nd baseman of his time for about 10-15 years. What else does he need to do? When a player is that dominant at his given position, whether it is a glorified position or not, he deserves to be in the HOF.

That brings up a point about Nolan Ryan. The knock against Maz is that he was one-dimensional. That is exactly what Nolan Ryan was. He is the greatest strikeout pitcher of all-time. That is undisputed. But a strikeout is an out, period. It may be slightly better than some outs because a runner can't advance. But it is merely an out. And he did have 7 no hitters. This is extremely impressive, too. But is that enough to make him a HOFer?

When Ryan's record is mentioned, people remark that he played on lousy teams and that is why it is so bad. Well, that may be the case. But if he is to be considered a great, HOF pitcher, shouldn't his stats be considerably better than the teams he played for, irrespective of the team's ineptitude?

I checked two other HOF pitchers' stats to compare with Ryan. I picked Koufax because it was easy (short career) and he is considered a great pitcher. I realize that he did have a short career but let's just check his stats. And remember that his teams were stellar when he was a very young pitcher, which "should" hurt his numbers compared to his teams numbers. The other pitcher I chose was Matty.

The stats that I found are as follows:

                      Player         Teams
                    W   L  Pct.    W    L  Pct. 
Christy Mathewson  373 188 .665  1456 1080 .574  +.091
Nolan Ryan         324 292 .525  2171 2143 .503  +.022
Sandy Koufax       165  87 .654  1078  814 .569  +.085

The stats indicate that Matty was 9.1% better than his team throughout his entire career, Koufax 8.5% (and that is with him going 4-6 his first two years and his team going 191-116 those years, which would significantly lower his difference). Meanwhile Ryan was 2.2% better than his teams. OK, the people that claim Ryan is a bonafide superstar, would you like your ace pitcher to be only 2.2% better than your average pitcher? I didn't check other pitchers (yet). Try some and see if they wind up better than a pitiful 2.2% increase over their team's average pitcher.

The reason that he is in the HOF is that he was the premier fireball pitcher of his era. People like to see that. But if I had to pick a pitcher to win a must win game for me, Nolan Ryan wouldn't be anywhere near the top of my list. And, so, I don't feel he is in the elite pitchers of the game.

(If anyone wants to see the lifetime stats of these three pitchers with their teams, I have them and could E-mail them to you.)

[Archive]

Posted By: W.M.

Cy

To some degree I agree with your opinion on Ryan and a couple of times I have questioned his HOF membership. One thing that always bothered me was he lost almost as many games as he won. I remember as a kid In the seventies we never thought that much of Ryan or his baseball cards he never seemed able to win the important games. What I do remember is that when he was on his game and he settled in to that groove he was un-hitable. That is why I have always been able to conceed that he is a HOF Player.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Interesting, you list almost every 19th century HOFer as being questionable or no way. You cannot possibly rate them based on career stats against other players in different eras because the game was so radically different.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

I know. I said the statement had flaws one of them being that it's very difficult to compare players from different eras given the changes from era to era.

Personally I'm a big 19th century fan, so emotionally I think they are underrepresented and more belong simply because they were true stars in the pioneer era and we probably wouldn't be discussing trivial matters like this on boards like this if they didn't popularize the game.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Seems a number of people have real problems with putting a reliever in the HOF. Why is that? They are just as important to a team these days as any other player on the team. There will also come a time when a DH will desrve to go to the Hall, namely Edgar Martinez.

There is a strong possibility that we may never see another 300 game winner in our lifetime because of the way the game is now played. How do we measure starters then? Ks are a worthless stat now because hitters don't care anymore if they strike out.

I really don't have a problem with putting the top player or 2 from each position for each 10 year stretch. The game changes a lot over that time and it's impossible to compare players over different eras no matter how hard Bill James and everyone else tries.

Name a more dominant reliever in the 70s than Fingers. Same goes for Sutter and Quisenberry. In the late 70s early 80s there was no more feared hitter than Jim Rice. In the 80s there was no better pitcher in that decade than Jack Morris. Yes, Clemens and Gooden were there half the decade, but Morris was THE pitcher in AL for almost the entire 80s, yet people still don't think he belongs.

