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

[tiger8mush]

Clemens and Bonds?

Its my understanding that over half the league is thought to have been using PEDs at the time, which MLB knew about but did nothing to stop. Pitchers faced hitters on PEDs, hitters faced pitchers on PEDs. MLB started serving suspensions for PED usage in 2005; Bonds & Clemens finished their careers playing 2005 and 2006 and 2007 (in their 40s) w/o a suspension. Both were SOOO dominant, their stats are just crazy. And they faced opponents who were also on PEDs.

How many years have pitchers been doctoring the ball with spider tack and other substances, which is against MLB rules, but was never stopped until now? None of the Astros lost their stats nor rings for cheating and many of those same coaches and players are still playing today. Many old timers, including HOFers, have admitted to (or been accused of) cheating in one way or another.

I was on the fence in the past, but am leaning towards induction for them both. Thoughts?

[cammb]

Vada Pinson was every bit as good as Clemente

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by cammb

Vada Pinson was every bit as good as Clemente

This is a hot take!

[bbcard1]

Any love for Bobby Mathews and his 297 wins? Three more and it would not have been a discussion. He was done by 1900 and has a terribly forgettable name. He probably didn't stack up against the best of his era, but he sure racked up a lot of stats, though the teams he played on were wonky. Once netted 625 innings in a single season.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

Any love for Bobby Mathews and his 297 wins? many eras of baseball. Three more and it would not have been a discussion. He was done by 1900 and has a terribly forgettable name. He probably didn't stack up against the best of his era, but he sure racked up a lot of stats, though the teams he played on were wonky. Once netted 625 innings in a single season.

Mathews was an excellent pitcher for a number of years. His career totals helps illustrate the folly of comparing players across the many eras of baseball. Although seasons were shorter in the 19th century, starting pitchers simply pitched more games than they would into the 20th century and beyond. Getting 300 wins, like hitting .400, was easier in the 19th century than later years. On the other hand, hitting home runs was infinitely more difficult and not really a part of the style of baseball played back then. My point is that when evaluating players, using benchmarks is folly. The best way to evaluate any player is by viewing his record compared to his peers.
This assures an apples to apples comparison. This is not to say Mathews is not a hofer. I have no problem with his worthiness.

[YazFenway08]

It is possible than cammb and I are now friends....

[Mozzie22]

Don Mattingly and Kirby Puckett have nearly identical numbers and at no time ever did anyone say Puckett was the best player in the game. Mattingly was the best player in the game for a period in the 80's.

Mattingly should be in.

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Mathews was an excellent pitcher for a number of years. His career totals helps illustrate the folly of comparing players across the many eras of baseball. Although seasons were shorter in the 19th century, starting pitchers simply pitched more games than they would into the 20th century and beyond. Getting 300 wins, like hitting .400, was easier in the 19th century than later years. On the other hand, hitting home runs was infinitely more difficult and not really a part of the style of baseball played back then. My point is that when evaluating players, using benchmarks is folly. The best way to evaluate any player is by viewing his record compared to his peers.
This assures an apples to apples comparison. This is not to say Mathews is not a hofer. I have no problem with his worthiness.

An issue he has, generic name aside, is that he died before the turn of the century and was probably largely forgotten by the time of the first HOF class.

[Phil Arem]

How about Keith Hernandez? 11 Gold gloves, close to 300BA, mvp, batting title, clutch hitter and 2 rings. Not to mention a hilarious announcer!

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

An issue he has, generic name aside, is that he died before the turn of the century and was probably largely forgotten by the time of the first HOF class.

I agree and this issue pertains to many 19th century players. As I said in my original post on this thread, 19th century players, more specifically pioneer players are underrepresented in the HOF. This will never be changed unless baseball historians/SABRites have a majority voice on the Historical Overview Committee and the final Election Committee. SABR's 19th Century Committee has chosen the Most Overlooked 19th Century Legend for the past 13 years. Only Deacon White has been elected to the HOF from this group. This shows you how well the current HOF process works and how much they consider the input of the people that know 19th century baseball better than anybody.
As an aside, I believe Mathews finished either second or third in this year's voting, which was won by Charlie Bennett. Mathews was included on my ballot.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cammb

Vada Pinson was every bit as good as Clemente

15xAS....... 4xAS
12xGG....... 1xGG
1 MVP....... 0 MVP
1 WS MVP....... 0 WS MVP
2 WS Champ....... 0 WS Champ
4 BA Champ....... 0 BA Champ

Those two are not remotely close.

