Golden Era Hall of Fame Ballot announced

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well now you have changed your tune. Yes he was one of the top players of his era. I absolutely agree. That, to me, does not equate to being a dominant player. Semantics perhaps.

Too many players got into the HOF simply because they kept on playing, amassing stats. Garvey had a long period of years in which he was one of the top players in baseball -- that made him a dominant player of his era.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't disagree with you on some of the longevity stat guys. And there are many guys I just don't understand the reason for at all. To me, Garvey is still a step below. Dave Parker has 7 top 11 MVP finishes -- is he in? Not to mention more HR RBI and hits than Garvey.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't disagree with you on some of the longevity stat guys. And there are many guys I just don't understand the reason for at all. To me, Garvey is still a step below. Dave Parker has 7 top 11 MVP finishes -- is he in? Not to mention more HR RBI and hits than Garvey.

I agree on Parker -- another guy who was a dominant player of his era. His greatness was spread out a bit more than Garvey and he had drug issues which surely hurt his chances. Like Garvey, probably just a notch below immortal greatness. I think my issue is that with so many guys who got in due to playing forever, there should be more value placed on players who were better during shorter careers. Again, I come back to Don Sutton who cannot truly be argued had a better career than Garvey by any measurement -- and they were a part of the same team during the same era. Can anyone claim that Sutton was the more important player to that team?

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Too many players got into the HOF simply because they kept on playing, amassing stats.

+1

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

+1

If "amassing stats" is just something an ordinary ballplayer does then why are not hundreds of more ball players joining those great milestone clubs? Isn't consistency something to be celebrated?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

If "amassing stats" is just something an ordinary ballplayer does then why are not hundreds of more ball players joining those great milestone clubs? Isn't consistency something to be celebrated?

No one is saying that the players who amass superior stats are ordinary players, it's just that there are a bunch in the HOF who are only there due to longevity. Do you think that a pitcher who played in an era when pitchers routinely started 40 games a year, pitched for a top team, won 20 games only once and never finished in the top 3 for a Cy Young deserves to be in the HOF due solely to playing forever? The question is what defines greatness. Is it amassing stats via 20 good seasons but rarely great? Or 10 dominant seasons with significantly less lifetime accumulated stats? I think it's the latter obviously.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Look at yaz. Mostly longevity stats his avg season was not that great really.

[Iron Horse]

Garvey should be in the Hall. He was the best player in that position for nearly a decade. I grew up watching him play and on the Dodgers team he was one of their best if not the best hitter all around. Plus he played every game until he broke a finger if i recall. Performed well in the World Series, All Star games...There are many players in the Hall that if you look at their stats you would say why? & they were not dominant for nearly a decade. Oh, i forgot all those gold gloves

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Look at yaz. Mostly longevity stats his avg season was not that great really.

Yeah, Yaz had longevity, but he also played at a very high level during those years - he had 18 All-Star appearances. Also, he was the best in the game at one point, winning an MVP and a Triple Crown.

The guys that I think that earned it mostly through longevity are guys like Don Sutton - (4 time All-Star, 0 Cy Youngs and only 1 20-game win season), Bert Blyleven (0, 0 and 1), Tony Perez and Billy Williams.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Yeah, Yaz had longevity, but he also played at a very high level during those years - he had 18 All-Star appearances. Also, he was the best in the game at one point, winning an MVP and a Triple Crown.

Except he really didn't. Yaz put up a ton of .270/18/75 seasons. In all honesty, he really wasn't an elite player for pretty much the entire last 13 seasons. He had a couple very good years but nothing great. Basically, he was great for 3, maybe 4, years and that's it.

[sago]

Longevity thy name is Eddie Murray. Never dominant for any stretch of time.

[collectbaseball]

I am in the school that tends to think the HOF has a few duds, but I think I’d put in Hodges, Allen, and Minoso. I wouldn’t have a problem with Wills or Oliva. The others I don’t think belong…

Two I really think should be in are Tommy John and Curt Flood. Both very very good players who have arguably had more influence in shaping the game of baseball than anybody else in the last 50 years. The combination of on-field merit and off-field influence seems like it should qualify them easily.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by calvindog

No one is saying that the players who amass superior stats are ordinary players, it's just that there are a bunch in the HOF who are only there due to longevity. Do you think that a pitcher who played in an era when pitchers routinely started 40 games a year, pitched for a top team, won 20 games only once and never finished in the top 3 for a Cy Young deserves to be in the HOF due solely to playing forever? The question is what defines greatness. Is it amassing stats via 20 good seasons but rarely great? Or 10 dominant seasons with significantly less lifetime accumulated stats? I think it's the latter obviously.

I value a high level of consistency over a long period of time. Maybe that's why Eddie Murray is my favorite player of all-time.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

I value a high level of consistency over a long period of time. Maybe that's why Eddie Murray is my favorite player of all-time.

Eddie Murray was no Blyleven or Sutton -- he was a terror for many years. I don't think he qualifies as a guy who got in just due to longevity.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Eddie Murray was no Blyleven or Sutton -- he was a terror for many years. I don't think he qualifies as a guy who got in just due to longevity.

I agree with Jeff here. Murray was a switch hitting offensive monster at the plate. Definitely HOF worthy.

Best,

Eric

[turtleguy64]

Did Yaz make 18 All Star appearances due to the fact that someone had to represent the Sox and Bill Monboquette wasn't always really good ? he played at a high level.....up to a certain point and the decline began in the '70s.

[Scocs]

What do these guys have against Dodger players? I just can't wrap my head around the fact that neither Gil Hodges nor Steve Garvey is in the Hall....

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Scocs

What do these guys have against Dodger players? I just can't wrap my head around the fact that neither Gil Hodges nor Steve Garvey is in the Hall....

272 homers for Garvey and a career OPS+ of 117. He doesn't belong.