Baseball Hall of Fame

[Brianruns10]

I was pondering this question: should a player be inducted in the hall of fame for a single achievement?

I think of a player like Bobby Thomson, who while not a Hall of Famer, nevertheless was behind arguably the most iconic moment in all baseball, perhaps, in all of sports. Does the weight of a single sporting moment suffice to elevate a player to the same position of notoriety?

[packs]

I think that gets them an exhibit or a spot in the permanent collection but not enshrinement. However, I am a HUGE supporter of both Roger Maris and Curt Flood getting inducted because of the gravity and lasting impact their achievements had on the game and themselves.

[RaidonCollects]

IMHO, I don't think they should be inducted. Maris, Thomson and others had good careers, but certainly not HOF worthy.

However, if a player has a very good career, PLUS a major achievement like Maris etc., then they can have a fairly good case for induction. For example, Jack Chesbro.

~Owen

[packs]

I tend to agree with your perspective. However, I really do think there should be a special place for Maris in the Hall because what he did was so incredible. He was only 26 when he broke the record and was then out of baseball by the time he was 33. If you look at cards from him from just a few years later, like his 1965 Topps card, he looks like an old man. But he's just 29 in 1965.

What he accomplished destroyed him and it should stand as a testament in the Hall in my opinion.

[almostdone]

I don't think a single achievement should be considered for enshrinement. While they mark places in history it's not the intention of the HOF. Besides Thomson you could make the case for Larsen with his World Series perfect game or even Tatis for two grand slams in one inning.

The reason the Thomson homer is huge was the games set up in baseball history. While it is memorable indeed it's actually smaller in achievement than Joe Carters walk off World Series win but no one is thinking Carter should go into the hall based on that.

Remember while the shot heard round the world got the Giants into the series they still got killed by the Yankees during the World Series and if the Wolrd Series is the games biggest stage than a tie breaker game into it isn't.

Nothing against Thomson or the game or moment but not worthy of enshrinement. A display in the museum, absolutely but a plaque in the hall, no.

Just my opinion,
Drew

[Econteachert205]

Flood should be in period. Every player and union member owe him for his sacrifice.

[travrosty]

They have already done this, his name is Bill Mazeroski.

[clydepepper]

Fernando Tatis !

Eric Bruntlett (look it up!)


by the way, if Tatis was let in for what he did, shouldn't Chan Ho Park go in as well, since the SAME pitcher serving up TWO grandslams to the SAME hitter in the SAME inning is not only just as rare, but actually less probable...as he could have been pulled prior to lightning striking twice.

.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by packs

I tend to agree with your perspective. However, I really do think there should be a special place for Maris in the Hall because what he did was so incredible. He was only 26 when he broke the record and was then out of baseball by the time he was 33. If you look at cards from him from just a few years later, like his 1965 Topps card, he looks like an old man. But he's just 29 in 1965.

What he accomplished destroyed him and it should stand as a testament in the Hall in my opinion.

In case you have not noticed....almost all of the players of yesteryear looked a LOT older for their age!
.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

Flood should be in period. Every player and union member owe him for his sacrifice.

.
As much discussion as I hear about the possibility of Marvin Miller going in and how much he deserves it, Flood is never mentioned even though their efforts made one of their careers flourish while destroying the other. Where is the justice in that?
.
.

[the 'stache]

No way. Too many players are in the Hall as it is. It's supposed to recognize the very best players in the game's history.

Bobby Thomson can have an exhibit within Cooperstown showing his famous home run. But should he be inducted as a player? No.

[grainsley]

Travis nailed it, they have done it with Maz. Maris is far more deserving. And I don't even like the Yankees.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by grainsley

Travis nailed it, they have done it with Maz. Maris is far more deserving. And I don't even like the Yankees.

Bill Mazeroski has the highest dWAR of any second baseman in history, and only Ryne Sandberg and Roberto Alomar have more Gold Gloves than Mazeroski's eight.

