Who are your Inner Circle Hall of Famers?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by obcbobd

Robinson broke the color line. None of the others did. Maybe they could have maybe not. But they didn't.

Maybe another guy could have painted the Sistine Chapel. They didn't, Michelangelo did - because the Pope selected him. Perhaps, like Rickey, the Pope knew what he was doing.

Your analogy is flawed because the Sistine Chapel's fame is 100% due to the skill employed by the best artisan of the day... not because it was painted. Integration is a watershed moment in baseball because somebody did it.

If Rickey chooses to make Campanella the guy to break the color line, Robinson would be a borderline HOFer. Roy won 3 MVP awards and was the better player, and that's just one example.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Your analogy is flawed because the Sistine Chapel's fame is 100% due to the skill employed by the best artisan of the day... not because it was painted. Integration is a watershed moment in baseball because somebody did it.

If Rickey chooses to make Campanella the guy to break the color line, Robinson would be a borderline HOFer. Roy won 3 MVP awards and was the better player, and that's just one example.

Interestingly, I believe he had only one season in the Negro Leagues (at age 26) before Rickey chose him, is that right? So it's hard to say his Dodgers stats are that misleading unlike Campy who had a number of Negro League seasons that would have enhanced his career stats.

[Seven]

Many of the names have already been mentioned. I'm going to provide three Negro League Players that everyone should consider.

1. Satchel Paige
2. Josh Gibson
3. Oscar Charleston

Paige is very self explanatory IMO. His two seasons with the Indians, in 48 and 49 while he was ages 41 and 42 respectively gave a brief glimpse into his dominance as a pitcher. I have little doubt that if there was no Color Barrier, he'd be considered right there with Johnson, Grove, Mathewson and Young as one of the greatest pitchers to ever take the mound.

Concerning Gibson and Charleston. Gibson's dominance as a hitter was borderline unparalleled by anyone in his day, and the same goes for Charleston's prowess in both hitting and pitching.

[Carter08]

I think most would agree Jackie is obviously important beyond his skills. And then the debate about whether he is the most skilled player that could have broken the barrier can be debated.

Turning back to the inner circle as far as collecting goes is it universal agreement that Ruth is number 1? If so, who is 2? Cobb? If Ruth is 10 on a scale of 1-10 where do the others fall?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I think most would agree Jackie is obviously important beyond his skills. And then the debate about whether he is the most skilled player that could have broken the barrier can be debated.

Turning back to the inner circle as far as collecting goes is it universal agreement that Ruth is number 1? If so, who is 2? Cobb? If Ruth is 10 on a scale of 1-10 where do the others fall?

Agreed that Ruth is hands down #1 in the inner circle. I think you can make a strong case for Walter Johnson or Willie Mays as number 2. But there's certainly arguments for others. SABR actually has Gehrig as #2:
https://www.baseball-almanac.com/leg...lisab100.shtml

While other websites have Mays:
https://baseballegg.com/all-time-pla...eball-history/

[Yoda]

I wonder why there has been no mention of a worthy candidate to the inner sanctum: George Sisler. He played in the same era of Ruth, their RC's coming from the same set, batted over .400 twice and played a stellar first base. I know he played for the lowly Browns but records are records.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I wonder why there has been no mention of a worthy candidate to the inner sanctum: George Sisler. He played in the same era of Ruth, their RC's coming from the same set, batted over .400 twice and played a stellar first base. I know he played for the lowly Browns but records are records.

Agreed re: George Sisler. He is actually mentioned in their Snubs list:
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...snubs-our-list

"George Sisler, the initial first baseman elected to the Hall of Fame by the Baseball Writers' Association of America in 1939, might well be the best all-around player in the history of that position. In 1920, Sisler collected 257 hits in a 154-game season, a modern-era record that stood until Ichiro Suzuki had 262 in 2004. In 1922, Sisler hit safely in 41 consecutive games, a modern-era record that stood until Joe DiMaggio's 56-game streak in 1941. He led his league in stolen bases four times, and his defense is celebrated on his Hall of Fame plaque as follows: "Credited with being one of best two fielding first basemen in history of game." -- Paul Hembekides"

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Hall of Fame plaque as follows: "Credited with being one of best two fielding first basemen in history of game." -- Paul Hembekides"

And so, the most corrupt player in baseball history, Hal Chase, gets a shout out on Sisler's HOF plaque.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mark17

And so, the most corrupt player in baseball history, Hal Chase, gets a shout out on Sisler's HOF plaque.