[sdimag]

Originally Posted by rats60

15xAS....... 4xAS
12xGG....... 1xGG
1 MVP....... 0 MVP
1 WS MVP....... 0 WS MVP
2 WS Champ....... 0 WS Champ
4 BA Champ....... 0 BA Champ

Those two are not remotely close.

Thank you!

[cammb]

Saw each of them play for a significant time, your stats don't impress me. How about seeing them in action.

[bbcard1]

I've looked at Pinson pretty closely. He was a nice player. i think he needed two things to make the hall of fame...had his best seasons been more evenly distributed and had he played on a couple of teams that were a little more competitive. He was on the "catch lightning in a bottle" 1961 Reds team that ran into a meat grinder vs. the Yankees.

[mainemule]

Schilling, while a complete tool post-career, is a no-brainer.

3 WS rings
11-2 PS record
3,000 ks (only eligible member of this club not in HOF)
26th career WAR (all 25 ahead of him in HOF)
300 k's 3 times

Over-shadowed by Johnson and Pedro at times but won big game after big game.

How Mussina got in before Schilling still rankles me.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by mainemule

Schilling, while a complete tool post-career, is a no-brainer.

3 WS rings
11-2 PS record
3,000 ks (only eligible member of this club not in HOF)
26th career WAR (all 25 ahead of him in HOF)
300 k's 3 times

Over-shadowed by Johnson and Pedro at times but won big game after big game.

How Mussina got in before Schilling still rankles me.

You said it yourself, "a complete tool". People are denied entry for any number of reasons. I guess being an idiot, no matter your ballplaying accomplishments, will keep you out on occasion. Somebody on the MLB Network, while they were discussing the no selected 2020, said along with Jackson and Rose, Schilling will never go in.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by cammb

vada pinson was every bit as good as clemente

wtf?

[shagrotn77]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

wtf?

When I first saw that I had the same reaction, but then I took a deeper dive into Pinson's stats. As good as Clemente? Of course not. Very underrated, though? Indeed.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by shagrotn77

When I first saw that I had the same reaction, but then I took a deeper dive into Pinson's stats. As good as Clemente? Of course not. Very underrated, though? Indeed.

I love Pinson and would love to see him inducted some day. Very underrated, and playing for small-market Cincy didn't help either.

But there's no universe in which he was as good as Clemente.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

wtf?

My 82 year old mother would tell you that those three letters stand for "well that's fantastic"

[molenick]

You can get elected as a pioneer or early years selection...that committee last had an election in 2016 and no one got in (top vote-getters were Doc Adams, Bill Dahlen, and Harry Stovey). The last people to get in via this committee were Hank O'Day, Jake Ruppert, and Deacon White in the 2013 election (results announced in 2012). The next scheduled meeting of the committee is this December.

One problem is that they cover a very broad range of years. There are four different veterans committees and the one called Early Baseball currently covers 1871-1949. So in the last election, Bucky Walters and Marty Marion were on the ballot along with pioneers and actual early players (I don't think of Marty Marion as an early player). The first hurdle is getting on the ballot and it is much harder when you are competing against people over such a wide range of years. This to me is four eras (pioneer/pre-league, organized 19th century, dead ball, pre-integration live ball). The other three committees are much more focused (for example, the Golden Days committee covers 1950-1969).

The other problem is that after this year's election, they are not meeting again for another ten years! So basically if Adams, Barnes, Creighton, Dahlen, Ferrell, Magee, Mathews, etc. don't make it this time they are not getting in for a long time (unless the HOF changes its rules).

[G1911]

Originally Posted by molenick

You can get elected as a pioneer or early years selection...that committee last had an election in 2016 and no one got in (top vote-getters were Doc Adams, Bill Dahlen, and Harry Stovey). The last people to get in via this committee were Hank O'Day, Jake Ruppert, and Deacon White in the 2013 election (results announced in 2012). The next scheduled meeting of the committee is this December.

