HOF releases pre-Integration ballot today.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Kenny you're making a fallacious slippery slope argument. I never suggested drawing the line anyplace close to 1 or 2 years. My point is there comes a time (I could live with 15 years) when if someone hasn't got in or even come close, there's a reason for it. The reason people get in decades after the fact is some combination of dilution, misplaced nostalgia, and boredom.

Peter,

I absolutely disagree with everything you just said. It isn't a slippery slope argument and a couple of years certainly would be as "fair" as are the current voting standards. Statistics don't get better after a player retires and voting on them quickly allows them to be voted on by people who saw them, who can place those statistics in context of the time in which the player played, and who can also judge them based upon criteria that don't necessarily show up in simple numbers. As I'm sure you are well aware, memories tend to fade. After a while, things that don't show up as numbers tend not to show up at all.

And yes, you do want to draw a line -- some time period (10 or 15 years is what you originally said) after which you have unilaterally determined that they have gotten enough of a "look" and don't need to be "looked at" anymore.

That is the problem with your analysis when it comes to guys like White, Mullane and Dahlen, to name a few. Dahlen last played 25 years before there was a HOF vote, and he was the last of the three I named to play. He really didn't get much of a "look" from anyone who saw him play at all, Yet he shouldn't get another look (under your analysis) because: 1) he didn't get the vote from people who didn't see him play when the voting first began; and 2) then didn't get in during the many years of Veteran's Committee cronyism because he played too early and therefore didn't have a crony on the committee to speak up for him? Now THAT is a fallacious argument and analysis.

We can't change the fact that most of the voters in the initial years didn't see guys like White, Mullane and Dahlen play. But, as sabremetrics increase our ability to view statistics in new (and hopefully better) ways, we can at least make up for that a little bit by re-visiting what those statistics mean in context. And, IMO, that should occur. BTW, were Dahlen, for example, to be elected, I would place him above 8 or 9 of the shortstops already in the Hall. He certainly wouldn't dilute the representation of shortstops in the Hall. If anything, he would bring the average up.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'll grant you Dahlen was better than Joe Tinker and probably several other SSs, but the fact that many players already are in who shouldn't be is not, in my mind, a justification for letting in others just because they are comparable or better. The inevitable result of that logic would be extreme dilution. I'd rather have some inequalities than open the floodgates. I am sure Jim Kaat, Luis Tiant and Tommy John (to name a few) are better than pitchers already enshrined. Ken Boyer was probably as good as Santo, or if not, better than some 3B already in. You could probably name a host of guys who were, in context, better than Schoendienst, Kell, Mazeroski, Gordon, not to mention all the undeserving 30s players that Frankie Frisch pushed through. Let em all in?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'll grant you Dahlen was better than Joe Tinker and probably several other SSs, but the fact that many players already are in who shouldn't be is not, in my mind, a justification for letting in others just because they are comparable or better. The inevitable result of that logic would be extreme dilution. I'd rather have some inequalities than open the floodgates. I am sure Jim Kaat, Luis Tiant and Tommy John (to name a few) are better than pitchers already enshrined. Ken Boyer was probably as good as Santo, or if not, better than some 3B already in. You could probably name a host of guys who were, in context, better than Schoendienst, Kell, Mazeroski, Gordon, not to mention all the undeserving 30s players that Frankie Frisch pushed through. Let em all in?

I don't know. If you give me a name, then we can start to discuss them "in context." But I wouldn't have a problem if Ken Boyer was elected at all. Or Kaat. Or Tiant. Tommy John I would have to give some serious consideration to before I could make a decision.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Well we can start with ones that come up all the time: Hodges, Garvey, Oliva, Munson, Maris.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well we can start with ones that come up all the time: Hodges, Garvey, Oliva, Munson, Maris.

Absolutely support Hodges and Oliva. On the fence about Garvey. I see the argument for Munson and Maris but remain unconvinced thus far.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's surprising, in light of Hodges' impressive career stats, that he does so poorly on baseball reference. Bill James ranks him only #30 among first basemen, too.


Black Ink

Batting - 2 (604), Average HOFer ≈ 27




Gray Ink

Batting - 128 (140), Average HOFer ≈ 144




Hall of Fame Monitor

Batting - 83 (225), Likely HOFer ≈ 100




Hall of Fame Standards

Batting - 32 (272), Average HOFer ≈ 50

[Kenny Cole]

I give Hodges credit for his awesome fielding, and some more credit for his management of the Mets. He died early, was never a self-promoter while alive, and faded from the spotlight long ago. But he was probably one of, if not the, most admired and respected ballplayers, by other ballplayers, of his time.