OT: Who should be in the Hall that isn't

[clydepepper]

Minnie Minoso
Luis Tiant
Thurman Munson
George Van Haltren
Bob Caruthers


PEDers...NO - a thousand times NO!!

People always say that they deserve it because of what they did on the field.

I have what I feel are two strong arguments against their inclusion:

1.) Most importantly, they made the decision to go after honors, fame and accolades DURING their careers, instead of reaping those rewards in retirement...so why should they be HONORED twice?

2.) As long as guys like those on my list above are on the outside, cheaters should not be allowed in without a ticket.

[cardsfan73]

Oppps totally missed the outside of Jackson & Rose part! Btw Joe Torre is already on the Hall Of Fame.

Honestly I am a huge fan of a lot of the players mentioned (Murphy, Simmons & Whitaker) but I can't agree that any of them are Hall Of Famers.

Oliva was a lifetime .300 hitter & had a great stretch of about 8 years, but over all I don't see his career numbers being HOF worthy. Am I missing something with him?

[clydepepper]

...and Tony Oliva

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

PEDers...NO - a thousand times NO!!

People always say that they deserve it because of what they did on the field.

I have what I feel are two strong arguments against their inclusion:

1.) Most importantly, they made the decision to go after honors, fame and accolades DURING their careers, instead of reaping those rewards in retirement...so why should they be HONORED twice?

2.) As long as guys like those on my list above are on the outside, cheaters should not be allowed in without a ticket.

Pretty sure I disagree with you, but I also have no problem with that or with your overall sentiment/opinion. This is a very decisive issue, and I have trouble saying either side is wrong. Different people have very different POVs on this.

Without getting into the details of my logic (typing from a mobile device... But may add more later), I think the toughest thing with your position is- where do you draw the line? Do you have to have tested positive and/or been disciplined by MLB's policy? If so, you would be rewarding a lot of people who were just better at beating tests (can't help but be suspicious of Pujols... Based not only on appearance, but on things I've heard from a couple pretty inside sources... And frankly feel we should be suspicious about anyone now that lean muscle guys like Braun, or speed guys like Furcal have been caught). Can you omit people based on circumstantial evidence alone (this seems unfair and Piazza comes to mind)? It's just very tough, and then what bugs me more is that popularity begins to play too big a role... And many writers seem to revel in their role as gate keeper. I don't want to blast writers in general, but there are surely a lot of weasels in that bunch too.

A few "yes" for HOF--

Mussina given I think 250 should be the new 300... Hoping Hudon can rack up a few more to get serious consideration.

Crime Dog McGriff. This guy was so underrated. He hit 30 a year for over a decade, starting when 30 was a lot.. And for many years was one of the top 2-3 power hitters in the game. 490+ is close enough.

Also think Bonds/Clemens/etc should be there eventually.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

And frankly feel we should be suspicious about anyone now that lean muscle guys like Braun, or speed guys like Furcal have been caught).

Braun didn't use a performance enhancer, though, Ian, and I wish the sites like ESPN and Yahoo sports, who were so quick to condemn him absent of the facts, breaking the story during what was supposed to be a confidential appeals process, and before Shyam Das had even ruled on his appeal, would expend even half the energy they did then to report the truth.

The substance he took was used to accelerate healing of a pretty serious calf injury that had been bothering him all season. The bottom line is that he broke the rules, and yes, he should have been suspended, as he was at the end of last season. He let Brewers fans down big time. He let me down. I've been the biggest Ryan Braun fan since he came to the Majors in 2007. I loved it when he extended his contract, and stayed in Milwaukee for far less than he could have made if he tested free agency. And he's done an awful lot of good in Milwaukee, including working with a lot of charities. Of course, you never hear any of these stories. All you hear is how Braun is this terrible human being that "threw a little guy under the bus to save himself". Braun made a dumb mistake. But he's hardly the pariah the media have tried to make him out to be. So much of the crap that you read about him has been made up. But, there's nobody to hold ESPN's or Yahoo's feet to the fire. So, when Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports prints an article that Ryan Braun secretly contacted Matt Kemp, Joey Votto and Troy Tulowitzki to ask them for their public support, asserting that collector Dino Laurenzi Jr was an anti-semitic Cubs fan, everybody trashed Braun. When both Votto and Tulowitzki came out the very next day, calling the story pure fiction, did Yahoo or ESPN run that story? Of course not. Joey Votto even offered to provide his phone records to prove that no conversation between himself and Braun happened. But the damage had already been done.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Braun didn't use a performance enhancer, though, Ian, and I wish the sites like ESPN and Yahoo sports, who were so quick to condemn him absent of the facts, breaking the story during what was supposed to be a confidential appeals process, and before Shyam Das had even ruled on his appeal, would expend even half the energy they did then to report the truth.