Just another name to throw out there on the who's out but should be in, Bobby Grich.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Bill Mazeroski is not only the best fielding second baseman of all time, but arguably, the best fielder of all time -- at ANY position and from ANY era.

Charles Faber, in his Baseball Ratings has developed a formula by which he awards points for fielding percentage, assists, chances, and fielding range. Bill Mazeroski ranks first.

Such a distinction -- the best fielder of all-time -- makes Mazeroski anything BUT a questionable Hall of Famer. In fact, Total Baseball ranks Mazeroski as the 77th best player of all-time.

Here's my question for those who think he shouldn't be in the Hall -- what's the difference between producing runs and effectively preventing them? Is a potent offense any more important in winning games than a superlative defense?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Hal- no one is saying that 2B is any harder than the other infield position and that Maz is a better fielder than them. I, and others, have stated that he was the greatest fielding 2B and that is the main reason he is in the Hall. It's ridiculous to try and compare raw fielding numbers of players who do not play the same position. Talk to any person that serious stats analysis for SABR and they tell you that fielding stats are almost worthless and that it is the single most difficult part of the game to qualify becuase there are so many intangibles.

An example is Ozzie v Ripken. Ozzie could get to balls that Ripken would not even be able to touch, but becuase of this, it added to the chance that Ozzie would commit an error. i.e. Ozzie knocks down a ball at the outside of his range but the runner makes it safely to first and Ozzie gets an error. That same ball goes past Ripken into the gap for a double and Ripken gets no error. This is a big problem with fielding stats.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

You also need to look at run support. You can play for a bad team and still get run support. The media does a pretty good job of pointing these players out nowdays. When Ryan was pitching for Houston he was among the league leaders for ERA, yet his team was incapable of scoring runs for him. Walter Johnson also suffered from this problem as evidenced by his 59 (Not sure if it's the right number but he does hold the record) games he lost 1-0.

I love stats as much as the next person, but it's true that you can make stats say just about anything you want them to, especially when taken out of context or not used with supporting material.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

...

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

other than the magic "300 wins" number. But as someone who saw him pitch 20 or more times (I was lucky enough to live in Houston while he was there, and then Arlington while he was there), it was just incredible to watch him when he was "on". Also, if he had retired at a normal age, he probably wouldn't have made the Hall - he didn't really learn how to "pitch" until during his time with Houston.

He did a lot more for baseball than just win games - he became a genuine baseball celebrity while with Texas. There's a lot of "intangible" in his inclusion, plus the fact that he is the ALL-TIME STRIKEOUT king. You just can't ignore that.

BTW, I was at his last no-hitter. I was sick and didn't drink beer at a game for the first time since I was 16. I think Nolan sensed that and decided he owed me one for losing a no-no in the 9th once when I saw him, failing twice to pass Walter Johnson while I was watching, and failing to get his 300th win while I was watching. Needless to say, I'm a big Ryan fan.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I believe you have your facts wrong, Ryan had one of the lowest, not highest hits per 9 innings ratios. Throw in the walks and doesn't look so good.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I lived in Houston to see his 3000th strikeout ( I believe that was it)....and spilled my beer all over the place jumping up and down....He definitely deserves to be in and I think he was a better pitcher than Maddux ever thought about being.....but I do have a bias towards my homey......regards all....(Walter Johnson had the best stats of ANY pitcher when his team's lameness is taken into account)

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian K. Hodes

I flipped the numbers when it said he was first.
I think Ryan was spactatular and fantasctic too.
But by trying to do it the hard way (striking everyone out at all costs)he was not as efficient or effective as he could have been -- there ae no points for degree of difficulty when measuring the very best just winning and allowing the fewest runs. Still he was truly a marvel.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Hodes

When he was selected to the all century team (the fans voted him in) a couple of years ago that was taking it a bit too far. He was not nearly as good as Carlton, Seaver or Maddux was or as Randy Johnson is. (Ryan never won a Cy Young award and probably never really should have).

