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

[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.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agree with Parker. He was the most feared hitter in baseball for a pretty long stretch. And also had that cannon of an arm... good call.

[blackandgold]

Originally Posted by 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.

As I was reading down through these posts, I thought I should mention The Cobra. Glad someone beat me to it.

[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.