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

[Peter_Spaeth]

3400 hits, for one thing. Meaningless in the context of the era he played in, right? I don't think so.

And let's compare some meaningless baseball reference HOF numbers which are, I believe, adjusted for era.

Jeter
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 334 (11), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 67 (19), Average HOFer ≈ 50

Allen
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 99 (163), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 39 (178), Average HOFer ≈ 50

[Peter_Spaeth]

Bill, I have a challenge for you. I bet you could come up with some stats to show that Willie Stargell (classic victim of 60s suppressed stats, no?) was better than Joe DiMaggio.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill, I have a challenge for you. I bet you could come up with some stats to show that Willie Stargell (classic victim of 60s suppressed stats, no?) was better than Joe DiMaggio.

Willie was better than Joe D...in 1979. But then again, Joe D was hawking Mr. Coffee coffee makers. Notice I didn't say he was 65? I bet Joe D still could have hit .275 at that age (and with the right corrective lenses).

[clydepepper]

Luis Tiant & Minnie Minoso
- let's honor these guys while they are still alive.

Don't treat them like Santo.

[deucetwins]

Shoeless Joe (who always gets the image of Ray Liotta in their mind?)
Charlie Hustle (the #'s speak for themselves)
Frank Jobe (changed the game with his surgery)

My throwaway would be Wally Backman. His rants as a minor league manager on YouTube are hilarious.

[sayhey24]

Bill -- we now agree on two things, the second being that Braun deserves a second chance.
I do admire your loyalty to one of your favorite players and the passion you bring to your research -- that says a lot about a person (I'm also jealous of all the time you have to do that research). I don't have that kind of time, so I'll just confidently stand by my statements -- by the way, you'll notice I didn't say PEDs, but substances that enhanced performance.

And I will disagree on one more point -- I still think that Joe D. may have been better than Stargell in the 1970s!

Greg

[sayhey24]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Luis Tiant & Minnie Minoso
- let's honor these guys while they are still alive.

Don't treat them like Santo.

+1

Greg

[Runscott]

"Who should be in the hall that isn't?"

Answer: about half the players that are in the 'hall that is'.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Luis Tiant & Minnie Minoso
- let's honor these guys while they are still alive.

Don't treat them like Santo.

Raymond,

Oh, is that a sore spot with me...still. There's nothing I hate more than seeing somebody elected to the Hall of Fame-- be it the Baseball Hall, the Pro Football Hall, or hell, even the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame--after they have passed away. If they are good enough to get voted in posthumously, then they are good enough to get voted in while they are alive.

Now, I'm not a big disco fan, but the fact that the R&R HoF elected Donna Summer last year, only a few months after she'd died, well, that just ticked me off on kinds of levels. Her husband and three beautiful daughters got up there to accept in her stead. And while it was definitely a celebration of Donna and her music, there was an underlying sadness just below the surface when her husband was speaking. I thought it showed a complete lack of class by the committee that voted her in. And the Santo election is another one. He died in December of 2010, and was elected in 2012. His final game was in 1974 when I was three. I was 39 years old when they finally elected him. Why couldn't they make that happen in the nearly four decades he lived after retiring? I'm feeling the same way about Jerry Kramer, the Packer great. I know I brought him up before, and listed his accolades. But how does somebody make it on the the NFL's All Decade Team for the 1960s and the NFL's 50th Anniversary team, and yet not get into the Hall of Fame?

Ridiculous.

Originally Posted by deucetwins

Shoeless Joe (who always gets the image of Ray Liotta in their mind?)
Charlie Hustle (the #'s speak for themselves)
Frank Jobe (changed the game with his surgery)

My throwaway would be Wally Backman. His rants as a minor league manager on YouTube are hilarious.

Jeff, though he's been in many great films, I will always picture Ray Liotta as Henry Hill. For me, there's Goodfellas, then all the other flicks he did.

He called in one night when I was working (I didn't speak with him, one of my colleagues did), and about ten minutes into a conversation about mutual funds vs ETFs (if my memory is correct), I walked behind the broker on the phone with him, and said "go home and get your shine box" loud enough so Mr. Liotta could hear. He broke out with that classic Ray Liotta laugh, the "Tommy, you're a really funny guy" laugh. I could hear it even though the guy talking to him was on a headset. I'd always hoped he'd call back, but I never got a chance to talk to him.