But the Hall of Fame bar is not nearly so high as the all century team. Ryan had a very good ERA lifetime (3.19 )and, yes, he pitched for some wretched teams (esecially during some of his best seasons). He struck more than anyone ever has (or probably will unless Randy Johnson wants to go for quite a few more years). He also walked batters like crazy -- leading the league 8 times en route to the most walks ever (2795!). Ryan also has the highest hits per 9 innings of any Pitcher in History I always think of (the fictional) Crash Davis telling Luke Laloosh that Strikeouts are overrated (he used the word "facist") if he wanted to win he shouldn't go for strikeouts... I have a friend who pitched in College and a little in the minors and finds Ryan the most remarkable pithcer ever... Certainly he controlled a game like few Pitchers ever have. But, he may have sacrificed a lot of wins at the alter of all those strikeouts making him less of a winner than the real first tier Pitchers.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

it sometimes takes even ML-caliber pitchers many years to figure out how to "pitch". Meanwhile, if they've got the arm for it, they do their best to blow the batters away. Examples are Don Sutton, Christy Mathewson, and Ryan. I was listening to an interview the other day with two ML batters - both said that they would rather face a power pitcher than a control pitcher, as long as the power pitcher was throwing under 93 miles/hour. Ryan, of course, threw much harder than that - it was the only effective pitch in his arsenal when he was younger.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Ya'll have some good points about Ryan. With that being said the strikeout is like a hit and the no-no is like a grand slam on steroids. Ryan has the record for both. Have ya'll ever seen a 96mph fastball. If you have tried batting against a pitcher with that kind of arm, longevity, and good accuracy, this debate would be over.....regards all

[Archive]

Posted By: 2seamer

Yes, and I would rather face 96 MPH pitch that is flat and straight than one that is 86 MPH and has "Maddux" like movement. About Ryan: Anyone that questions whether Nolan Ryan should be in the Hall or not NEEDS their head examined.....as well as Pete Rose, Ozzie Smith, and a few others that have been questioned. Pitching is SO bad nowadays that I think once I am financially independent I will make my comeback @ 30. Bottom line is that kids nowadays are just plain lazy and spoiled and therefor cannot perform up to Major League standards. Makes me sick where the game has gone. I would love to see some type of IDY league step up and get more fan support.........of course it will never happen. I think Al Rosen should be in the Hall.....

regards
2seamer

[Archive]

Posted By: harry

I looked up what Bill James thought of these two second basemen in comparison with other second basemen. While I do not always agree with James' opinions, I do find them interesting.

Believe it or not, he ranks these two as the 29th and 30th best second baseman of all-time. Not exactly HOF material. James also takes fielding into consideration and even goes as far giving Maz the most defensive points of all second basemen in his calculations and calling McPhee the finest defensive second baseman of the 19th century.

I enjoy Fabers' works as well but from what I remember some of his findings seem to be quite a bit of a stretch. For example, I think that he found Nap Lajoie to be the greatest player of all-time.

I think that defense is often overlooked in the analysis of a great player, but I feel that Faber gives too much emphasis on it. I think that he gives an equal weight to both, which is how he can rank someone like Bobby Doerr highter than Roberto Clemente, Mel Ott, Joe Morgan or Johnny Bench.

Also, I believe that he found Ozzie Smith to be the best fielder ever for any position, quite a bit ahead (in terms of his "points") of the rest of the field.

It is all very subjective but still very intersting to talk about.

[Archive]

Posted By: harry

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

...then I think Mr. Mint should also

[Archive]

Posted By: Cy

I started the discussion on Nolan Ryan. I do think he deserves to be in the Hall. But I don't think he is in the upper echelon of pitchers. "Sudden" Sam McDowell pitched as fast or close to Ryan and he is not Hall material to me. So raw speed isn't a determining factor of greatness.

If you will allow me to ramble a bit, here is my criteria for choosing a player in the Hall. Rank the players at that position from best to worst. This can be subjective. That's no problem. Then take (maybe) five to 10 of the middle players (median players). Does this new potential Hall of Famer compare at all with the middle ground player? If the answer is quite possibly or definitely, let him in. If not, keep him out.