I'm not saying that Maz was a slam dunk Hall of Famer, but I really think it's unfair to say that Maz gained induction because of one home run. Second base is rarely a big offensive position. While he wasn't known for his offense, he's 16th all time in home runs at his position, and both he and Maris hit .260 for their career.

Maris had two great MVP seasons, but never reached an All Star level in any other season (5 + WAR is generally considered All Star level. His third best is 3.9 in 1964). And post season? Maz was a career .323 hitter in the playoffs with a .944 OPS, while Maris hit .217 with a .667 OPS.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

.
As much discussion as I hear about the possibility of Marvin Miller going in and how much he deserves it, Flood is never mentioned even though their efforts made one of their careers flourish while destroying the other. Where is the justice in that?
.
.

Flood absolutely deserves to be in.

People so often overlook what a standout player Flood was when he decided to fight the system. In his last nine seasons, Flood was a .303 hitter, and he'd won 7 consecutive Gold Gloves. He received MVP votes in six of his last seven seasons. He was only 31 when he last played for the Cardinals.

[Econteachert205]

Marvin miller got paid for doing what Curt Flood lost money doing. That's why I'm partial to Flood versus Miller. As a union building rep I would expect the person I was representing to be viewed as the heroic one in such an instance.

[MacDice]

If Marvin Miler gets in then so should Scott Boras

[7nohitter]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

No way. Too many players are in the Hall as it is. It's supposed to recognize the very best players in the game's history.

Bobby Thomson can have an exhibit within Cooperstown showing his famous home run. But should he be inducted as a player? No.

This. Guys getting in for one achievement would be foolish. Does Kerry Wood get in for striking out 20? Does Kevin Mitchell get in for making the bare-handed catch? Bucky Dent for his '78 HR at Fenway?

You get the point...

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by 7nohitter

This. Guys getting in for one achievement would be foolish. Does Kerry Wood get in for striking out 20? Does Kevin Mitchell get in for making the bare-handed catch? Bucky Dent for his '78 HR at Fenway?

You get the point...

Joe Carter for his World Series-winning home run.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Bill Mazeroski has the highest dWAR of any second baseman in history, and only Ryne Sandberg and Roberto Alomar have more Gold Gloves than Mazeroski's eight.

I'm not saying that Maz was a slam dunk Hall of Famer, but I really think it's unfair to say that Maz gained induction because of one home run. Second base is rarely a big offensive position. While he wasn't known for his offense, he's 16th all time in home runs at his position, and both he and Maris hit .260 for their career.

Maris had two great MVP seasons, but never reached an All Star level in any other season (5 + WAR is generally considered All Star level. His third best is 3.9 in 1964). And post season? Maz was a career .323 hitter in the playoffs with a .944 OPS, while Maris hit .217 with a .667 OPS.

jim kaat has a billion gold gloves and isnt in, that argument falls flat. eventually you have to do something on offense as a hof 2nd baseman and mazeroski didnt.

All you have to do to realize that maz got in because of his one homerun is to take it away. if he didnt hit that one homerun to win the world series, but instead hit one in another world series game where the outcome was already decided, would he be in? Very obviously not.

[packs]

Maris was ten times the player Mazeroski was and if you look at Maris' career pre-breaking the record and post-breaking the record, it's not hard to see what living through that did to him.

His achievement was the greatest and hardest fought-for achievement I can think of. And he lost his career doing it at 26 years old.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Curt Flood. IMO, no, he does not absolutely deserve to be in. He doesn't deserve to be in at all.


Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)


Black Ink Batting - 5 (394), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 58 (442), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 59 (338), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 16 (1096), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS Center Field (43rd), 41.7 career WAR/32.7 7yr-peak WAR/37.2 JAWS
Average HOF CF (out of 18) = 70.4 career WAR/44.0 7yr-peak WAR/57.2 JAWS

Similar Batters
View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars
1.Jim Piersall (924)
2.Dave Philley (915)
3.Randy Winn (909)
4.Garry Maddox (908)
5.Dave Martinez (904)
6.Enos Cabell (903)
7.Bill Bruton (901)
8.Lou Piniella (900)
9.Whitey Lockman (900)
10.Jack Tobin (900)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Roger Maris had three standout seasons. He, too, is not even close. If he had hit 59 HR instead of 61 we wouldn't even be discussing him.

Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)


Black Ink Batting - 18 (127), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 57 (448), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 89 (199), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 22 (661), Average HOFer ≈ 50



JAWS Right Field (52nd), 38.2 career WAR/32.3 7yr-peak WAR/35.2 JAWS
Average HOF RF (out of 24) = 73.2 career WAR/43.0 7yr-peak WAR/58.1 JAWS

Similar Batters
View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars
1.Bob Allison (945)
2.Hank Sauer (933)
3.Jay Buhner (921)
4.Jesse Barfield (918)
5.Tony Armas (917)
6.Dean Palmer (916)
7.Curtis Granderson (915)
8.Eric Davis (909)
9.Danny Tartabull (908)
10.Matt Stairs (907)

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Curt Flood. IMO, no, he does not absolutely deserve to be in. He doesn't deserve to be in at all.

Flood's argument isn't based on his playing achievements. He literally changed the entire structure of baseball. He was a trailblazer and absolutely belongs in.

As does Marvin Miller.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by travrosty

jim kaat has a billion gold gloves and isnt in, that argument falls flat.

To be fair, Gold Gloves mean a little more at 2B than they do at P

There's an argument to be made that Maz is the greatest defensive 2B of all-time and, on that basis, deserves to be in the HOF. That's kind of the "Ozzie Smith Argument". Difference is that Ozzie at least had a couple seasons where he was average or better offensively. Maz never did. Not even one. Not even a partial season. Every single season in his entire career, he finished with an OPS+ of <100.

In my mind, there's no question that Maz doesn't get in the HOF without that one homer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Flood's argument isn't based on his playing achievements. He literally changed the entire structure of baseball. He was a trailblazer and absolutely belongs in.

As does Marvin Miller.

As I read what Bill was saying, he was making the case for Flood the player. Perhaps I misunderstood. In any event, I am not a big fan of people getting in for off-field achievements. It's too murky for me. Should the guy who invented the catcher's mask get in?

By the way, Flood LOST his court case. The reserve clause was thrown out in Andy Messersmith's arbitration.

PS agree with you on Mazeroski. NFW should he be in.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I read what Bill was saying, he was making the case for Flood the player. Perhaps I misunderstood. In any event, I am not a big fan of people getting in for off-field achievements.

Peter, that's totally understandable. I wasn't trying to show that Flood merited inclusion based off of his play. More to the point, I was trying to show that he gave up an excellent career for his principles. The final eight years of his career he averaged 197 hits per 162 games played. He was still an outstanding, Gold Glove-winning center fielder. He has several years ahead of him, yet he sacrificed a good deal of money (for the times) because he didn't feel that teams had the right to do whatever they wanted with their players.

[clydepepper]

Well said, Bill. So many of those reaping the benefits have forgotten what it cost to get those benefits. In Baseball as it is in life...


Thought for the Day: Respect Your Elders (THEY are valuable resource!)

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by travrosty

eventually you have to do something on offense as a hof 2nd baseman and mazeroski didnt.

Apparently, you really don't.

Originally Posted by travrosty

All you have to do to realize that maz got in because of his one homerun is to take it away. if he didnt hit that one homerun to win the world series, but instead hit one in another world series game where the outcome was already decided, would he be in? Very obviously not.

I love it when pure speculation is posited as fact.

