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

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by BobC

But if he did not take money or do anything to actually throw a game then why, there was no such rule in place when that happened? He was retroactively banned by Landis, who was basically paid off by the owner's to be their hit man. In fact, there was actually no law on the books that made throwing a baseball game a criminal activity at the time either. The Black Sox trial was for alledgedly cheating others out of money they would have gotten had they won the series. If I remember correctly, I believe White Sox teammate Shano Collins was listed as the injured party in the trial, or one of them at least.

And if you are going to retroactively ban someone for one rule, then shouldn't the same be true for all rules? In which case, shouldn't the rule be retroactively applied to anyone taking amphetamines before they were banned then? And since it is basically a known fact that virtually all ballplayers back in the 50's and 60's were taking, or at least tried, greenies/amphetamines, there is an even more compelling case for most of the HOFers from back then to be banned from baseball permanently as well. I believe the current rule is three strikes for PEDs and you're out forever, right?

And before even one of you jumps on here to say you can't prove anyone did greenies because they didn't test for amphetamines back then, go look up all the stories and admissions. I believe Mays even admitted to going to his doctor for a prescription to help him get through the season, and conveniently said he didn't know what was in the pills he got though so he could always feign ignorance of knowingly taking amphtamines. I believe you could find enough evidence and support to permanently ban quite a few HOFers if that rule against PEDs were retroactively applied, like the gambling rule apparently was against Weaver.

It would be hard to ban players for taking greenies back in the day. They didn't get them off the street, and they didn't need to get them from their personal doctor. They were pretty much readily available from the team doctors in the clubhouse. Read Ball Four and you'll see they pretty much kept them in the clubhouse by the box full. As far a Steroids go, I have no problem with players that took them BEFORE they were banned. After, well that's another story.

[Exhibitman]

I don't know if it is legit to bring up a NLer in this context, but I'd never even heard of this guy until a member here clued me in, and this guy belongs in the HOF. Maybe the NL committee will act some day.



1932 Doble Aguila from Venezuela with Tetelo Vargas, hit .471 in 1943. More:

https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/juan-tetelo-vargas/

"Tetelo Vargas was a player with exceptional skills in nearly all aspects of the game. He hit for average, had good power for his physique, and was a superb defender. He possessed a strong throwing arm and superior speed – which won him the nickname El Gamo Dominicano, or “The Dominican Deer.” He was an excellent base-stealer as well. His complexion kept him on the wrong side of the major leagues’ color barrier – he was 41 when Jackie Robinson arrived. Yet Vargas accomplished much in more than three decades of professional baseball (1923-1956), a career that took him from his homeland to Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Cuba, Canada and the U.S. Negro Leagues. He is unequivocally recognized as the greatest Dominican player of his era. As Peter Bjarkman, historian of Latin American baseball, wrote, “The slender, wiry outfielder and shortstop. . . is without doubt the most accomplished Dominican native never to spend a single day in the majors.”"

[packs]

If it fits the criteria I'd also say Perucho Cepeda has been criminally overlooked:

[rats60]

Originally Posted by mr2686

It would be hard to ban players for taking greenies back in the day. They didn't get them off the street, and they didn't need to get them from their personal doctor. They were pretty much readily available from the team doctors in the clubhouse. Read Ball Four and you'll see they pretty much kept them in the clubhouse by the box full. As far a Steroids go, I have no problem with players that took them BEFORE they were banned. After, well that's another story.

Steroids were banned in 1990. I doubt there were many players who used them before that and not after.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think the Hall will take a Paso on the Doble Vargas.

[Shoeless Moe]

Good article on it.....

Thurman Munson V. Carlton Fisk: Using Modern Statistics Reveals Better Player

There is a difference between being a great baseball talent, being a great player and having a great career.

Thurman Munson and Carlton Fisk were great baseball talents. Munson and Fisk were great players. Fisk had a better career than Munson did. As Helen Gamble of The Practice might say, "I wonder why."

Traditional statistics reveal little when comparing them, although Munson had a better batting average (.292 to .269) and a better on-base percentage (.346 to .341). Fisk's slugging average (.457) was superior to Munson's (.410).

Do you think that Munson's home park compared to Fisk's home parks was a factor?


Munson and Fisk each had Hall of Fame ability. Modern statistics shed new light on the careers of both catchers.

Munson's career WAR or WIns Above Replacement was 43.3 for his 10 full complete seasons. Fisk's career WAR was 63.7 for his 21 complete seasons. This is to be expected based on longevity.