Allowing Phil Niekro and Don Sutton in will allow some other marginal players in, too. If you compare these two pitchers with the median pitchers in the Hall, they couldn't carry their Jock straps. I know I don't have all of the answers. But by looking at the median, at least we won't be trying to slide some players in because they are comparable to the worst at that position.

Cy

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Ryan wasn't elected just because he throws hard.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

but now it's for "way above average" players. So we're debating which "way above average" players should be included. Was Phil Niekro one of the greatest pitchers ever? Not by my definition of "great".

[Archive]

Posted By: W.M.

All and all Ryan and Smith belong in the HOF. There are plenty of reasons why Rose does not belong including an agreement he and his lawyer signed in August 1989. Any person who would throw away a HOF career to associate with some criminal stooges and bet on baseball knowing what could happen if he is caught needs his head examined.

[Archive]

Posted By: 2seamer

I think that Rose should be in definitely.........ALL OF us make mistakes and nobody is perfect. 90% of the players now engage in wrongdoing.....I have seen it. Most just do not get caught. Should Strawberry have gotten 400 chances to come back and play? Maybe one or two, but then not. EVERY ball player has GAMBLED in one form or another out there.......ROSE just got caught. His off field habits of his personal life should judge his HALL OF FAME credentials? I think not! It is highly likely someone will break Aaron's record or Bond's record long before anyone will touch Pete's. I personally think he was an A$$, but I respect him as a player and he deserved to be in a LONG TIME AGO!

regards
2seamer

[Archive]

Posted By: David

While I am as interested as anyone with statistics, I beleive that often forgotten are intagables, such as leadership, effort, getting the most out of your teammates. Perhaps some of those old voters were aware of contemperary players' valuable qualities that we can't see in a stat sheet.

I've long felt that a players' value to a winning team is more that his home runs or batting average. I don't care what Albert Belle's stats were-- If I was trying to produce a winning team I would rather have Omar Visquel.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

The Hall of Fame hasn't been for great players since 1945, at least by current definitions. In 1945, Bresnahan and Jennings were elected. Both are now generally panned as among the lesser deserving of the HOFers. In 1946 you get, among others, Chance, Evers, McCarthy, Tinker, Waddell, so forth and so on. They are all now commonly considered among the less deserving too.

I wasn't there back then and didn't have a vote, but either: (1) the "marginal" HOF players were better then than now, which ain't possible - in that regard, they have likely lost a lot of luster because their stats aren't that great and that's now what they are almost solely judged upon; (2) the Hall has not been reserved for the "great" players in well over 50 years; or (3) definitions have changed during that period. I don't know which it is, but suspect that a combination of numbers 2 and 3 is probably more or less accurate.

In any event, while qualifications can be argued, those who have been elected will stay there. Those who haven't been elected, especially those from the 1800's and early 1900's, have basically no shot under the new rules. Much as I think that Mullane, Ryan, Van Haltren and Caruthers are every bit as deserving as some who have been enshrined, I don't see that happening. Does the fact that they weren't elected somehow make them less good than they were?

[Archive]

Posted By: W.M.

2seamer

When I was growing up Rose was probably the most exciting player to watch and I always figured he would be in the HOF first ballot. I agree we all make mistakes and even the Strawman deserved a second
chance. Maybe all baseball players today do gamble all though probably not all of them and placing bets on sporting events and gambling in Atlantic City and Las Vegas is not illegal. Rose didn't just get caught it was proven that while off the field and engaged in his personal life he bet on baseball games including the games of his own team, these bets could have influenced the way he managed his team and effected his teams play. Rose a experienced baseball man violated a rule that has now been in effect over seventy years, he had to have known it was and is baseball's biggest rule in regards to on the field and off the field behavior. He also had to have known some of baseballs greats were banned from baseball for simillar behavior. He still made a concious choice to ignore the rule and ignore the possible punishment for violating the rule.

I think baseball recognizes gambling on baseball games as the one social ill that can ruin the game. Rose is a necessary example of that. Because of Rose's behavior I dont think he should ever be allowed in.

W.M.