One problem is that they cover a very broad range of years. There are four different veterans committees and the one called Early Baseball currently covers 1871-1949. So in the last election, Bucky Walters and Marty Marion were on the ballot along with pioneers and actual early players (I don't think of Marty Marion as an early player). The first hurdle is getting on the ballot and it is much harder when you are competing against people over such a wide range of years. This to me is four eras (pioneer/pre-league, organized 19th century, dead ball, pre-integration live ball). The other three committees are much more focused (for example, the Golden Days committee covers 1950-1969).

The other problem is that after this year's election, they are not meeting again for another ten years! So basically if Adams, Barnes, Creighton, Dahlen, Ferrell, Magee, Mathews, etc. don't make it this time they are not getting in for a long time (unless the HOF changes its rules).

The worst part is that I believe this committee still requires a decade of Major League Baseball service to be selected, and thus Creighton who died before it existed cannot ever be considered in the current system. Barnes only played 9 years and thus cannot be considered either. Marty Marion can be considered by the committee for pioneers, but not the two actual pioneers who clearly merit induction.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by G1911

The worst part is that I believe this committee still requires a decade of Major League Baseball service to be selected, and thus Creighton who died before it existed cannot ever be considered in the current system. Barnes only played 9 years and thus cannot be considered either. Marty Marion can be considered by the committee for pioneers, but not the two actual pioneers who clearly merit induction.

Never forget.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by G1911

The worst part is that I believe this committee still requires a decade of Major League Baseball service to be selected, and thus Creighton who died before it existed cannot ever be considered in the current system. Barnes only played 9 years and thus cannot be considered either. Marty Marion can be considered by the committee for pioneers, but not the two actual pioneers who clearly merit induction.

That could be true of some committees, but I think this committee would allow someone in as a pioneer without that requirement (and without them being designated as an executive, which is the other way you can get in without playing ten years).

I think that is how Cartwright, Chadwick, Cummings, etc. got in. Also the fact that Doc Adams was on the most recent ballot as a pioneer means it is possible, unless the rules have changed (see below for that vote and committee members).

I just don't like the fact that there are only ten people on a ballot covering a very large time period. Even if they made it two committees (19th century and 1901-1949) as opposed to the four I suggested, I'm sure many of us could think of ten very legitimate candidates (we would probably have trouble limiting it to ten).

That would at least help focus the committee. Plus if they were two different committees, the 19th century committee might lean more towards being made up of historians. Not to say that the other members were not qualified....just that the arguments for Ferrell, Dahlen, Walters, etc. are largely statistical and the arguments for true pioneers like Adams and Creighton require more of a knowledge of that era (again, not to say that the other members are not up on their 19th century baseball history).

Of course, the argument for some 19th century players is statistical as well....but it still needs to be taken in the context of that period.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by G1911

The worst part is that I believe this committee still requires a decade of Major League Baseball service to be selected, and thus Creighton who died before it existed cannot ever be considered in the current system. Barnes only played 9 years and thus cannot be considered either. Marty Marion can be considered by the committee for pioneers, but not the two actual pioneers who clearly merit induction.

If you ask the HOF powers that be, they will tell you that players whose careers that don't include 10 recognized major league seasons that are "pioneers", such as Barnes, Creighton,etc, are eligible to be considered. In theory this is true. Originally, the HOF had a pioneer type category. Candy Cummings was elected in 1939 with a career of less than 10 recognized major league seasons. I may be wrong, but I think Cummings was the first and only pioneer player elected that didn't meet the 10 year rule. The truth be told, the HOF has no motivation to elect any pioneer players, and I emphasis players because early managers, umpires, executives are better represented as pioneers in the HOF than players. This is ludicrous. There is almost no chance the HOF voters will even consider pioneer players and bypass the 10 year rule. Mind you, some of the players that played less than 10 major league seasons played more than 10 years before the recognized major leagues were formed. As an aside, most Negro League players in the HOF never played a major league game and are included. Pioneers that don't meet the 10 year rule are the only players, for all right and purposes, that have almost no avenue for election. Like Negro league players, pioneers were not able to meet the 10 year rule through no fault of their own other than being born too early.
Also, major league baseball doesn't recognize the 1871-1875 National Association as major league even though the best players of the day were playing in it. It follows that the HOF excludes the NA when calculating major league service time. This clouds the waters even more. This determination is illustrated by the fact that both Candy Cummings and George Wright are list as executives by the HOF and don't use the term, heaven forbid, "pioneer". In fact, the HOF doesn't even call this duo players because of the 10 year rule. What a joke.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

wtf?