Jim Kaat might have had a lot of Gold Gloves. But remember a starting pitcher only plays every fourth or fifth game. A position player plays every day. And a second baseman is going to have infinitely more defensive chances than a pitcher. Think I'm kidding? Jim Kaat played 25 years in the bigs to Mazeroski's 17. Kaat appeared in 898 games, Mazeroski 2,094. Look at the putouts and assist the two compiled in their careers: Kaat got 262 putouts and 744 assists, an average of 10.5 put outs per season, and 30.2 assists per season. Mazeroski totaled 4,974 put outs and 6,685 assists, an average of 292.6 put outs per season, and 393.2 assists per season. Defense is a small part of a pitcher's game. Defense is a huge part of a position player's game. It can certainly help to be a good defensive pitcher, but a pitcher's main job is to get batters out by strikeout, by ground ball or fly ball to their defense. Jim Kaat is clearly not a Hall of Fame player. Kaat is a perfect example of a good pitcher who compiled impressive career stats simply because of how long he played. He led the league in wins once. Never in strikeouts, ERA, ERA +, WHIP, or shutouts. Yes, he won 283 games, and struck out 2,461 batters. But he pitched 4,530 innings. That's 4.9 strikeouts per 9 IP. And those 283 wins? He started 625 games. Of the pitchers who have started 600 games or more since 1900, only Kaat, Tommy John, Jamie Moyer and Frank Tanana aren't in the Hall of Fame. Do any of them deserve induction? You can eliminate Moyer and his 4.25 career ERA right away. He had 638 career starts, winning 269, striking out 2,441 in 4,074 innings pitched. He won 103 games after age 39, with a 4.40 ERA over that stretch. And his 522 home runs surrendered is the highest figure in MLB history. 269 wins is impressive at first, but only at first. Moyer received Cy Young votes three times in his 25 year career. What about Frank Tanana? He won 240 games, had a 3.66 ERA, and struck out 2,773. Tanana was actually on a Hall of Fame-type pace through age 25. 175 starts into his career (five full seasons), he was 84-61 with a 2.86 ERA, striking out 1,074 batters. He struck out 275 batters to lead the American League in 1975, led the AL with a 0.988 WHIP in 1976, and led the AL with a 2.54 ERA and a 154 ERA + in 1977. He finished 4th in the 1975 Cy Young vote, 3rd in 1976, and 9th in 1977. He won 19 games in 1976, and 18 in 1978. The next four years, though, he went 29-45 with a 4.10 ERA. From 1979 to 1993, Tanana was 156-175 with a 4.03 ERA. Tanana had an outstanding first five seasons, but he never performed at that same level again. That leaves Tommy John, the pitcher closest to Kaat per Baseball Reference. John never won a Gold Glove, but the pitching stats are very close. John won 288 games (to 283 for Kaat), had a 3.34 ERA (3.45 for Kaat), and struck out 2,245 (2,461 for Kaat). John went to the All Star Game four times to three for Kaat. The difference, though, can be seen in Cy Young voting. John never won the award, but he finished second in the vote twice (20-7, 2.78 ERA in 1977 for the Dodgers, and 21-9, 2.96 ERA in 1979 for the Yankees). He was fourth in the Cy Young in 1980 with the Yankees (22-9, 3.43 ERA) and eighth in 1978 with the Dodgers (17-10, 3.30 ERA). Interestingly, Kaat did not receive a single vote in 1974, due to a stellar group of starters in the AL. But neither John or Kaat are in Cooperstown, and I don't see either making it. He was a good pitcher, at times an All Star pitcher. But he was never one of the elite pitchers in Major League Baseball. Bill Mazeroski is one of, if not the best defensive second basemen to ever play the game. His 23.9 dWAR is the highest in the history of the game for second basemen. He did at least half of his job, every day, at an elite level. Kaat was an All Star three times in a quarter century of play. Mazeroski was a seven time All Star in seventeen seasons. Only two second basemen are usually selected to the All Star team for each league, while 5, 6 or 7 starting pitchers will get elected. Maz had more than double the All Star selections, in eight fewer seasons, at a position much harder to get elected to.

Ozzie Smith was brought up as a point of comparison. Tabe stated that he at least had a few seasons where he was average or better offensively. Ok. I do not dispute this. They still ended with a near identical OPS, .667 for Maz, .666 for Smith, and their OPS + figures are quite close, as well; 87 for Smith, 84 for Maz. For the first 1,008 games of his career, Ozzie Smith was a .238 hitter. Had he not been a spectacular defensive shortstop, he likely wouldn't have remained in the Major Leagues during this period. He was an All Star in 1981 with the Padres, a season he hit .222 with a .549 OPS. What did the Wizard of Oz do in the post season? He was a .236 hitter. Ozzie Smith only had more than 200 total bases in a season three times. Maz did that five times more than Smith, despite the fact that Smith averaged 50 more plate appearances a season. Smith was in no way a better offensive player. Smith had 3,084 total bases in 2,573 games played. Mazeroski had 2,848 in 2,163 games.