The substance he took was used to accelerate healing of a pretty serious calf injury that had been bothering him all season. The bottom line is that he broke the rules, and yes, he should have been suspended, as he was at the end of last season. He let Brewers fans down big time. He let me down. I've been the biggest Ryan Braun fan since he came to the Majors in 2007. I loved it when he extended his contract, and stayed in Milwaukee for far less than he could have made if he tested free agency. And he's done an awful lot of good in Milwaukee, including working with a lot of charities. Of course, you never hear any of these stories. All you hear is how Braun is this terrible human being that "threw a little guy under the bus to save himself". Braun made a dumb mistake. But he's hardly the pariah the media have tried to make him out to be. So much of the crap that you read about him has been made up. But, there's nobody to hold ESPN's or Yahoo's feet to the fire. So, when Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports prints an article that Ryan Braun secretly contacted Matt Kemp, Joey Votto and Troy Tulowitzki to ask them for their public support, asserting that collector Dino Laurenzi Jr was an anti-semitic Cubs fan, everybody trashed Braun. When both Votto and Tulowitzki came out the very next day, calling the story pure fiction, did Yahoo or ESPN run that story? Of course not. Joey Votto even offered to provide his phone records to prove that no conversation between himself and Braun happened. But the damage had already been done.

Yeah Bill, sorry, I remember we'd discussed that in depth a while back. Just goes to show how far an irresponsibly reported black mark can go (damn writers). That said, think my point still applies- we probably should be suspicious of everyone. And keeping that in mind, think we should also be cautious not to over scritinize/tear down certain players (Bonds, etc), while seemingly forgiving others based on their popularity (Big Papi).

[pro9]

I've always felt that Cecil Travis should be in the HOF. He had fantastic numbers (.327 lifetime batting average) , before he went into the military for WWII and lost almost 4 prime years. Keep in mind that he was a shortstop and was never the same player after the war due to injuries sustained during combat. Ted Williams called him one of the five best left handed hitters he ever saw.

[johnmh71]

Wilbur Cooper
Babe Adams
Luis Tiant
Vern Stephens

[JollyElm]

Apropos of nothing...The strangest part of this thread is the fact that multiple people mentioned Tommy John. For some bizarre reason, I always thought he was already in Cooperstown. I was certain of it. In fact, when I'm listing trades of HOF'ers, he's frequently included. How in living heck did I miss this fact all of these years?? I'm perplexed. Yowza!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

Yeah Bill, sorry, I remember we'd discussed that in depth a while back. Just goes to show how far an irresponsibly reported black mark can go (damn writers). That said, think my point still applies- we probably should be suspicious of everyone. And keeping that in mind, think we should also be cautious not to over scritinize/tear down certain players (Bonds, etc), while seemingly forgiving others based on their popularity (Big Papi).

I agree.

I think a big part of how Bonds and Papi are treated has to do with how they treat the media. Bonds was downright surly with the media most of the time. While Papi never met a reporter he didn't like, at least in my experiences. The folks in Boston love him, and even though he pretty much admitted to using PEDs, Ortiz could probably run for mayor and win.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I agree.

I think a big part of how Bonds and Papi are treated has to do with how they treat the media. Bonds was downright surly with the media most of the time. While Papi never met a reporter he didn't like, at least in my experiences. The folks in Boston love him, and even though he pretty much admitted to using PEDs, Ortiz could probably run for mayor and win.

Clemens and Belle fall into the Bonds catagory

[pcoz]

Dave Parker for sure!! Was as good if not better than Rice & Dawson who are already in. Take a look!

7× All-Star (1977, 1979–1981, 1985, 1986, 1990)
2× World Series champion (1979, 1989)
NL MVP (1978)
3× Gold Glove Award (1977–1979)
3× Silver Slugger Award (1985, 1986, 1990)
All-Star Game MVP (1979)
2× NL batting champion (1977, 1978)
Home Run Derby winner (1985)

