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

[G1911]

Murphy was a significant player for 7 years (120 OPS+), and the rest of his career was about a league average bat to below. Traditional and Sabrmetric stats get him about right, I think. He was done contributing at age 31. I don't think he's a HOFer without electing a lot of other guys who were really good for 7 years too. He would hardly be the worst selection, but I see his case as being built more on nostalgia than math, which always makes me suspicious. I would vote no, but wouldn't consider him a ridiculous choice or anything.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Murphy was a significant player for 7 years (120 OPS+), and the rest of his career was about a league average bat to below. Traditional and Sabrmetric stats get him about right, I think. He was done contributing at age 31. I don't think he's a HOFer without electing a lot of other guys who were really good for 7 years too. He would hardly be the worst selection, but I see his case as being built more on nostalgia than math, which always makes me suspicious. I would vote no, but wouldn't consider him a ridiculous choice or anything.

I think McGriff is much more deserving than Murphy, for example, but agree the world wouldn't end.

[Mike D.]

Agree Murphy being inducted wouldn’t keep me up at night.

I mean Baines WAR was only 38.7, and WAR7 only 21.4. Plus, he played forever.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Agree Murphy being inducted wouldn’t keep me up at night.

I mean Baines WAR was only 38.7, and WAR7 only 21.4. Plus, he played forever.

He has to be the most underserving electee in recent memory. Obviously some personal politics there.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

He has to be the most underserving electee in recent memory. Obviously some personal politics there.

Clearly…the interesting thing is that it harkens back to the bad old days of the vets committee…you know, before the HOF got bad.

McGriff seems solid and likely to make it eventually - if he does, do we need to re-examine guys like Will Clark, Hernandez, and Olerud? And do Votto and Helton go in too?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Clearly…the interesting thing is that it harkens back to the bad old days of the vets committee…you know, before the HOF got bad.

McGriff seems solid and likely to make it eventually - if he does, do we need to re-examine guys like Will Clark, Hernandez, and Olerud? And do Votto and Helton go in too?

I think Keith Hernandez and John Olerud are clear No's, though they were very good players and Olerud in particular is very underrated.

Will Clark is a real candidate. Sabrmetrics has been very kind to him, 56.5 WAR, 137 career OPS+, and he finished above .300. His relative lack of home runs for a 1B in the home run era hurts him. He does not 'feel' like a HOFer, but he's really not a bad pick.

Helton cleared 60 WAR, 133 OPS+ both of which account for the extremely favorable conditions he player in. He too is borderline to me, I suspect he will eventually make it.

Votto I would vote for at this point, 7 OBP crowns, 147 OPS+. A couple more years of good-not-great production would really help his counting stats.

Other 1B:
Mattingly is a real candidate, but just like Murphy. Short peak that was very good but not historically great, and so I think he falls short.

Hodges is a good candidate, his OPS+ is a bit low at 120, he has some counting stats, the connection to a mythologized team, and I think his managing works to his credit too, leading the 1968 Mets is worth a lot, taking a team that shouldn't go that far all the way is a credit to a manager. I am surprised he is not in, but I would probably not vote for him purely on his career as a 1B, he's hall of very good to me.

I think Carlos Delgado should have gotten serious consideration. I think I end up at "No" for him, but he should not have fallen off the ballot immediately his first year and I think merited a serious discussion. 138 OPS+, 473 dingers. His WAR is slaughtered by his defense.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't see Helton. I think Walker just made it despite the Coors Field thing but I don't see it happening twice.

I don't see Will Clark, to me quintessential Hall of Very Good.

Hernandez and Olerud, no way, agree with you. I don't even understand the support for Hernandez.

Delgado, yeah, interesting case, so is Beltran. Both feel like Dawson to me.

Votto, meh, not even 2000 hits yet, not feeling the love. He doesn't do very well on Baseball Reference metrics either.

[G1911]

McGriff, I just don't understand. If we are going to keep out the steroid guys who had the video game stats (I'm fairly agnostic on this), then how can we keep out guys who were a notch below but consistently excellent, top tier players like McGriff? He's a no brainer "Yes!" vote in my book unless we want almost nobody but Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey representing power hitters of the 90's. I thought he would take some time to get in, but I am surprised by his vote totals being about ~20% most of the years he was on the ballot. He capped at only 39% his final year. I hope the Era committees eventually fix this mistake.

Baines keeps me up at night. That was just a horrible selection any way you look at it. Almost anyone else on that ballot would be a better choice.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

McGriff, I just don't understand. If we are going to keep out the steroid guys who had the video game stats (I'm fairly agnostic on this), then how can we keep out guys who were a notch below but consistently excellent, top tier players like McGriff? He's a no brainer "Yes!" vote in my book unless we want almost nobody but Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey representing power hitters of the 90's. I thought he would take some time to get in, but I am surprised by his vote totals being about ~20% most of the years he was on the ballot. He capped at only 39% his final year. I hope the Era committees eventually fix this mistake.

Baines keeps me up at night. That was just a horrible selection any way you look at it. Almost anyone else on that ballot would be a better choice.

I think Vizquel will make it and I don't think he necessarily should. Longevity stats, never a top player, although he did seem to always torture the Red Sox. I guess McGriff is a product of small market teams and always being just a step below the superstars. But are players like Dawson, Perez, Cepeda that much better than McGriff?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think Vizquel will make it and I don't think he necessarily should. Longevity stats, never a top player, although he did seem to always torture the Red Sox. I guess McGriff is a product of small market teams and always being just a step below the superstars. But are players like Dawson, Perez, Cepeda that much better than McGriff?

I agree, it looks Vizquel will make it. I don't think he should, even though I loved watching him in the 90's and he was as favored player for his highlight defensive plays. During his prime, he was the fourth or fifth best SS in the American League, and never felt like a Hall of Famer, which both Sabrmetric and traditional stats agree with.

McGriff and Lofton have been really hurt by playing for so many small market teams.

I would put McGriff above Perez and Cepeda, even though coming from Giants country my bias is towards Cepeda. McGriff seems a clear "over the line, bottom third of the Hall but well merited by the selection standards they have consistently applied" to me.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Plus, he played forever.

Which means he was doing something right for a long time...

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Which means he was doing something right for a long time...

There is a balance between greatness and longevity when looking at hall of fame, for sure.

But does being “above average” for a long time make you a hall of famer? In the case of Baines and him mostly being a DH with some time in the OF, the lack of awards and recognition, times leading the league, etc…simply suggest “no”.