The point? Ozzie Smith's offensive performance really had zero bearing on his induction to Cooperstown. He got in for his defense. So did Mazeroski.

Again, Ozzie Smith played 19 years. Maz 17. Compare their stats:

Fielding percentage: Smith .978, Mazeroski .983.
Double plays: Smith 1,590. Mazeroski 1,706.

Look at the metrics:
Range factor per game: Smith 5.03, Mazeroski 5.57
League range factor per game: Smith 4.77 (+.26), Mazeroski 5.28 (+.29)
Total fielding runs above average per 1,200 innings: Smith 13, Mazeroski 10

Their numbers are very, very close. While it's impossible to directly compare shortstop to second base defensively, because they are different animals, Mazeroski's performance with the glove is clearly on par with that of Smith's.

Let's look at the averages for National League hitters in the seasons Mazeroski played, and how he compared to them. He was a full-time player between 1957 and 1968.



Mazeroski actually performed at or above league average for every year he was a starter except for 1959. He was only at or above league average in OBP in 1960 and 1968. That is probably Mazeroski's greatest weakness as a hitter. While he was an average hitter, he did not walk. But his power actually matches up quite well against league average. In six of the twelve seasons he was a full-time player, he met or exceeded league average in slugging. He met or exceeded league average in OPS four times, and came within four points two other seasons. Really, he wasn't that bad of a hitter when you compare him to everybody else that was hitting in the National League at the same time.

I ran a report on Baseball Reference for all National League second basemen who played at least 1,000 games at the position between 1950 and 1980. 16 players matched these criteria. Mazeroski was tied for ninth in OPS, but only 3 points from 8th place, the middle offensive performance of these players.

The comparison:



What to take from this? There were two other Hall of Fame second baseman in this period, Joe Morgan and Red Schoendienst. Morgan's .829 OPS represents the absolute pinnacle of National League second base offensive performance in this three decade period. .829. Schoendienst is 76 points behind at .753. Of all these sixteen qualifying second basemen, Mazeroski was second from the bottom in average at .260. That sounds bad, but when you consider the average of this entire group is only .271, .260 isn't a huge drop off. We already know that Maz suffered when it comes to OBP. Again, he was second to last at .299, with the average of all these second basemen .334. But, Mazeroski is 4th best in slugging percentage at .367. Only Morgan's .433, Schoendienst's .408, and Davey Lopes' .385 were better. The average OPS of all these second basemen was .696. I arrived at this figure by combining the average OBP and average SLG. Average OBP was figured by totaling all hits, walks and hit by pitch, and dividing that figure by total at bats, walks, hit by pitch and sac flies. Average SLG was figured by dividing total bases by at bats for these sixteen second basemen.

I'm doing this because I want to create an expectation for the position. It's easy to say that Bill Mazeroski was a terrible hitter. He really wasn't. We need to first grasp what an "average" hitter was in the National League during the span of his career. Then, we need to compare his hitting to the hitting of other full-time second basemen in his era. Second basemen just don't hit for a lot of power. Expecting an NL second baseman from this era to hit .290 with 20 home runs and an .800 + OPS isn't being reasonable. Again, an .829 OPS is the very best. Certainly, Morgan had better individual seasons. Between 1975 and 1976, his two MVP seasons, he combined for a .997 OPS. But that nearly's unprecedented. The only National League second baseman to exceed that OPS in a season since 1900, and prior to 1980, was Rogers Hornsby (he did it seven times!). The point to all of this? Outside of a few freaks of nature that have come along since 1900 (Morgan, Hornsby, Jackie Robinson, Frankie Frisch a couple times), second basemen didn't ever approach a .900 OPS. It didn't happen. It's a defensive first position, and historically has always been so. Now, there are hitters like Jeff Kent, and Roberto Alomar, Ryne Sandberg, etc. These guys have benefited from modern conditioning programs. Like the change at shortstop starting in the 1980s when Robin Yount, Cal Ripken Jr and Alan Trammel began hitting for power, second base has evolved into a position that can produce big offense. Sure, there were others that came along occasionally, Honus Wagner, Ernie Banks and Vern Stephens, to name a few. But these guys, at least as of 1980, were still the exception to the rule.