Originally Posted by sayhey24

Bill -- we now agree on two things, the second being that Braun deserves a second chance.
I do admire your loyalty to one of your favorite players and the passion you bring to your research -- that says a lot about a person (I'm also jealous of all the time you have to do that research). I don't have that kind of time, so I'll just confidently stand by my statements -- by the way, you'll notice I didn't say PEDs, but substances that enhanced performance.

And I will disagree on one more point -- I still think that Joe D. may have been better than Stargell in the 1970s!

Greg

Greg, believe me when I say I wish I didn't have this much free time. I'd much rather be at work right now. I'd be starting my night in about 5 minutes, and that would go until 7 am. Instead, I'm watching tv and movies again. I'm sure being able to watch tv all day in bed sounds great to people working 40 hours a week. When I was working 60 hours a week during tax season, I know that would have sounded like paradise. But after a while, no matter how entertaining those movies are, it all starts to feel like a prison. I spend about 95% of my days in my bedroom. It feels like a prison cell after a while.

Also, I want you to know I respect your position. I do. In fact, unless the person on the other end of a spirited debate is acting like a horse's you-know-what, I will pretty much always respect the other guy if they take a stand. I respect people that formulate opinions on their own, that take a stand for what they believe in, you know? There are too many hangers on. They want to cling to something because they're spineless.

Braun really screwed up, and I was mad at him for a good while. And ultimately, I don't care why he did it. I don't care if his intentions were good or not. The bottom line is that he broke the rules, and I've had to try and reconcile my affinity for Braun with the disappointment and anger I've felt because of what he did. I love the game of baseball so much, and I abhor any kind of cheating in the game I love. I know cheating has been going on in one form or another as long as the game has been played (I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday, you know). But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

PS-you might be right about DiMaggio.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Willie was better than Joe D...in 1979. But then again, Joe D was hawking Mr. Coffee coffee makers. Notice I didn't say he was 65? I bet Joe D still could have hit .275 at that age (and with the right corrective lenses).

LOL. By the way I think your post about Braun was too condensed -- could you please spell out your arguments in a little more detail? I thought your post about Mattingly was also somewhat truncated.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Willie was better than Joe D...in 1979. But then again, Joe D was hawking Mr. Coffee coffee makers. Notice I didn't say he was 65? I bet Joe D still could have hit .275 at that age (and with the right corrective lenses).

That's like an anecdote attributed to Cobb. Someone in the 1950's allegedly asked him what he thought he would hit if he were playing today. He said around .270. The questioner expressed surprise, and asked him to explain. He said, well I am 70 years old.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That's like an anecdote attributed to Cobb. Someone in the 1950's allegedly asked him what he thought he would hit if he were playing today. He said around .270. The questioner expressed surprise, and asked him to explain. He said, well I am 70 years old.

Yup, though Mr. Cobb's (er Tommy Lee Jones') language was a little more colorful. Then he grabbed Lolita Davidovich. That was the best part of the gig for ol' Texas Tommy.

Oooooo! And Tommy Lee Jones really was born in Texas. Texas Tommy works.

[packs]

How can you say Dick Allen is more deserving than Derek Jeter? Jeter plays a premium position and has outlasted everyone who would have claimed a spot ahead of him as best shortstop in the league. A-rod was a cheater and Nomar flamed out. Jeter is above and beyond the premier shortstop of his time and I don't even like him.

[Kenny Cole]

IMO Allen's biggest problem as a HOF candidate is that he was viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a clubhouse cancer throughout a large part of his career. His offensive numbers in the context of his time are pretty solid but he doesn't seem to be able to shake the reputation thing.

[sycks22]

Jack Morris
Tony Oliva
Pete Rose

We'll keep it simple

[the 'stache]

When the discussion of best players not in the Hall of Fame turns to Don Mattingly and Dwight Gooden, as it invariably does, a distinction has to be made about why a player's performance declined. In some cases, allowances should be made. In others, they most certainly should not.

Don Mattingly was the best player in baseball--bar none (imo)--for a four year span. In my humble opinion based on statistical analysis, and from watching him play as I was growing up, there was nobody on that same level with Mattingly. You had Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs, extraordinary hitters who put up similar batting averages, yes, but they did not have the power that Mattingly had. Gwynn was an outstanding fielder early in his career, and Boggs became a decorated fielder, later in his career. Gwynn also possessed speed that neither Mattingly or Boggs had. But if you are looking at the total package, Mattingly was clearly the most rounded player of the three.