Munson's WAR was 3.9 over an average season compared to Fisk's 2.7. It is a substantial difference that favors Munson and reveals his value.


Rbat or Runs Batting refers to the number of runs better or worse compared to average. Munson's average Rbat was 11 compared to Fisk's seven.

RAR or Runs Above Replacement is the number of runs a player is better than a replacement player. Munson's average RAR was 38. Fisk's average RAR was 25.

Turning to defense, Munson's fielding percentage was .982 compared to FIsk's .988.

Munson nabbed 44 percent of base-stealers compared to the league average of 38 percent while Fisk threw out 34 percent of potential stealers compared to the league average of 35 percent.

Munson's RF or range factor was 5.61 per nine innings. Fisk's was 6.00.

Munson was clearly as good as Fisk. Based on sabermetrics, he was probably better than Fisk. His problem was that his career was cut short.

Roy Campanella, like Munson, had his career cut short by a tragic accident. He has become terribly underrated with the passage of time, but to those who saw him play, he was every bit Yogi Berra's equal. Just ask Vin Scully.


Campanella played 10 seasons, batted .276/.360/.500. His WAR over an average season was 3.2. which is not as good as Munson's 3.9, but which is better than Fisk's 2.7.

A better defensive catcher than Campanella never played the game.

The point is that Munson's relatively brief career has resulted in his being underrated. Longevity might be more valuable than greatness, but longevity too often results in a player being overrated.

Munson was at least as good as Fisk—and Gary Carter, Roger Bresnahan, Ray Schalk and Rick Ferrell. It's upsetting that Munson will never be elected to the Hall of Fame.

[benge610]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Good article on it.....

Thurman Munson V. Carlton Fisk: Using Modern Statistics Reveals Better Player

There is a difference between being a great baseball talent, being a great player and having a great career.

Thurman Munson and Carlton Fisk were great baseball talents. Munson and Fisk were great players. Fisk had a better career than Munson did. As Helen Gamble of The Practice might say, "I wonder why."

Traditional statistics reveal little when comparing them, although Munson had a better batting average (.292 to .269) and a better on-base percentage (.346 to .341). Fisk's slugging average (.457) was superior to Munson's (.410).

Do you think that Munson's home park compared to Fisk's home parks was a factor?


Munson and Fisk each had Hall of Fame ability. Modern statistics shed new light on the careers of both catchers.

Munson's career WAR or WIns Above Replacement was 43.3 for his 10 full complete seasons. Fisk's career WAR was 63.7 for his 21 complete seasons. This is to be expected based on longevity.

Munson's WAR was 3.9 over an average season compared to Fisk's 2.7. It is a substantial difference that favors Munson and reveals his value.


Rbat or Runs Batting refers to the number of runs better or worse compared to average. Munson's average Rbat was 11 compared to Fisk's seven.

RAR or Runs Above Replacement is the number of runs a player is better than a replacement player. Munson's average RAR was 38. Fisk's average RAR was 25.

Turning to defense, Munson's fielding percentage was .982 compared to FIsk's .988.

Munson nabbed 44 percent of base-stealers compared to the league average of 38 percent while Fisk threw out 34 percent of potential stealers compared to the league average of 35 percent.

Munson's RF or range factor was 5.61 per nine innings. Fisk's was 6.00.

Munson was clearly as good as Fisk. Based on sabermetrics, he was probably better than Fisk. His problem was that his career was cut short.

Roy Campanella, like Munson, had his career cut short by a tragic accident. He has become terribly underrated with the passage of time, but to those who saw him play, he was every bit Yogi Berra's equal. Just ask Vin Scully.


Campanella played 10 seasons, batted .276/.360/.500. His WAR over an average season was 3.2. which is not as good as Munson's 3.9, but which is better than Fisk's 2.7.

A better defensive catcher than Campanella never played the game.

The point is that Munson's relatively brief career has resulted in his being underrated. Longevity might be more valuable than greatness, but longevity too often results in a player being overrated.

Munson was at least as good as Fisk—and Gary Carter, Roger Bresnahan, Ray Schalk and Rick Ferrell. It's upsetting that Munson will never be elected to the Hall of Fame.

Thank you Paulie.
Well done.

[Mike D.]

Average WAR for a 22 vs 10 career has some value, but clearly decline phase and longevity come into play.

WAR7 looks at a players WAR in their best 7 seasons. Fisk’s is 37.5 and Munson is 37…suggesting to me that they were similarly talented/productive in their prime.

[shagrotn77]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

It's upsetting that Munson will never be elected to the Hall of Fame.