Batting average .290
Hits 2,712
Home runs 339
Runs batted in 1,493

[glynparson]

amazes me how for students of the games history we get all sanctimonious about PED users. We act like this was developed as a gentlemen's game and played by men of honor and integrity. Very far from the actual beginnings and the vast majority of the early players of this game. We always suppose this guy or that guy would not have taken PED's we do not know this but we do know many have said and done things that are certainly not upstanding. The hall of fame is to honor the history of the game and no matter how hard we try to pretend these people are part of the history of the game. I am also sorry but I heard almost noone think the players were clean during the 1998 HR chase and the seasons after it. We all pretty much knew we just did not care than all of sudden when the AAron record was in jeopardy we all cared. Ratings were booming baseball was the talk of the sports world and the executives etc of the sport all knew what was going on. They did not care why should the players. Couple this with the fact that the sport deemed it illegal but had no penalties, I do not see it as just to all of a sudden impose this PED users arent allowed in attitude. This leads to a player like Bagwell who looks like PED user to me getting more votes than Clemens or Bonds because we are more positive they took. This process has become a joke and so has the hall of fame. Restore it to a museim to tell the sports history and leave the sanctimony at the door. If just taking these drugs made you an all time great why was Jason Giambi an MVP and allstar and Jeremy Giambi barely a bench warmer?

[the 'stache]

As to the question at hand, who should be in the Hall that isn't? I don't think the answer to this is easy. Not at all. People who aren't in Cooperstown have been vetted. Their careers have been looked over with a fine tooth comb, and for some reason, they didn't meet that standard. Are there a few players that I feel are worthy of another look? Yes. There are always exceptions. Hell, look at the NFL Hall of Fame. Jerry Kramer, the great offensive guard for the Lombardi Packers of the 60s...5 time First Team All-Pro, 3-time Pro Bowler, 5 time World Champion, voted to both the NFL 1960's All Decade Team, and the NFL's 50th Anniversary Team. Inexplicably, he's not in the Hall of Fame. But if it were up to me, I'd be removing more players than I'd be putting in. The Hall is supposed to be for the very best of the best, and there are some people in there that got in because of cronyism.

Who would I consider going in?

That I'll have to think about.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Hell, look at the NFL Hall of Fame... The Hall is supposed to be for the very best of the best, and there are some people in there that got in because of cronyism.

NFL Hall of Fame is ridiculous. Each year there's a long list of very very deserving guys who may never get in. Tim Brown comes to mind, and I know he's nowhere near the most blatant example.

ADDING: I guess it's easier to add a few deserving guys, than to pull out some of the undeserving ones. So in that case the NFL's issue seems enviable compared to MLB.

Another MLBer I'd love to see in- Lefty O'Doul. I know he didn't have a long career, and his work in the PCL and popularizing baseball in Japan would probably need to be considered in order to give him the final nudge (rather than playing career alone), but would love to see him in.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

As to the question at hand, who should be in the Hall that isn't? I don't think the answer to this is easy. Not at all. People who aren't in Cooperstown have been vetted. Their careers have been looked over with a fine tooth comb, and for some reason, they didn't meet that standard. Are there a few players that I feel are worthy of another look? Yes. There are always exceptions. Hell, look at the NFL Hall of Fame. Jerry Kramer, the great offensive guard for the Lombardi Packers of the 60s...5 time First Team All-Pro, 3-time Pro Bowler, 5 time World Champion, voted to both the NFL 1960's All Decade Team, and the NFL's 50th Anniversary Team. Inexplicably, he's not in the Hall of Fame. But if it were up to me, I'd be removing more players than I'd be putting in. The Hall is supposed to be for the very best of the best, and there are some people in there that got in because of cronyism.

Who would I consider going in?

That I'll have to think about.

That's surprising, I would have bet good money that Kramer was in. It's actually inexplicable to me and adds to my belief that HOF voting for football and baseball is often without rhyme or reason.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by howard38

That's surprising, I would have bet good money that Kramer was in. It's actually inexplicable to me and adds to my belief that HOF voting for football and baseball is often without rhyme or reason.

That's the reaction I get most every time I bring him up. He's the only player on the NFL's 50th Anniversary Team not in Canton.

The explanation I've heard for this slight is "there are already too many of the Lombardi-era Packers in the Hall". That's hogwash, imo. That's like saying "hey, sorry, Mr. Jeter. You can't get into Cooperstown because there are too many Yankees already in the Hall." The Halls of Fame are there to recognize excellence, and Kramer was one of the all-time greats. Besides, linebacker Dave Robinson was just elected to the Hall of Fame last year, and he was a member of Lombardi's Packers from 1963 to 1967. So, maybe they can find a spot for #64, too. It would be a crying shame if they didn't put him in while he is still alive. He's 78 years old. The time is now.

[clydepepper]

How many typers (I won't call them writers) will not vote for Derek Jeter? Mariano Rivera?

Anyone who does not vote them in should not only have their vote taken away but should also (and I'll quote a Clint Eastwood movie now) "Anyone who would do that should have their A*S removed."