Very interesting that Hal Chase gets mentioned in the HOF for doing something positive, albeit his mention is indirect. Thanks for pointing out the reference.

[terjung]

Shhhh! More talk like that and people will want to collect him!

Sisler could also take the mound in a pinch.

Originally Posted by Yoda

I wonder why there has been no mention of a worthy candidate to the inner sanctum: George Sisler. He played in the same era of Ruth, their RC's coming from the same set, batted over .400 twice and played a stellar first base. I know he played for the lowly Browns but records are records.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by terjung

Shhhh! More talk like that and people will want to collect him!

Sisler could also take the mound in a pinch.

Sisler was a monster and one of the most under appreciated players in the hobby. But you didn't hear that from me...

[dmats33312]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Your analogy is flawed because the Sistine Chapel's fame is 100% due to the skill employed by the best artisan of the day... not because it was painted. Integration is a watershed moment in baseball because somebody did it.

If Rickey chooses to make Campanella the guy to break the color line, Robinson would be a borderline HOFer. Roy won 3 MVP awards and was the better player, and that's just one example.

This hot take is so off base. I guess Koufax was borderline too? 48.9 WAR in 12 years to 61.8 for Robinson 10 seasons starting at 28 having to deal with all the racist idiots through out. Come on man.

[familytoad]

If you make the circle big enough, a lot of players fit.

I think 5 or 6 batters is the right amount for my version of the circle.

Here they are, but I reserve the right to expand the circle. Pitchers will be included once I scan more cards. It's pretty hard to keep it to so few...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by dmats33312

This hot take is so off base. I guess Koufax was borderline too? 48.9 WAR in 12 years to 61.8 for Robinson 10 seasons starting at 28 having to deal with all the racist idiots through out. Come on man.

There's a whole thread about this

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Your analogy is flawed because the Sistine Chapel's fame is 100% due to the skill employed by the best artisan of the day... not because it was painted. Integration is a watershed moment in baseball because somebody did it.

If Rickey chooses to make Campanella the guy to break the color line, Robinson would be a borderline HOFer. Roy won 3 MVP awards and was the better player, and that's just one example.

I'm sure other artists could have done something amazing at the Sistine Chapel. Yes my analogy is not 100%.

What if Rickey choose someone who got fed up with being called the N word and took a bat to someone's head? How many years would that have set integration back.

Jackie did it. Quite well. Others woulda, coulda, shoulda. But we have to give kudos to the man who actually DID IT

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Your analogy is flawed because the Sistine Chapel's fame is 100% due to the skill employed by the best artisan of the day... not because it was painted. Integration is a watershed moment in baseball because somebody did it.

If Rickey chooses to make Campanella the guy to break the color line, Robinson would be a borderline HOFer. Roy won 3 MVP awards and was the better player, and that's just one example.

Both Campanella and Jackie Robinson were amazing players, but its hard to say that Campanella was a better player than Jackie simply because he won more MVPs. In 1951, Campanella's first MVP year he had a WAR of 6.9 Guess who actually led the Natioanl League? It was Jackie with a whopping 9.7.

In 1952, Campanella's second MVP year he had a WAR of 6.8. Jackie beat him out again with 6.9.

And in 1953, Campanella's third MVP year, his war was only 5.2, tied for 12th in the National League with Ted Kluszewski and teammate Don Newcombe.

The fact is that for some reason if you were a catcher, it was easier to win MVP in the 1950s. Just look at Yogi Berra's 3 MVPs including in '51 (WAR of 5.3), '54 (WAR of 5.3) and '55 (WAR of 4.5 which was 11th in the league).
https://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/...st-mvp-winners

Its hard to think of Jackie Robinson has having been underrated as a player, but he may very well have been.
https://www.mlb.com/news/most-underrated-hall-of-famers

[Seven]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

B
The fact is that for some reason if you were a catcher, it was easier to win MVP in the 1950s. Just look at Yogi Berra's 3 MVPs including in '51 (WAR of 5.3), '54 (WAR of 5.3) and '55 (WAR of 4.5 which was 11th in the league).

https://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/...st-mvp-winners

Mantle had one of the best seasons of his career in 1955, and fell victim to the voters valuing catchers more. I digress though, we didn't have the numbers back then that we do today.

