What NY Yankee should be in the HOF?

[oldjudge]

Steinbrenner, whether you like him or not, deserves to be in the HOF. As a Yankee fan I appreciate what he did for the team. His sons, on the other hand, are a joke.

[Ronnie73]

My votes are for Don Mattingly and Paul O'Neill. I enjoyed watching them both at bat and on the field.

[cardaholic]

Tommy John.

[HexsHeroes]

.

Not intended as a slam against the Yankees, as it actually is intended for all teams with an above average percentage of the HOF population.

One of my pet peeves is that that some player performances (stats) have been influenced by playing with teams stocked with good/great players. While true the individual ballplayer had to perform, or be gone, having talented ballplayers hitting before and after you does influence the opportunities an opposing pitcher presents to you as a hitter. The opportunities presented defensively are possibly influenced by having quality pitching, and quality pitching likely influenced by having qualify defenders. The 1927 NY Yankees were an outstanding team. But I have to believe that if you had removed the two best hitters and one best pitcher from that team, while they would still have been a very good team, fewer of the remaining very good players would have made it into the HOF. Just my opinion. That is why I have a softspot for outstanding ballplayers who played for less than brilliant teams over a period of years. I feel they may have had less opportunities or ideal situations inwhich to shine, but they shone never the less with what was given them.

Personally, I feel that it is not enough to say that a player was among the best in the league, year in and year out. If that were the case, Jack Morris (among others), would have been in the HOF years ago. For me, if the player evaluated cannot be considered among the top 50% already in the HOF, then it is a no for HOF induction. I realize this completely dismisses the characteristics of the game during the particular era a ballplayer played in, and therefore is a particularly harsh measure, but I believe the HOF is for the greats of the game; not for the above average but not necessarily great. If a ballplayer cannot be considered among the best ever, then HOF is not for him.

[kcohen]

The top of the list IMO should be Allie Reynolds with an 8 year run of brilliance in a Yankee uniform. .630 career winning percentage, pitched in 6 WS with 7-2 record and 4 saves.

Can't understand why he isn't in.

[refz]

Originally Posted by kcohen

The top of the list IMO should be Allie Reynolds with an 8 year run of brilliance in a Yankee uniform. .630 career winning percentage, pitched in 6 WS with 7-2 record and 4 saves.

Can't understand why he isn't in.

+1 Reynolds has my vote, good mention

[Peter_Spaeth]

Baseball reference's scoring system ranks Allie Reynolds as the 391st best pitcher ever.

[npa589]

Originally Posted by hexsheroes

.

Not intended as a slam against the yankees, as it actually is intended for all teams with an above average percentage of the hof population.

One of my pet peeves is that that some player performances (stats) have been influenced by playing with teams stocked with good/great players. While true the individual ballplayer had to perform, or be gone, having talented ballplayers hitting before and after you does influence the opportunities an opposing pitcher presents to you as a hitter. The opportunities presented defensively are possibly influenced by having quality pitching, and quality pitching likely influenced by having qualify defenders. The 1927 ny yankees were an outstanding team. But i have to believe that if you had removed the two best hitters and one best pitcher from that team, while they would still have been a very good team, fewer of the remaining very good players would have made it into the hof. Just my opinion. That is why i have a softspot for outstanding ballplayers who played for less than brilliant teams over a period of years. I feel they may have had less opportunities or ideal situations inwhich to shine, but they shone never the less with what was given them.

+1

I thought about offering an optional way of looking at this, and I guess I am now... saying I think a better question to ask is which Yankee HOF'ers should NOT be in the hall of fame? Let's say if the same players played with the Cubs for example, or the Expos...

For example...had Joe Gordon played for someone else, I doubt he ever gets in. He got a maximum of 28.5% from the BBWAA during his eligibility pre- veterans committee.

.

[bigtrain]

I was a big fan of Mattingly and Munson. Both played like HoFers in their prime years but didn't have enough of them or the longevity to get my vote. It kind of irks me because I don't think that Fisk was a pimple on Munson's rear but that's an argument for another day. If Nettles hit .268 instead of .248 he's a slam dunk. Terrific fielder, 390 homers. I would vote for Allie Reynolds, 2 no-hitters in one season plus .630 winning percentage but he played for the great Yankee teams of the fifties so his wins are somewhat inflated. His pre-Yankee record with the Indians was not much.

[dabigyankeeman]

Nettles. His glove was almost the equal to Brooks. He could hit home runs. The guy was great.

[tcdyess]

All of them

[tcdyess]

As big a Yankee fan as I am, I'm not really sure anyone else deserves to be in the HOF except one....

The Boss!!! Like him or hate him, you can not deny what he has done for the game, he brought it into the modern era (like it or not) and helped make the game more successful and popular. Sure, he was egocentric and loved the publicity that came with owing the most storied franchise in history (sorry, couln't resist), but he was partly responsible for growing the game... period. Not to mention everything he did philanthropically that hardly ever gets mentioned. His contributions to the game at levels far below MLB have also helped the game grow.

Player wise as much as love Thurman and Donny Baseball, I don't think they should be in, but baseball wise.... The Boss should be a shoe in....

Tim