I am neither a Yankee Fan or Hater, but this is just too obvious.

They will justify it by saying, "Well, so-and-so didn't get every vote, so why should they."

Stupidity does not justify stupidity.

[K-Nole]

After doing a little research on a player I bought a card of and not knowing much about it, I found that, Frederick "Cy" Williams, should be in the HOF IMO.

The Williams Shift, in which defensive players moved to the right side of the playing field, is often associated with Ted Williams, but it was actually first employed against Cy Williams during the 1920s.

He was a 4X NL Home Run Champion.
He was the first NL player to break the 200 HR mark.
He was one of only 3 players, born before 1900 to hit more than 200HRs, with the other two being Babe Ruth and Rogers Hornsby.

Just my opinion, but I think he should have been voted in years ago.

[the 'stache]

Ok, getting back to the topic at hand. Who do I feel should be in the Hall that isn't.

One player that I've kept hearing over and over again is Dick Allen. And, I must admit, though I knew about him, I'd never really taken a long hard look at his numbers. When you consider the era that he played in, his performance, in my opinion, definitely warrants a second look. If I had a BBWAA vote, I would put him in. And here's one reason why.

Dick Allen (also known as Richie Allen) played from 1963 to 1977. While his career numbers are nice, they don't tell the whole story, as is so often the case.

In his fifteen seasons, Allen hit .292 with 351 home runs and 1,119 RBI. He was a Rookie of the Year, and an NL MVP. He led his league in runs once, in triples once, in home runs twice, in RBI once, in On Base Pct twice, in Slugging Pct three times, and in OPS 4 times.

Now, as I have said before, as somebody who tends to rely a little more on the old school statistical analysis, and not quite as much (yet) on sabermetrics, I find a player's OPS to be one of the nest indicators of a player's offensive potency. It combines on base percentage and slugging percentage together. And in baseball, as an offensive player, a hitter's goals are getting on base, and providing power. Some players do one or the other well. And occasionally, those really transcendent players excel in both areas. Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Joe DiMaggio, Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, Babe Ruth...these players are the elite offensive forces of the game's history.

If we look at the period of 1963 to 1977, which was Allen's career span, 15 years (which is 11 seasons, really. His rookie season he batted only 24 times. In 1973, he only had 250 at bats. His second to last season, 1976, he batted only 298 times. And his final season, 1977, he had only 171 at bats), Allen put up some impressive numbers. Now, compare those seasons to his peers.

I searched Baseball Reference for all seasons between 1963 and 1977 where a player had 400 or more at bats, and an .850 or higher slugging percentage. Look who was at the top of the list, tied with Hank Aaron:



The results on Baseball Reference.

In his 11 qualifying seasons, Allen had 10 seasons with over 400 at bats and an .850 or higher OPS. That's a big part of his excellent career slash line.

.378 OBP/.534 SLG/.912 OPS

A .912 OPS in that era? Are you kidding me?

While there might be a few other players that deserve another look, Dick Allen is going to be at the top of my list.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

As to the question at hand, who should be in the Hall that isn't? I don't think the answer to this is easy. Not at all. People who aren't in Cooperstown have been vetted. Their careers have been looked over with a fine tooth comb, and for some reason, they didn't meet that standard. Are there a few players that I feel are worthy of another look? Yes. There are always exceptions. Hell, look at the NFL Hall of Fame. Jerry Kramer, the great offensive guard for the Lombardi Packers of the 60s...5 time First Team All-Pro, 3-time Pro Bowler, 5 time World Champion, voted to both the NFL 1960's All Decade Team, and the NFL's 50th Anniversary Team. Inexplicably, he's not in the Hall of Fame. But if it were up to me, I'd be removing more players than I'd be putting in. The Hall is supposed to be for the very best of the best, and there are some people in there that got in because of cronyism.

Who would I consider going in?

That I'll have to think about.

I agree on Kramer, I also think Jim Marshall is deserving.

[t206trader]

I grow weary of the Hall of Really Good versus Hall of Fame argument. Some players will always be better than others. If we had a Hall of Best there would only be one person. Where does one draw this supposed line? Many modern players will get in that some will think are unworthy or whose numbers are pedestrian. To say that most of the best players of the game were before the modern era or vice versa is a moot point. It's just silly to always compare apples to oranges.

[refz]

Nap Rucker
Gil Hodges
Ted Kluewzeski
Lee Smith

The above have my vote.

[toppcat]

Sy Berger

[Tabe]

Marvin Miller is a no-brainer HOFer - possibly the most-deserving guy not already in.

[the 'stache]

I agree about Miller, though I'm guessing there's still a few owners who will object.