Never say never. The standards are changing all the time, as are the metrics the voters are using to make their decisions. I do think that Munson will make the HOF at some point, and I would bet it's sooner rather than later.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by shagrotn77

Never say never. The standards are changing all the time, as are the metrics the voters are using to make their decisions. I do think that Munson will make the HOF at some point, and I would bet it's sooner rather than later.

Maybe but there is SO much worthy competition for the vote of these committees and they don't vote very often. Modern Baseball doesn't even meet until 2023 I don't think. And then 2025.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Good article on it.....

Thurman Munson V. Carlton Fisk: Using Modern Statistics Reveals Better Player

There is a difference between being a great baseball talent, being a great player and having a great career.

Thurman Munson and Carlton Fisk were great baseball talents. Munson and Fisk were great players. Fisk had a better career than Munson did. As Helen Gamble of The Practice might say, "I wonder why."

Traditional statistics reveal little when comparing them, although Munson had a better batting average (.292 to .269) and a better on-base percentage (.346 to .341). Fisk's slugging average (.457) was superior to Munson's (.410).

Do you think that Munson's home park compared to Fisk's home parks was a factor?


Munson and Fisk each had Hall of Fame ability. Modern statistics shed new light on the careers of both catchers.

Munson's career WAR or WIns Above Replacement was 43.3 for his 10 full complete seasons. Fisk's career WAR was 63.7 for his 21 complete seasons. This is to be expected based on longevity.

Munson's WAR was 3.9 over an average season compared to Fisk's 2.7. It is a substantial difference that favors Munson and reveals his value.


Rbat or Runs Batting refers to the number of runs better or worse compared to average. Munson's average Rbat was 11 compared to Fisk's seven.

RAR or Runs Above Replacement is the number of runs a player is better than a replacement player. Munson's average RAR was 38. Fisk's average RAR was 25.

Turning to defense, Munson's fielding percentage was .982 compared to FIsk's .988.

Munson nabbed 44 percent of base-stealers compared to the league average of 38 percent while Fisk threw out 34 percent of potential stealers compared to the league average of 35 percent.

Munson's RF or range factor was 5.61 per nine innings. Fisk's was 6.00.

Munson was clearly as good as Fisk. Based on sabermetrics, he was probably better than Fisk. His problem was that his career was cut short.

Roy Campanella, like Munson, had his career cut short by a tragic accident. He has become terribly underrated with the passage of time, but to those who saw him play, he was every bit Yogi Berra's equal. Just ask Vin Scully.


Campanella played 10 seasons, batted .276/.360/.500. His WAR over an average season was 3.2. which is not as good as Munson's 3.9, but which is better than Fisk's 2.7.

A better defensive catcher than Campanella never played the game.

The point is that Munson's relatively brief career has resulted in his being underrated. Longevity might be more valuable than greatness, but longevity too often results in a player being overrated.

Munson was at least as good as Fisk—and Gary Carter, Roger Bresnahan, Ray Schalk and Rick Ferrell. It's upsetting that Munson will never be elected to the Hall of Fame.

The thing is, if you're comparing Munson vs. Fisk in stats like that, there is a bias for Munson, because he died close to his peak. It does not include the period of decline that Fisk had. You may be right about Munson belonging, but you have to account for every bias like that before I'm convinced.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It seems Munson had probably already started his inevitable decline when he passed. Odds are his career stats would have been borderline for a catcher. I don't think it would be the end of the Hall as we know it if he gets in, but neither is he a compelling omission IMO. I think he tends to be a bit overrated both because he was a Yankee and because of his unfortunate accident.

[Ricky]

“A better defensive catcher than Campanella never played the game.”

Johnny Bench says hi.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by mr2686

It would be hard to ban players for taking greenies back in the day. They didn't get them off the street, and they didn't need to get them from their personal doctor. They were pretty much readily available from the team doctors in the clubhouse. Read Ball Four and you'll see they pretty much kept them in the clubhouse by the box full. As far a Steroids go, I have no problem with players that took them BEFORE they were banned. After, well that's another story.

