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

[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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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?

Has anyone ever questioned Koufax' regime of cortisone (steroid) injections?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Has anyone ever questioned Koufax' regime of cortisone (steroid) injections?

It's a slippery slope, isn't it?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

It's a slippery slope, isn't it?

I guess people would say John and Koufax underwent procedures to "cure" something wrong whereas Bonds et al were simply seeking to enhance performance but were healthy?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I guess people would say John and Koufax underwent procedures to "cure" something wrong whereas Bonds et al were simply seeking to enhance performance but were healthy?

Maybe for Koufax, but when guys can throw harder after having Tommy John surgery, I don't think that point holds.

Bonds could say his substances "cured" his insufficient muscle mass and relative lack of power.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Has anyone ever questioned Koufax' regime of cortisone (steroid) injections?

I forget if it was here or over on the PSA boards but someone made a post basically detailing that Koufax was a PED user by pretty much every definition of the word.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I forget if it was here or over on the PSA boards but someone made a post basically detailing that Koufax was a PED user by pretty much every definition of the word.

If Bonds, Clemens and Canseco had been more likeable people, you wonder if the whole perception would be different. See example of Big Papi.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If Bonds, Clemens and Canseco had been more likeable people, you wonder if the whole perception would be different. See example of Big Papi.

I think being likable helps...that's why Pettite gets some HOF love and some others don't.

On Ortiz...I just don't put "leaked positive for something on an anonymous test before there was real testing" in the same category as "positive test after when testing became a thing".

Plus, of note...all the "good" part of Ortiz's career came AFTER testing was put in place.

[molenick]

There are two (at least two) ways to look at this. I don’t really like the "this [bad selection] is in and this guy was better so he should be in" approach. I call this the "Baines and Haines Problem". There are hundreds of pitchers better than Jesse Haines that are not in the Hall (at least according to Baseball Reference rankings), but that doesn't mean they all should be in. I like the "Magee Method" where there is a player you can make a reasonable argument is the best at his position not in the Hall.

I am not smart enough to determine what "best" means so I will just present for your consideration the highest ranked player at each position (as per Baseball Reference) eligible for the Hall who is not tainted by either accusation or proof of steroid or HGH use. Pete Rose and Joe Jackson are not eligible so they are not included below, nor are active players (since they are not eligible yet).

c Thurman Munson (Joe Mauer ranks higher but has not been retired for five years)
1b Todd Helton
2b Bobby Grich
ss Bill Dahlen
3b Scott Rolen
lf Sherry Magee
cf Kenny Lofton (Carlos Beltran ranks higher but has not been retired for five years)
rf Dwight Evans
sp Jim McCormick
rp Bobby Shantz

The last one was a surprise to me but Shantz pitched in 537 games and started 171, so I guess he qualifies as a relief pitcher. However, over 25% of his career WAR came from his MVP season as a starter. After him is Tom Gordon, who was also both a reliever and starter (890 games, 206 starts) but whose WAR was more evenly distributed. After him is Firpo Marberry, who I was surprised to see had about the same game splits as Shantz (551 games, 186 starts) and who I think is the best candidate of the three.