Let's talk about Hall of Fame candidates who have been "neglected"

[shagrotn77]

Gil Hodges is probably the most glaring omission IMO. Of course, he actually got in in 1994, only to have Ted Williams deny the deciding vote in an act of pure evil, but I digress. I'm not as high on Dahlen as many others are, but I hope he gets in since I have his Mayo rookie . In terms of modern players whose candidacies have been neglected, I'll go with Fred McGriff. He was a model of consistency and if he had hit just 7 more HR, he probably would have been first ballot.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Who here of a certain age didn't think back in the day that Steve Garvey was a lock HOFer? The metrics really were not kind to him.

[paul]

George Van Haltren.
Pete Browning (but I'd hate to have to get one of his cards).

[Tabe]

Albert Belle - one dominant season after another before his career was ended by injury.

Jim Edmonds - 393 homers and elite defensive CF

[FrankWakefield]

George van Haltren would be a good addition.

Schilling... I concede to bias against him. He won 70 more games than he lost. Ed Reulbach won 76 more games than he lost, while pitching in about 170 fewer games, .632 winning compared to .597. Reulbach is ranked 45th in lifetime winning percentage, Schilling 127th. Both are in lofty company. Spud Chandler leads that list.

Bill James' Politics of Glory (I think original edition is best) covers how Hafey and a few others got into the Hall who arguably shouldn't have. Hafey was a Cardinal, as was his HOF mentor Frankie Frisch.

Thank You for reading the Ed Who article... I'm a fan of his, obviously. I don't the the 1908 Cubs even make it to the World Series without him. And if they hadn't, we'd have a few less Cubs cards in T206. The successful teams of the day have more cards.

Edmonds... as a Cardinal I should advocate his induction, but I just think that the line oughta be just a tiny bit beyond. Hall of Fame, not Mansion of Fame. The Few, like with the Marines.

[perezfan]

Vada Pinson, Gil Hodges, Dale Murphy, Curt Schilling and Dummy Hoy would be my top 5.

A bunch of players with nothing at all in common, but all deserving IMHO. Would also love to see Dave Concepcion and George Foster get in some day, but that's more of a sentimental thing.

[moogpowell]

Alone on offense you can make a strong argument for the HOF. Throw in his defense and the case becomes better. Granted, he was hardly likable or someone you'd want to split a croissant with. Moreover, cocaine always hung over his candidacy. But if HOF voters overlooked it for Tim Raines it why should that be an issue for Parker?

Moreover, the idiocy of 3,000 hits equaling automatic entry (Rose aside) rears its ugly head. If Parker had 288 more hits he would be a HOF lock, given historical precedent. That's silly because if he averaged 15 more hits per year to hit 3,000 that wouldn't have materially influenced his offensive profile.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who here of a certain age didn't think back in the day that Steve Garvey was a lock HOFer? The metrics really were not kind to him.

I completely agree with you, Peter. I don't think Garvey is a Hall of Famer, but if in 1979, you had to guess the current players who would make the Hall, Garvey would have solidly been on that list.

I think if Nap Rucker had the good fortune to come up with the Giants rather than the Dodgers, he would be in the Hall.

[FrankWakefield]

During college days it sure seemed to me that Steve Garvey was a lock for the Hall. 1974 thru 1980.... then everything tapered off... and for a while. Maybe we were paying more attention to baseball and Garvey's production during those 7 years, and then not so much to either afterwards; leaving us with the idea that he must have been the same old 'batting 4th, Garvey' for those subsequent years.

I wonder if us seeing the Dodgers so competitive, making the playoffs, during the last half of the 70s, if that has us remembering him as better than he was.

I understand that I'm in a tiny minority about Ed Reulbach. Seems to me that there's considerable agreement about a few players getting in, and then a bunch of Hall of Very Good players. Minoso, Damon, and others fit better in the HofVG, in my mind.

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by shagrotn77

Gil Hodges is probably the most glaring omission IMO. Of course, he actually got in in 1994, only to have Ted Williams deny the deciding vote in an act of pure evil -

Yep, Hodges is definitely a "glaring" omission - Next chance for him will be in December 2021 when candidates from the "Golden Days" era (1950–1969) are once again considered.....

One of my favorites -

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by shagrotn77

Gil Hodges is probably the most glaring omission IMO. .