You also had players with equal or greater power, and similar run production. Names like Dale Murphy, Mike Schmidt, Darryl Strawberry, Jose Canseco, Eric Davis, and Jim Rice come to mind in the mid to late 80s. But while some could match his power and run production, and may have even excelled in the field as Schmidt did, nobody could touch him from a pure hitting standpoint. To be a .330 + hitter, with 30 + home runs, 100 + RBI, and spectacular defensive ability-that has always been a rare thing indeed. Mattingly could change the outcome of a game with his glove or his bat. And when injuries robbed him of his elite abilities, he was still a very good player. Look at his career numbers. He had two All Star caliber seasons after his peak. Then his average and power numbers dipped. But then from 1991-1995 he regained his hitting abilities. Certainly his power was gone, but he was hitting in the .290s to .300 again, and still playing spectacular defense. So when I look at his career in the aggregate, I see a man that was a hitter without peer in his prime, and one of the best defensive first basemen to ever play the game throughout his career. He was the one offensive player everybody in the 80s wished they could be. That to me says Hall of Famer.

The Baseball Writers put Sandy Koufax in for five great years. Well, look at Don Mattingly's production 1984-1988:

152 games, 100 runs, 206 hits, 44 doubles, 27 home runs, 114 RBI, .332 AVG

In 3,412 plate appearances between 1984 and 1988, Mattingly struck out 176 times. That's an average of 35 strikeouts per season.

Get rid of 1988, and look at 1984-1987, and his four year averages are mind boggling for the era:

154 games, 102 runs, 210 hits, 46 doubles, 30 home runs, 121 RBI, .337 AVG, .941 OPS.

In that four year span, he had 4 All Star selections, an MVP, an MVP runner up (again, I felt he should have won the MVP in 1986 when he had 117 runs scored, 238 hits, 53 doubles, 31 home runs, 113 RBI, and hit .352, but it went to Roger Clemens instead, who won the Cy Young), 3 Gold Gloves, 3 Silver Slugger Awards.

He dominated the game. He was the most feared hitter in the game during hi prime. If his back hadn't robbed him of his power, there's no telling where he would have ended up.

At 28 years old, Mattingly already had 1,300 hits, 164 home runs and 717 RBI. From 1984 to 1989 (I eliminated 1982 when he had only 12 at bats, and 1983 when had only 279 at bats), he was averaging 203 hits per year, or 216 hits per 162 games played. Now, certainly, he wouldn't have kept that torrid pace up, but say he has about a 10% drop in production, and averages 183 hits per season. In a little over 9 years, or at age 37, he's crossing 3,000 hits. His back robbed him of that.

Now, when you look at Dwight Gooden, the circumstances are completely different. Dwight Gooden robbed himself of a chance at true greatness.

Just how good was Gooden?

His first three years in the Major Leagues were the best first three years any pitcher has had since 1950. I used Baseball Reference to try and quantify this based on WAR.



13 shutouts in his first three seasons, tying him with Jerry Koosman, of all people, for the most ever.

Most strikeouts? Gooden again leads the pack with Hideo Nomo's 703 ending up second, and Tim Lincecum third at 676.

Certainly this comparison is no guarantee of greatness. We all remember Steve Blass, who went from being 19-8 with a 2.49 ERA in 1972 at age 30 to completely losing his ability to pitch the next year. Obviously, this is an extreme, but it just shows that anything is possible in baseball.

Gooden, even though he wasn't the same dominant pitcher he was in his first three seasons, when he won 58 games before he was 22, was still a pretty good pitcher at age 25. He'd won 100 games, had a career 2.64 ERA, and had struck out 1,168 batters in 1,291 innings. But somewhere along the way, early in his career, Gooden started taking drugs. Cocaine. He would end his career with 194 wins against 112 losses. A .634 winning percentage. Still pretty darned good. 2,293 strikeouts. A 3.51 career ERA. 24 shutouts and one no hitter.

But he could have been so much more. Gooden had the stuff to win 300 games. No, he could have won a lot more games than 300. He could have approached 200 wins by age 30. This is a guy who had the kind of stuff pitching coaches drool over. His fastball, which consistently touched 98 mph, wasn't even his best pitch. His curveball was so devastating it was given the nickname "Lord Charles".