I wasn't proposing that we go back and try to ban anyone who had used the greenies before the change in the rules took place. I only picked that particular issue in trying to make a point to another poster in regards to his comments about the Black Sox players being permanently banned by a retroactive application of a MLB rule that wasn't on the books until 1927. The main reason for my picking this rule on amphetamine use was that it was/is one of the few MLB rules that has a defined permanent ban feature as part of the listed punishments. I was merely trying to point out to that other poster that if his feelings about some (not all, some) of those Black Sox players that got permanently banned for something there was no rule on the books for was the right thing for MLB to do, then why weren't they being consistent and fair in doing the same thing on a retroactive basis to other players who also broke rules that call for a permanent ban when broken? I know very well that virtually everyone was using the greenies and amphetamines back in the 50s and 60s, and really no one was saying much about it for a long time. Just like the steroid and PED users of the 90s and 00s. Truth is, the use was apparently very pervasive throughout baseball for these amphetamine/PED users during both of those periods, and in most cases the fans were initially reveling in the accomplishments of these stars who were the users. It was only after speculation and concern surrounding this drug use started to catch on among the fans and that their vocal questioning and accusations started to come out that MLB, during both periods, would really start to look into the issue and take action to eventually ban the greenies, amphetamines, steroids, and PEDs. But, had MLB cracked down and really gotten rid of the offenders, they would have ended up getting rid of so many stars and popular players that it is likely the fans would have gone crazy. That would have likely put MLB in a worse situation than if they never did anything about the amphetamine, PEDs, and steroid use to begin with. And of course MLB didn't want to do anything to piss off the fans and potentially impact owner revenue, which again is the only thing they really care about. So instead they came up with the rules to warn these players and start the testing for the drugs, and only gave them suspensions at first, until they hit a "three strikes you're out" penalty where they would be permanently banned then. This solution gave MLB the chance to appease the fans concerns without also pissing them off. MLB realized that they couldn't have just banned one or two of the players to set an example for the rest of the league players. Had they tried that they would have had to go and ban all the offenders then, and because the amphetamine/PED/steroid usage was so pervasive in baseball, they'd have likely ended up banning players on virtually every team in both leagues. Now be honest, if you're a fan and against cheating in baseball, be it amphetamine or PED use, you'd be more likely to say yes, ban the cheater if he was caught. But what if that player was one of the stars of your own home town team that you rooted for? Don't lie, human nature is what it is. You may still reluctantly agree with the rule, but you sure wouldn't like having it happen to your favorite player. So imagine if MLB had gone ahead and started banning all these cheating players on all these teams across both leagues, you'd have fans everywhere pissed more at their own team's players for breaking the rules, getting caught, and getting thrown out of baseball. And how do such disgruntled fans often react to things like this, they stop going to/watching games, which of course ends up costing the team owners money. So MLB comes up with the three strike rule and prays the players aren't stupid enough to let themselves get caught three times.

Now the difference back in 1919 was that fixing to throw games and dealing with gamblers wasn't as pervasive in baseball amongst all the players as the amphetamine/PED/Steroid use was in the more recent years. I believe it is well known among most Net54 members that there were others back in those early days of baseball that were involved with gamblers and the alleged fixing of baseball games, so the Black Sox were certainly not the first to do such a thing. They were the first to get caught and be accused of doing it on such a large stage though, the World Series, at least I believe that is the case. And I've heard the stories about how baseball was suffering due to the scandal and fans were losing faith in the games, and of course the owners feared this loss of faith would end up being realized with fewer people coming through the gates in the future, in other words less money for the owners. So they had to act and do something to allay the fears of the fans. Now again be honest, do you think the fans outside Chicago were more upset and afraid of finding out the White Sox players had thrown the Series, or were they really more afraid and worried that the players on whatever team they were fans off might try to do the same thing? Simple human nature should tell you that the majority likely couldn't care less if it happened to some other team like the White Sox, just so it didn't then happen to their team then.

So why didn't MLB just suspend the players involved in the Black Sox scandal for a period of time and then rule that if someone was ever caught again that they would be permanently banned? That probably would have had a similar effect to appease and soothe the fans back then like the rules passed for drugs and steroid use did. But no, MLB waited for the trial to occur, and they apparently expected the players to be found guilty, and likely figured that way they didn't have to act the part of the heavy and punish the players themselves. And that way no fans could be upset with MLB for banning someone that maybe they didn't want banned. I had read somewhere that Landis supposedly told the Black Sox players that if they were found innocent during the trial they would be reinstated. So why did he renege on that statement after they were surprisingly found innocent? I feel pretty confident that despite what happened that there were quite a lot of White Sox fans that were extremely unhappy with MLB for banning Jackson, their star player, even if he was guilty. But being forced to act because the courts didn't, by banning the Black Sox players MLB was able to minimize the number of disgruntled fans that would result from the banning of players. Pretty much the White Sox fans were pissed because now all their good players were gone, but the rest of baseball's fans were likely very happy with MLB because now their team would have a better chance of winning with the Sox stars gone. Simple human nature!