On the subject of Gehrig because I've seen his name brought about a few times, to me he's inner circle, I don't know how anyone could disagree. The consensus greatest first basemen ever, if he didn't contract ALS he would've been a lock for 3000 Hits and 500 Home runs. Gehrig is believed to have started showing symptoms of it in 1938, which diminished his performance. Obviously by 1939 he was out of the league due to his illness. I'd wager that a healthy Gehrig would've probably continued to churn out 30 home run seasons well into his late 30's. He was in good shape and took care of his body. I think we can speculate that Gehrig would've hit in the ballpark of 600 homers for his career and had at least 3100 hits had he not tragically passed away.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Seven

Mantle had one of the best seasons of his career in 1955, and fell victim to the voters valuing catchers more. I digress though, we didn't have the numbers back then that we do today.

On the subject of Gehrig because I've seen his name brought about a few times, to me he's inner circle, I don't know how anyone could disagree. The consensus greatest first basemen ever, if he didn't contract ALS he would've been a lock for 3000 Hits and 500 Home runs. Gehrig is believed to have started showing symptoms of it in 1938, which diminished his performance. Obviously by 1939 he was out of the league due to his illness. I'd wager that a healthy Gehrig would've probably continued to churn out 30 home run seasons well into his late 30's. He was in good shape and took care of his body. I think we can speculate that Gehrig would've hit in the ballpark of 600 homers for his career and had at least 3100 hits had he not tragically passed away.

Yeah, Mantle's WAR (9.5) was more than double Yogi's (4.5) in '55. Although some people do think WAR doesn't fully account for a catcher's contribution:
http://www.thehypertexts.com/Basebal...e%20season.htm
And couldn't agree with you more about Gehrig. Definitely inner circle. A top 10 player of all-time probably. Guy averaged ~8.5 WAR per 162 games and had the most RBIs in a season for an American Leaguer after all.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Both Campanella and Jackie Robinson were amazing players, but its hard to say that Campanella was a better player than Jackie simply because he won more MVPs. In 1951, Campanella's first MVP year he had a WAR of 6.9 Guess who actually led the Natioanl League? It was Jackie with a whopping 9.7.

In 1952, Campanella's second MVP year he had a WAR of 6.8. Jackie beat him out again with 6.9.

And in 1953, Campanella's third MVP year, his war was only 5.2, tied for 12th in the National League with Ted Kluszewski and teammate Don Newcombe.

The fact is that for some reason if you were a catcher, it was easier to win MVP in the 1950s. Just look at Yogi Berra's 3 MVPs including in '51 (WAR of 5.3), '54 (WAR of 5.3) and '55 (WAR of 4.5 which was 11th in the league).
https://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/...st-mvp-winners

Its hard to think of Jackie Robinson has having been underrated as a player, but he may very well have been.
https://www.mlb.com/news/most-underrated-hall-of-famers

A few things:

First, Campanella won the MVP in 1951, 1953 and 1955, not 1951, 1952 and 1953.

Second, in 1953, his second MVP season, he had a higher WAR than Jackie - 6.8 vs 5.9. It would be hard to argue that a catcher playing good defense while hitting .312 with 41 homers and a 154 OPS+ is NOT the right choice for MVP.

Third, their 1951 seasons show just how goofy WAR is when comparing players. Campanella hit .325 with 33 homers and a 159 OPS+ while playing good defense (dWAR of 1.1) but gets a WAR of 6.9. Jackie hits .338 with 19 homers and a 154 OPS+ while playing great defense (2.4 dWAR) and gets a 9.7 WAR. Basically, Jackie benefited from the rest of his contemporaries at 2B being relatively terrible so he gets a bump from WAR. I think Campy had the better season, your mileage might vary.

Finally, during his actual third MVP season of 1955, Campy had a WAR of 5.2 while Jackie had a 2.6 while missing 49 games.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Tabe

A few things:

First, Campanella won the MVP in 1951, 1953 and 1955, not 1951, 1952 and 1953.