But he threw it all away. Many people lament Mickey Mantle and what could have been if he had only taken care of himself. He was famous for staying out all night, for drinking with Whitey, Billy, Yogi and the rest of the Yankees. He was a frequent guest at Toots Shor's restaurant. He thought he was going to die young, so he burned the candle at both ends. And he played through one injury after another. Even though he didn't take care of himself, he's still one of the all-time greats. But he still could have done more.

Well, I feel that way when I look at one of my old Dwight Gooden baseball cards. He could have been the best ever if only he'd stayed clean.

[Centauri]

Vizquel should be in.
Albert Belle should be in - never implicated in any way to PED's, consistently great numbers, including some truly spectacular seasons. 50hr/50 2b same season. The only difference between Belle and the Big Hurt is than Belle had a career ending injury at 32.

Jim Thome not mentioned - 600HR, no PED links. Career very similar to Killebrew.

Sabathia has 208 wins at age 32. 300 is reachable.

[the 'stache]

I don't think there's any way Sabathia gets 300 wins. He's really lost his touch. Over his last 40 starts, he's got a 4.87 ERA. And he's been worse than that lately.

As for Belle, he was an incredible player. But I don't see him getting in because he was so unpleasant to everybody-writers, teammates, fans. It's a shame, really, because he was a superstar. But ultimately, the BBWAA are people, and people remember how a baseball player acts beyond the confines of the nine innings spent on the field.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

The Baseball Writers put Sandy Koufax in for five great years. Well, look at Don Mattingly's production 1984-1988:



152 games, 100 runs, 206 hits, 44 doubles, 27 home runs, 114 RBI, .332 AVG



Get rid of 1988, and look at 1984-1987, and his four year averages are mind boggling for the era:



154 games, 102 runs, 210 hits, 46 doubles, 30 home runs, 121 RBI, .337 AVG, .941 OPS .

George Foster 1976-1980
145 games, 91 runs, 163 hits, 23 doubles, 35 home runs, 116 RBI, .297AVG

George Foster 1976-1979
145 games, 94 runs, 168 hits, 24 doubles, 38 home runs, 122 RBI, .303 AVG, .941 OPS.

I don't see Mattingly being better or mind boggling.

OPS+ is a nice measure that crosses era's although they played in similar times.

Foster became a full time player in 1975 and Mattingly in 1984.
Here is how their OPS+ compared
Foster. Mattingly
76 84. 139 156
76 85. 150 156
77 86. 165 161
78 87. 151 146
79 88. 155 128
80 89. 131 133
81 90. 150 81
82 91. 90 103
83 92. 95 108
84 93. 111 120
85 94. 121 113

Say Mattingly is a HoF all you want, but promote Foster just as much because their argument is the same.

[packs]

The George Foster argument to me has no place in the discussion. As far as I know he did not suffer a career ending injury that robbed him of his talents. His numbers are exactly what he was able to put up.

The whole argument for Mattingly is that he was a HOF player that was robbed of his career by an injury and his career numbers do not reflect his talent level.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Of course Foster benefited from having Rose Morgan Bench and Perez hitting in front of him...

Nobody should make it on the basis of five years. Koufax may be the exception because his were SO off the charts that most people count him among the 10 best pitchers ever. Mattingly had five great years but how many people would rank him with Ruth Cobb etc.?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by brewing

Say Mattingly is a HoF all you want, but promote Foster just as much because their argument is the same.

Brent, they're not at all the same. Firstly, you're comparing Foster and Mattingly side by side knowing full well that after '87, Mattingly's power was gone because of back injuries. Doing an OPS + comparison of any year after 1987 for Mattingly is pointless. The crux of our argument is that Mattingly was robbed of his prime years. He hit 30 home runs at age 26. The remainder of his career, he averaged 12 home runs a season.

But even more importantly, you're forgetting one little thing. Actually, it's not a little thing. It's half the game.

Defense.

While Foster in his prime put up offensive numbers quite similar to Mattingly in his prime, there is no comparison when it comes to defense.

Now I know that the Gold Glove Award is hardly the be all, end all measurement of defensive abilities, but it is a good starting point.

Don Mattingly was a spectacular defender. He won 9 Gold Gloves.
George Foster didn't win a single Gold Glove in his 18 seasons.