That other, earlier poster for some reason doesn't think Comiskey did anything wrong in all this when I suggested that of anyone that should have been permanently banned for the Black Sox scandal, it should have been Comiskey first. He obviously hasn't been paying attention to anything I or anyone else has said about Comiskey's involvement, and his lack of such knowledge tells me it isn't worth responding to him anymore as he'll likely just come back saying that fixing a game is the worst thing anyone could ever possibly due in baseball, and if you ask him why, he'll likely respond "because I said so". He doesn't really give any logical evidence or ideas to support his thinking, and pretty much ignores anything I've tried to show him that suggests there may be a different possible way to look at things. He's set in his thinking, and God bless him then. I will point out one particularly laughable argument used by this other poster in coming back at me and defending Comiskey. He kept going on about how there are consequences to what people do and that if someone did something to hurt their employer, like the Black Sox players supposedly did in throwing World Series, their employer would immediately fire them and have nothing to do with them ever again. I literally laughed out loud as I realized this other poster obviously had no clue that in the case of the Black Sox players, not only did their employer, who was Comiskey and not MLB, not fire them after finding out they had possibly conspired to throw the World Series, he actually went out of his way to re-sign and hire them all for the 1920 season, and beyond. In fact, Jackson actually got a raise and was signed to a 3 year deal I believe. And if I remember correctly, 7 of the 8 Black Sox players, including Jackson, did sign and continue player for Comiskey and the White Sox in 1920, with Gandil being the only one who declined to sign and continue playing. I'm guessing this other poster doesn't know about the 1924 civil trial Jackson brought against Comiskey, and how it came out that Comiskey did learn of the fix and who was involved, or that Jackson came to Comiskey with the $5,000 given to him by Lefty Williams and asked him what to do with it, and Comiskey told him to keep it!!!! And that is why I feel Comiskey is the most guilty of all. He's one of the owners and has arguably the most to lose of anyone involved if baseball loses its fans and goes away. So why would he not have done something, why would he not have told the the AL League President or other owners, why would he have re-signed all the players supposedly in on the fix, why would he have told Jackson to keep the money and not turn it over to the cops or the league office, and on and on. If there was anyone directly or even indirectly involved that you would think had a higher duty and responsibility of doing the right thing (whatever that turned out to be) on behalf of players, fans and baseball itself in this situation besides Comiskey, exactly who would that be??? And I'm going to actually correct myself on something I'd said in an earlier post. I had said that I felt Comiskey wasn't punished by MLB at all for his actions and trying to possibly cover up what was happening, and how MLB seemed to have specifically ended up writing Rule #21 so that he wasn't possibly implicated in any of this at all. But it suddenly occurred to me that I may have been wrong all along, and also maybe explain, at least somewhat, why Jackson and Weaver got permanently banned along with all the other Black Sox players even though their involvement was maybe more indirect and they were simply put in the middle of the scandal by others, and not of their own volition. By just banning all 8 Black Sox players, MLB got their rule out to scare other players from ever doing anything to fix games with gamblers going forward, it made the fears of the fans that their own players might try to do this with their favorite teams go away, AND it did end up punishing Comiskey after all. He lost 7 of his best players, especially Jackson. I hadn't thought of this angle before, but it makes a lot of sense. And was also probably a lot easier than trying to force Comiskey out as an owner. Who knows what he may have had and known about other owners that none of them wanted to be leaked out to the public. Plus, at that time, they were still in the midst of the legal case that would ultimately result in MLB getting granted an exemption to the anti-trust laws. Can I definitely prove any of this....no. But if you think about it, or try putting yourself in the place of the other baseball owners back then, that is some solution I could see coming up with myself.

[abothebear]

David Wells is an interesting case. His career statistics don't measure up. He had a weird career, 22 years, but not a full-time starter until he was in his 30s. He played for a ton of teams. All strikes against the case of a typical hall of fame pitcher. Yet, when I think of pitchers from that era, he is in the handful of guys I think of as THE pitchers of that time. And he is the kind of personality and performer you want to see in the Hall of Fame. I'm not saying he should be in, but the exercise illustrates an element to all of this that is hard to quantify. Similar to why it is easier for media-center teams to have players elected to the hall. Some players come with a story (in the media center case it is often because they are surrounded by an abundance of storytellers - add post-season action into the mix and it is all amplified). David Wells is one of larger-than-life guys. Fernando was too but he needed to be good for a while longer than he was. Orel Hershiser had some great drama to his career and a fascinating persona, but again his peak was too short. Wells' career though, once it got going, was consistently jagged.