When Bill Mazeroski's complete game was examined, it was found that he had about average offensive production (for all NL hitters and second basemen), while providing the absolute peak of defensive performance. True, a great offensive player can have a bigger impact on a team's fortunes in a game than a great defensive player. All one has to do is examine WAR, and the biggest hitters achieve a much higher WAR than the best defenders. But when one is arguably the best to ever play a position with the glove, they deserve in the Hall of Fame. Mazeroski was no star hitter, but in examining the others in the eras surrounding him, he actually wasn't the slouch some make him out to be. When expectations are properly tempered for the position, and the era, simply "average" offense, and spectacular defense, should merit an invite to Cooperstown. If a hitter is a simply spectacular hitter, and an average fielder, they call him Ted Williams, and invite him right away. Why is defense discounted? I believe Mazeroski's induction came about as it should have. He wasn't invited immediately because he didn't excel in the most important facet of the game. The immediate invites for second base are, and should be reserved for the true superstars. In fact, he had to wait to be elected by the Seniors Committee. The time frame is befitting of his player profile. But he certainly was not elected because of one swing of that bat.

[Mountaineer1999]

That is damn impressive Bill! Maz gets my vote! . Maybe more defensive players that held their own offensivly should be considered.

[travrosty]

I had a long winded response that i edited to just include the following link.

and the question - What about Frank White, who topped out at 3.8% of the vote, with eerily similar numbers on offense, and the same amount of gold gloves on defense but never seriously considered for HOF? It's very hard to say that the one well timed home run didn't put Mazeroski in the HOF in my opinion.


http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/7/1...k-white-is-not

[EldoEsq]

That was some unbelievable research and a great read, I enjoyed it immensely...

But in my humble opinion, you should not need a doctoral thesis to prove one one should be in the HOF. You should "Know" almost automatically. There are too many "pretty good" players in the HOF. I was walking through the Hall with my 7 year old...going through all the household names...then some names that seem they don't belong...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by travrosty

I had a long winded response that i edited to just include the following link.

and the question - What about Frank White, who topped out at 3.8% of the vote, with eerily similar numbers on offense, and the same amount of gold gloves on defense but never seriously considered for HOF? It's very hard to say that the one well timed home run didn't put Mazeroski in the HOF in my opinion.


http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/7/1...k-white-is-not

I looked at Frank White's performance at second base, both offensively and defensively. White's dWAR is very, very close to Mazeroski's, yes. From the top of my head, about 95% of White's starts in the field were at second, while I think he was penciled in to start at other positions (shortstop most often, iirc) for 100 games or so. Without doing an exhaustive examination of all his games, I would have no way of knowing precisely how many times White might have moved off of second base mid-game to substitute for another player. But it's fair to say the overwhelming majority of his dWAR was attained at second base, and any change to dWAR because of his play at other positions would be statistically insignificant.

I looked at other factors, including his post season performance. He was a .213 career hitter in the postseason (160 PA's) with a .527 OPS. Again, Maz did well in the few series he did play, but neither alone would explain why Maz got in, and White dropped off the Hall ballot after one appearance.

That being said, metric comparison, and the discussions I read make the points as to why White is not in. Mazeroski is considered to be the greatest to ever play the position, and perhaps the second greatest middle infielder ever behind Ozzie Smith. While Frank White was a real good defensive second baseman, if you look at the metrics, they're really not even close. I looked first at range factor per game, and compared them head to head, and then to their league averages. For his career, Mazeroski's RF/G is 5.57. White's is 5.11. And how do those compare to the league averages when they played? The lgRFG for Mazeroski's career was 5.28, and during White's it was 5.29. Almost identical. While Mazeroski RF/G was +.29, White was -.18. Look, too, at double plays. Though White played 57 more games at second, Mazeroski turned 324 more double plays.