When defense is considered, Mattingly vaults way ahead of Foster. And it's defensive prowess that I've been talking about really since I first posted in this discussion.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

IMO Allen's biggest problem as a HOF candidate is that he was viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a clubhouse cancer throughout a large part of his career. His offensive numbers in the context of his time are pretty solid but he doesn't seem to be able to shake the reputation thing.

I compare Dick Allen with Albert Belle - very, very similar

Great Hitters but poor Teammates.

[btcarfagno]

Robert L (Bob) Johnson

Take a look at his page on baseball-reference.com:

http://www.baseball-...johnsbo01.shtml

He started his major league career late at age 27 but hit the ground running. Career LOW OPS+ was 125 at age 39. He finished in the top 10 in the AL in the following categories:

Offensive WAR: 5 times
Slugging %: 10 times
OPS: 9 times
Runs scored: 4 times
Total Bases: 8 times
Triples: 5 times
Home Runs: 11 times
RBI: 7 times
Walks: 8 times
OPS+: 10 times
Runs created: 9 times
Adjusted batting runs: 9 times
Assists as Left Fielder: 12 times (he is the all-time leader)

Remember, he played just 13 seasons in the majors.

His Grey Ink HOF monitor # is 161. The average HOF player is 144.

His HOF monitor # is 92. A likely HOF player is 100 (his number is low due to lower career numbers from getting such a late start)

His HOF Standards # is 46 where the average HOF player is 50.

Johnson was a stud of a baseball player and should be in the Hall.

Tom C

[WWGjohn]

Jim Kaat, 284 wins and 16 gold gloves.

John

[Davino]

Originally Posted by WWGjohn

Jim Kaat, 284 wins and 16 gold gloves.

John

He should be in, 100%!!!

[VoodooChild]

My personal opinion is that there are not enough players in the HOF. I know I'm in the minority, but my own test is that if a player dominated for 5 or so years and was considered one of he best handful of baseball players on the planet, then he deserves to be enshrined. It shouldn't just be for players that were "lucky" enough to play for 20 years and reached some random statistical milestones.

Eddie Murray was a great player and deserves to be in based on his total career. But, his most dominant 4 or 5 year stretch was on par with the likes of Maris, Dick Allen, Dale Murphy, and Mattingly. All of them even won MVP's unlike Murray. Murray played 21 years ('77 - '97) and compiled the numbers, but his last "dominant" season was 1985 after which he never led the league in any major stat.

To me, it's the "Hall of FAME", not the "Hall of lucky enough to stay healthy and play 20 years". I equate fame with dominance, and in my opinion players who dominated the game for half a decade are considered famous which includes the likes Dave Parker and Greg Luzinski as well.

The HOF is really just a baseball museum. Maybe it should be split into Tiers. For those of you who believe only guys with long, great, careers that amassed the magical numbers should be in, well then you can just visit the "Top Tier" part of the museum. But for guys like me who don't want to forget the players who dominated the game for a shorter time, well then we can spend our time in the lesser Tiers.

For the PED guys: They should be part of the museum. Sticking with my "Tier" idea, I guess they'd be considered the bottom tier. Maybe they can have the basement.

[packs]

Haha that's a novel idea. This way to the Mark McGwire bathroom. Please exit the museum through the Barry Bonds side door.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by VoodooChild

My personal opinion is that there are not enough players in the HOF. I know I'm in the minority, but my own test is that if a player dominated for 5 or so years and was considered one of he best handful of baseball players on the planet, then he deserves to be enshrined. It shouldn't just be for players that were "lucky" enough to play for 20 years and reached some random statistical milestones.

Eddie Murray was a great player and deserves to be in based on his total career. But, his most dominant 4 or 5 year stretch was on par with the likes of Maris, Dick Allen, Dale Murphy, and Mattingly. All of them even won MVP's unlike Murray. Murray played 21 years ('77 - '97) and compiled the numbers, but his last "dominant" season was 1985 after which he never led the league in any major stat.

To me, it's the "Hall of FAME", not the "Hall of lucky enough to stay healthy and play 20 years". I equate fame with dominance, and in my opinion players who dominated the game for half a decade are considered famous which includes the likes Dave Parker and Greg Luzinski as well.

Using your logic, Johan Santana is a HOFer. Being great is a combination of talent and consistency. Santana was great, but not deserving of Cooperstown.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Galarraga for the Hall! He had a great 5 year stretch, after all. And 399 HR.