Top 25 Worst MLB HOFER’S

[oldjudge]

Tommy McCarthy was rooked--he should have been number one.

[Rad_Hazard]

Interesting stuff! McCarthy must have made a lot of friends in his playing days.

I feel like the 19th century is riddled with players that should be in the HOF over a lot of the players in that article:

Jim McCormick
Tony Mullane
Bob Caruthers
Harry Stovey
Paul Hines
Lave Cross
Jack Glasscock

Etc, etc.

[sycks22]

Harold Baines, that was easy.

[michael3322]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Harold Baines, that was easy.

Could not agree more. Baines lowered the bar more than any other player

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/12/10/ha...-fame-election

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by michael3322

Could not agree more. Baines lowered the bar more than any other player

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/12/10/ha...-fame-election

There are a lot worse choices than Baines, which is not to say he is a good pick.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

There are a lot worse choices than Baines, which is not to say he is a good pick.

I agree 100%. Absent the strikes baines most likely gets 3000 hits and easily gets in before needing a committee.as is though he is one of the 25 worst. Just not the overall worst.

[nat]

"Even if there were an anti-reliever bias in the WAR calcs (and I'm not saying there is)"

Far from being an anti-reliever bias in WAR, there's a pro reliever bias. WAR has a leverage component, which means that it rates pitcher performance in late-and-close situations more than it does in other situations. Which is to say that relievers get more credit than their raw stats would deserve.

[D. Bergin]

Harold Baines never hurt nobody. Jeez, leave the guy alone.

You take the 25 worst guys out of the HOF, then you still have the 25 worst guys in there.

People take this sh*t way too personally. It's just a neat way to honor the old-timers of the past. No more, no less.

[Exhibitman]

I don't like the WAR average stat as the sole benchmark either. It definitely has its uses: Milt Pappas always complained that he had basically the same record as Don Drysdale, but his WAR is only 2/3 of Drysdale's. It does matter how you get to a record, not just getting there. That said, the methodology hammers defensive players and players who did not meet the mould of what the position 'should' be. How do you say Maz was the Babe Ruth of 2nd basemen, yet label him a bad choice? Or Pie Traynor, whose sin appears to be light hitting? Or Aparicio, who was both a pioneering Latin American player (1st Venezuelan in the HOF) and a tremendous shortstop? My favorite example of this position bias is Mark Grace. His WAR is 46.7 (better than quite a few HOFers), four Gold Gloves, lifetime batting average .303. His sin is that he was a singles hitter at a position where players are 'supposed to be' boppers.

Maybe we need a tiered system like Japanese HOF? Achieving specific statistical milestones gets a player into the HOF automatically, but the inner circle takes an actual vote and is reserved for the players who pass that layer of screening.

[campyfan39]

i had forgotten he was in. Shocking

Originally Posted by michael3322

Could not agree more. Baines lowered the bar more than any other player

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/12/10/ha...-fame-election

[packs]

I think the Manager section of the Hall of Fame is the weakest and hardly anyone in should actually be in.

Tony La Russa won 3 titles, that's nice. But over 37 years. He's lost over 2500 games.

Tommy Lasorda won 2 titles in 22 years. Ok, I guess, but what about his nearly .500 record as a manager?

Earl Weaver won exactly one title in 18 seasons. Why is he in? Aren't managers with one title a dime a dozen? Someone wins one every year.

[z28jd]

I'm not going to comment on the list itself, but I will use McCarthy as an example. He was one of the first players voted in. Who are we to say that was a mistake instead of the benchmark? It reminds me of current voters changing the MVP award from almost always going to the best player on the best team to just the best player regardless of the team, then saying old voters got it wrong.

I don't agree with either. If the old voters set the standard, then that's what the standard should be. Who takes it upon themselves to make it harder to get into the Hall of Fame just because they think it should be harder. No one who was among the original committee, that's for sure. And nothing annoys me more than people saying the dumbest line ever "It's not the Hall of very good". Yeah, it's also not the Hall of great, very great, outstanding or any other words you want to use. It's the Hall of Fame.