Gil is a perfect argument against a lot of the players we are discussing here. When you combine his managerial and player record he looks like a hall of fame, however voters are not supposed to vote on anyone as a player/manager. His stats are light as a 50s 1st basemen...not in comparison to the league but in comparison to the established powerhitting HOFers. It wouldn't be a travesty if he were in neither is it one that he's not. Never really lead the league in anything all that significant, WAR well below the established level for firstbasemen, he had a lot of All Star appearances, but so did Ed Bailey. After his career he was Really nice player but you have to be a big hall guy to let him in. He was an under .500 manager, but did get the Mets an amazing world series, so there's that. He would have likely climbed in his win % had he not died young.

Some people will argue he lost years to the war. That's conjecture...he probably didn't miss much time but even if he did you can't make assumptions on "what if." If you're going to do it for Thurman Munson and Gil Hodges you have to do it for Vida Blue and Tony Conigliario.

One other thing. He was only 47 when he died, which is tragic, but I have neve seen a picture of him, even from his early days when he looked younger than 47.

[maniac_73]

I think Carlos Delgado and Fred McGriff are overlooked because they came up in the Steroid Era.

[dealme]

I would like to see Tommy John get in not only for the nearly 300 wins, but also for the surgery that bears his name. I also like seeing Vada Pinson getting some love in this thread. When I first started taking baseball seriously as a player (maybe 6th grade?), my dad borrowed an instructional video from the coach at the high school where he taught. It had Vada Pinson going through various hitting drills. He's been an under-the-radar favorite of mine ever since.

[timn1]

I agree Tommy John should be in the conversation for the nearly 300 wins, but for the surgery????? Did he do the surgery on himself?


And Steve Garvey? Really? Retrosheet.org has him -6.1 in BFW (Batter/Fielder Wins) - admittedly it's a harsher measure than WAR, but even Baines is +13.7 by that same measure. Trout is +54.3 in half a career.

Originally Posted by dealme

I would like to see Tommy John get in not only for the nearly 300 wins, but also for the surgery that bears his name. I also like seeing Vada Pinson getting some love in this thread. When I first started taking baseball seriously as a player (maybe 6th grade?), my dad borrowed an instructional video from the coach at the high school where he taught. It had Vada Pinson going through various hitting drills. He's been an under-the-radar favorite of mine ever since.

[egri]

Originally Posted by timn1

I agree Tommy John should be in the conversation for the nearly 300 wins, but for the surgery????? Did he do the surgery on himself?


And Steve Garvey? Really? Retrosheet.org has him -6.1 in BFW (Batter/Fielder Wins) - admittedly it's a harsher measure than WAR, but even Baines is +13.7 by that same measure. Trout is +54.3 in half a career.

There has been a push to induct Dr. Frank Jobe, who developed and performed that surgery.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by egri

There has been a push to induct Dr. Frank Jobe, who developed and performed that surgery.

But not Canseco's pharmacist.

How is surgically altering a pitching arm praised, while chemically altering muscle tissue is banned? What, really, is the difference when it comes to using modern medicine to gain a competitive advantage?

[milkit1]

Id vote for Johnny Kling. He was constantly voted best catcher by his peers whom played with him and he lead the Cubs to 3 straight pennants, took a year off (Cubs finish 2nd) comes back and brings the cubs to the series again in '10

1906 cubs.jpg

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

I think Carlos Delgado and Fred McGriff are overlooked because they came up in the Steroid Era.

Fred McGriff and his 493 HRs is in if not for the 1994 strike, which robbed him of at least 7 HR. He was having his best season, with 34 home runs in his 113 games, before the player strike wiped out the rest of the season.

I have no sympathy for the players regarding that strike but it's too bad most of them (Molitor, Morris, etc.) didn't pay a price like McGriff.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Fred McGriff and his 493 HRs is in if not for the 1994 strike, which robbed him of at least 7 HR. He was having his best season, with 34 home runs in his 113 games, before the player strike wiped out the rest of the season.

I have no sympathy for the players regarding that strike but it's too bad most of them (Molitor, Morris, etc.) didn't pay a price like McGriff.

+1. Crime Dog was robbed!

.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

I think Carlos Delgado and Fred McGriff are overlooked because they came up in the Steroid Era.

I don’t think I would vote for Delgado in the end, but he very much deserved a fair look and genuine consideration instead of falling off the ballot first year.

McGriff I think belongs. If we keep out the steroid guys but only elect guys with steroid-level stats like Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey very few players from this era will be making the hall.