And Clemente is a very good player with 3000 hits. So whats the problem?

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Clemens and Bonds?

Its my understanding that over half the league is thought to have been using PEDs at the time, which MLB knew about but did nothing to stop. Pitchers faced hitters on PEDs, hitters faced pitchers on PEDs. MLB started serving suspensions for PED usage in 2005; Bonds & Clemens finished their careers playing 2005 and 2006 and 2007 (in their 40s) w/o a suspension. Both were SOOO dominant, their stats are just crazy. And they faced opponents who were also on PEDs.

How many years have pitchers been doctoring the ball with spider tack and other substances, which is against MLB rules, but was never stopped until now? None of the Astros lost their stats nor rings for cheating and many of those same coaches and players are still playing today. Many old timers, including HOFers, have admitted to (or been accused of) cheating in one way or another.

I was on the fence in the past, but am leaning towards induction for them both. Thoughts?

Im very pro those guys and steroid era guys getting in but figured that would take this thread in a way different direction lol

[Orioles1954]

Good article. I also wonder how Hodges would have performed in the pitcher's era of the 1960s.

https://halloffameindex.com/2019/09/...-vs-norm-cash/

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Clemens and Bonds?

Its my understanding that over half the league is thought to have been using PEDs at the time, which MLB knew about but did nothing to stop. Pitchers faced hitters on PEDs, hitters faced pitchers on PEDs. MLB started serving suspensions for PED usage in 2005; Bonds & Clemens finished their careers playing 2005 and 2006 and 2007 (in their 40s) w/o a suspension. Both were SOOO dominant, their stats are just crazy. And they faced opponents who were also on PEDs.

How many years have pitchers been doctoring the ball with spider tack and other substances, which is against MLB rules, but was never stopped until now? None of the Astros lost their stats nor rings for cheating and many of those same coaches and players are still playing today. Many old timers, including HOFers, have admitted to (or been accused of) cheating in one way or another.

I was on the fence in the past, but am leaning towards induction for them both. Thoughts?

I agree with you. And even though it shouldn't be, I would imagine that the steroid era is treated a lot differently because most other cheating in baseball (past and present) is a lot more subtle.

If a pitcher doctors the ball or a hitter is gulping greenies by the handful to really sharpen their edge in various ways, you usually don't see a thing. But on the flipside, what's more noticeable than Bonds and McGwire turning into highly bulked up action figures at the plate (and then hitting 70+ homers in a season to smash a decades-long record)?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

I agree with you. And even though it shouldn't be, I would imagine that the steroid era is treated a lot differently because most other cheating in baseball (past and present) is a lot more subtle.

If a pitcher doctors the ball or a hitter is gulping greenies by the handful to really sharpen their edge in various ways, you usually don't see a thing. But on the flipside, what's more noticeable than Bonds and McGwire turning into highly bulked up action figures at the plate (and then hitting 70+ homers in a season to smash a decades-long record)?

I agree with this. I think it's a combination of how visible it is, the absurd statistics it produced (Gaylord Perry chucking spitters pithed very well, but he didn't obliterate records like a video game character), and the sense that the cheating is somehow unnatural. A 'boys will be boys' cheating of scuffing a ball or throwing a spitter sometimes feels different to many, than using the latest lab drugs to fundamentally change the field of play every single at-bat where they appear like the Hulk. Perhaps it should not feel different, but I think that it does to many.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by G1911

I agree with this. I think it's a combination of how visible it is, the absurd statistics it produced (Gaylord Perry chucking spitters pithed very well, but he didn't obliterate records like a video game character), and the sense that the cheating is somehow unnatural. A 'boys will be boys' cheating of scuffing a ball or throwing a spitter sometimes feels different to many, than using the latest lab drugs to fundamentally change the field of play every single at-bat where they appear like the Hulk. Perhaps it should not feel different, but I think that it does to many.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q_KQ5f8PAY