The initial announcement for the Hall of Fame in August of 1935 said they hoped to have 50 players inducted by the 1939 centennial, so they didn't exactly want it to be that strict from the start. They also said that group of 50 would be "all-stars". I don't think anyone says McCarthy wasn't all-star quality. Another said that those 50 all-stars would be from the National League and American League, so they were purposely leaving out some players who made their name in the American Association (which you could argue still exists with some of their choices)

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by z28jd

I'm not going to comment on the list itself, but I will use McCarthy as an example. He was one of the first players voted in. Who are we to say that was a mistake instead of the benchmark? It reminds me of current voters changing the MVP award from almost always going to the best player on the best team to just the best player regardless of the team, then saying old voters got it wrong.

But if McCarthy is the standard, there have been literally THOUSANDS of players better than him in the history of the game.

I don't agree with "revisionist history" either, but I also don't believe in exacerbating mistakes for the sake of historical consistency.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by z28jd

And nothing annoys me more than people saying the dumbest line ever "It's not the Hall of very good". Yeah, it's also not the Hall of great, very great, outstanding or any other words you want to use. It's the Hall of Fame.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I thought I was the only one who lost a little bit of his soul every time I heard this phrase or saw it in print.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I thought I was the only one who lost a little bit of his soul every time I heard this phrase or saw it in print.

Agree...and it's worth noting that the 268 players in the hall still represents rough 1.2% of all major league players in the history of the game.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Harold Baines, that was easy.

100% agree.

[luciobar1980]

Just food for thought. I was curious why Baines is always the poster child for this kind of discussion..

Cal Ripken, who came to mind for some reason, vs Baines...

https://stathead.com/baseball/player...ineha01&type=b

[G1911]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

Just food for thought. I was curious why Baines is always the poster child for this kind of discussion..

Cal Ripken, who came to mind for some reason, vs Baines...

https://stathead.com/baseball/player...ineha01&type=b

One is a gold glove shortstop with a hallowed record, the other a DH. Though I agree Ripken is overrated in the public mind. Baines isn’t even close to Ripken overall, I think, only if you look at the raw hitting without any defense or position adjustment.

[ClementeFanOh]

Whew, Baseballcrazy62, you have opened a can of worms

My thought consistently goes to Phil Rizzuto. Exactly ONE good offensive
year (1950) and, in my opinion, riding the Yankee coattails like a good surfer
riding a wave... I did not do exhaustive research on every HOF member, he
merely strikes me as someone who should be in the conversation.

G1911- back to the "overrated" thing, and your little ploy of dangling
backhanded compliments? Great. Cal Ripken owns a "hallowed record" but
is "overrated in the public mind"? I know, when questioned you'll reply, "But
I said he was a Gold Glove shortstop with a hallowed record" (before you
insulted him, of course). I know you won't consider facts that wreck your
proclamations, but for those who do:

1) Ripken is NUMBER ONE all time for home runs for shortstops.
2) Ripken is NUMBER ONE all time for RBI among shortstops.
3) The consecutive game mark isn't just a "hallowed record". It's an
astonishing accomplishment that, in today's game, is hard to imagine
anyone ever eclipsing.
4) Ripken was an excellent defensive player for the bulk of his career.
5) Two MVPs.

Pray tell, what is this "public mind" you can access? Never mind, don't tell.
Your comment was ridiculous and indefensible, but you keep being you...

Trent King (not an Orioles fan!)

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

100% agree.

Harold really did lower the bar and sadly others better are out when he is in.

[packs]

I think you could go either or on some of the picks. They went with Bottomley but I think could have went with Chick Hafey. Herman, Aparicio and Nellie Fox are on there but I think you could pick Joe Gordon too. There are guys who peaked like Catfish but I could see Robin Roberts on there in his place.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by packs

I think you could go either or on some of the picks. They went with Bottomley but I think could have went with Chick Hafey. Herman, Aparicio and Nellie Fox are on there but I think you could pick Joe Gordon too. There are guys who peaked like Catfish but I could see Robin Roberts on there in his place.

It looks like the list was created strictly utilizing the WAR/162 games stat as a ranking device, thus Lloyd Waner, at 1.96, is ranked at the top spot, and neglects any other career measuring device for players, whether subjective or objective.

Brian

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Harold really did lower the bar and sadly others better are out when he is in.

Total +1 agreement.

[5-Tool Player]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Harold Baines, that was easy.

+1