A discussion on Baseball Think Factory looked at TZR, total zone rating, for the two. White's TZR was 126. Mazeroski's was 148. Mazeroski's TZR is about 18% better than White's. That's a significant difference. Then, TZR breaks down into home and road split. White's home TZR was +103 at home, and +17 on the road, with an additional +6 from rdp (a Sabermetric; total zone infield double play runs above average, defined as the number of runs above or below average the player was worth based on double plays turned, and opportunities given). Mazeroski's TZR split was +56 at home, +55 on the road, and his rdp is +37. Why was White's split so pronounced? Royals Stadium has turf. It affects his offensive splits, too. White hit 7 points higher at home for his career (.259 vs .252), his OBP was 13 points higher at home (.299 vs .286), and his SLG was 22 points higher at home (.394 vs .372).

Ultimately, sometimes Gold Gloves are deserved. Sometimes, they are not. Look at a player like Derek Jeter. He won five Gold Gloves in his career. But if you look at his metrics, and ultimately his dWAR, they were not deserved. The most glaring example of Jeter's getting an award he did not deserve came in 2005. He finished 10th in the American League MVP vote, and was awarded the Gold Glove, even though his dWAR was -1.9. That means an average shortstop, in his place, would have been worth 2 more wins defensively than Jeter. Jeter cost his team two games with his glove.

I don't dispute the importance of Mazeroski's home run in the 1960 World Series. It's one of the most memorable plays in baseball history. But other players who had very nice careers, and hit big time memorable home runs, are not in Cooperstown. The most famous play in history, Bobby Thomson's pennant-winning homer in 1951 off of Ralph Branca, didn't get Thomson into the Hall of Fame, and Thomson was no slouch at the plate. He had a .947 OPS for the Giants that year, hitting .293 with 32 HR and 101 RBI. He was 8th in the NL MVP vote. For his career, he .270 with 264 home runs and 1,026 RBI. If your hypothesis is that Mazeroski's home run alone got him an invite to Cooperstown, why isn't Thomson in for hitting the most famous bomb of all-time?

What about Joe Carter? Ok, so maybe Thomson's career totals don't warrant serious consideration. Or, maybe the fact that it didn't win the World Series is another explanation. Ok, what about Joe Carter? Joe Carter's game six, three-run home run in the bottom of the ninth won the 1993 World Series for the Toronto Blue Jays. And, unlike Thomson, Carter's career numbers merit Hall of Fame consideration. He was a five-time All Star, received MVP votes in eight different seasons (5th in 1991, 3rd in the vote in 1992). He won two Silver Sluggers. And his career numbers? 1,170 runs scored, 2,184 hits, 432 doubles, 396 home runs, 1,445 RBI, and 231 stolen bases. He joined the 30-30 HR-SB club in 1987, had six 30 home run seasons, and drove in over 100 runs 10 times. He was one of the most feared sluggers in baseball, and, like Maz, hit a walk off, World Series winning home run. But he's not in the Hall of Fame.

Mazeroski's home run certainly doesn't hurt him, but it's just absurd to state that the only reason he's in the Hall of Fame is because of his home run. The guy played seventeen seasons, and played his position at the highest level it's ever been played at.

[Tabe]

Perhaps Carter's not in the HOF because people learned that electing a guy based on one homer was not a good idea.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by EldoEsq

That was some unbelievable research and a great read, I enjoyed it immensely...

But in my humble opinion, you should not need a doctoral thesis to prove one one should be in the HOF. You should "Know" almost automatically. There are too many "pretty good" players in the HOF. I was walking through the Hall with my 7 year old...going through all the household names...then some names that seem they don't belong...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Agreed, but we are SO far removed from that being the standard.