Lee Smith & Harold Baines??

[rats60]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

I think the issue is not that there are too many players in the HOF. There are only 228 players in the HOF (excludes Negro Leaguers, Managers, Umpires, and Executives / Pioneers), which is like 1.1% of all the players who ever made the Major Leagues. The issue is not even that there have been some bad selections, which have often been at least partially the result of cronyism. The issue is that it seems the HOF has not corrected the mistakes of the past that resulted in many of these poor selections. Clearly, some of the voters on the committee that voted for Baines should have abstained from voting as they could not possibly claim to be impartial.

For the record, these are the 12 picks out of 228 I think clearly were bad selections:

Ray Schalk - C
Rick Farrell - C
High Pockets Kelly – 1B
Jim Bottomley – 1B
Freddie Lindstrom – 3B
Chick Hafey – LF
Lloyd Waner – CF
Tommy McCarthy – RF
Ross Youngs – RF
Harold Baines – DH
Jesse Haines – P
Rube Marquard – P

These are the players (excluding players still-eligible and PED and banned players) I believe should be selected based on statistics, championships, clutch performance, fame, popularity, and other intangibles, such as who were considered true superstars when they were playing:

Thurman Munson - C
Keith Hernandez – 1B
Don Mattingly – 1B
Gil Hodges – 1B
Steve Garvey – 1B
Lou Whitaker – 2B
Ross Barnes – 2B
Ken Boyer – 3B
Minnie Minoso – LF
Dale Murphy – CF
Roger Maris – RF
Rusty Staub - RF
Tommy Bond – P

I also believe the HOF made a mistake not inducting Buck O’Neill in and should correct it.

Using WAR, which is what most are arguing for exclusion, Baines is the best player on your exclude list and better than some you left off. I would leave Bottomley and Baines in, but the other 10 are clear mistakes.

From your should be in list, Barnes only played 9 years and 499 games. Bond only played 10 seasons and one he pitched 2 games, another 3. I don't think they played long enough and if they were really famous or popular, they would be in. The other guys I wouldn't have a problem with and there are some other guys you missed like Dick Allen and Ted Simmons.

The Hof has already gone down the road of electing a lot of marginal candidates. I think we are going to see a bunch of those guys who played in the 60s-80s elected by the VC over the next decade.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by rats60

Using WAR, which is what most are arguing for exclusion, Baines is the best player on your exclude list and better than some you left off. I would leave Bottomley and Baines in, but the other 10 are clear mistakes.

From your should be in list, Barnes only played 9 years and 499 games. Bond only played 10 seasons and one he pitched 2 games, another 3. I don't think they played long enough and if they were really famous or popular, they would be in. The other guys I wouldn't have a problem with and there are some other guys you missed like Dick Allen and Ted Simmons.

The Hof has already gone down the road of electing a lot of marginal candidates. I think we are going to see a bunch of those guys who played in the 60s-80s elected by the VC over the next decade.

Good point on Barnes; I excluded Caruthers for that same reason. I would induct Barnes as part of the Pioneer wing along with many of his teammates.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by rats60

Using WAR, which is what most are arguing for exclusion, Baines is the best player on your exclude list and better than some you left off. I would leave Bottomley and Baines in, but the other 10 are clear mistakes.

From your should be in list, Barnes only played 9 years and 499 games. Bond only played 10 seasons and one he pitched 2 games, another 3. I don't think they played long enough and if they were really famous or popular, they would be in. The other guys I wouldn't have a problem with and there are some other guys you missed like Dick Allen and Ted Simmons.

The Hof has already gone down the road of electing a lot of marginal candidates. I think we are going to see a bunch of those guys who played in the 60s-80s elected by the VC over the next decade.

You are making the mistake of comparing players like Barnes and Bond to players of more recent eras using a measuring stick that doesn't apply. Any player can only fairly be compared to players from his era. The early game was baseball, yet quite different than today. Also, in Barnes defense, he played 5 seasons prior to 1871, the first year of the professional National Association, at the highest levels available at the time. The 10 year rule is not relevant to Barnes, as well as many other players, who played part or all of their careers prior to the start of the professional leagues. These players are the pioneers of baseball and have been neglected by the Hall of Fame, basically, because all or most of the voters have no understanding of the early game and fail to properly evaluate the early players.

[jimjim]

Tony Larussa is off his rocker.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/2...etractors-weak