Second, in 1953, his second MVP season, he had a higher WAR than Jackie - 6.8 vs 5.9. It would be hard to argue that a catcher playing good defense while hitting .312 with 41 homers and a 154 OPS+ is NOT the right choice for MVP.

Third, their 1951 seasons show just how goofy WAR is when comparing players. Campanella hit .325 with 33 homers and a 159 OPS+ while playing good defense (dWAR of 1.1) but gets a WAR of 6.9. Jackie hits .338 with 19 homers and a 154 OPS+ while playing great defense (2.4 dWAR) and gets a 9.7 WAR. Basically, Jackie benefited from the rest of his contemporaries at 2B being relatively terrible so he gets a bump from WAR. I think Campy had the better season, your mileage might vary.

Finally, during his actual third MVP season of 1955, Campy had a WAR of 5.2 while Jackie had a 2.6 while missing 49 games.

My mistake, I wrote the wrong MVP years, but the WAR figures I provided were from the correct years ('51, '53 and '55), as shown in Baseball Reference.com

Are you using Baseball Reference for your WAR, or FanGraphs? Or something else?

Let's not forget the year Jackie won MVP where (according to Baseball Reference) Jackie's WAR was 9.3 compared to Campanella's 4.5
https://www.baseball-reference.com/a..._NL_MVP_voting

I am not trying to argue who is the best player, I am just saying that going based off of Campanella's 3 MVPs is not a great indicator that he was a better player than Jackie.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

My mistake, I wrote the wrong MVP years, but the WAR figures I provided were from the correct years ('51, '53 and '55), as shown in Baseball Reference.com

Are you using Baseball Reference for your WAR, or FanGraphs? Or something else?

Let's not forget the year Jackie won MVP where (according to Baseball Reference) Jackie's WAR was 9.3 compared to Campanella's 4.5
https://www.baseball-reference.com/a..._NL_MVP_voting

I am not trying to argue who is the best player, I am just saying that going based off of Campanella's 3 MVPs is not a great indicator that he was a better player than Jackie.

Yes, I am using Baseball Reference for my WAR numbers.

I think the voters made the right decision in each of the three years, at least insofar as selecting Campy over Robinson.

[cgjackson222]

ESPN posted their top 100 Baseball Players this week.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...s-all-nos-25-1

Their top 10:
1) Ruth
2) Mays
3) Aaron
4) Cobb
5) Ted Williams
6) Gehrig
7) Mantle
8) Bonds
9) Walter Johnson
10) Stan Musial

Rounding out the top 25: 11) Pedro 12) Wagner 13) K Griffey Jr. 14) Maddux 15) Trout 16) DiMaggio 17) Clemens 18) Schmidt 19) F Robinson 20) Hornsby 21) Cy Young 22) Seaver 23) Rickey Henderson 24) Randy Johnson 25) Christy Mathewson

I think its a pretty defensible list, with a decent balance of old-timers and recent guys. Maybe pitchers could have done better on the list (Carlton was 58, Grover Cleveland Alexander 57, Kershaw 52, Feller 50, Spahn was 47, Satchel Paige 41, WaJo could be top 5). But I think they did a decent job of balancing peak vs. overall WAR with maybe a higher emphasis on peak. They had some peak guys pretty high with Koufax at 32, and Bob Gibson at 33.

I think Cap Anson was the only 19th Century player. No Kid Nichols, Dan Brouthers, etc.

I do think Jeter was probably ranked too high at 28. I don't think he is better than every catcher to ever play the game (Bench was the highest ranked catcher at 29) or a lot of players ranked lower than him.

I would have liked to see Sam Crawford, Al Simmons, Goose Goslin, and Carl Hubbell make the list, but they didn't. Ed Walsh and Dizzy didn't make it either.

[molenick]

Of course, a list like this will generate a lot of debate and disagreement, so I will just mention one thing that stands out to me. I love Pedro, but saying he is the 11th best player and second best pitcher (behind only Walter Johnson) of all-time seems like a very strong take. It looks like he got a lot of credit for peak performance versus longevity and for his ERA+ (essentially, ERA as compared to league ERA).