Top 25 Worst MLB HOFER’S

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

The list is imperfect but interesting. I don't know that WAR and stat line per 162 games are very good measurements of a Hall of Famer, especially those that didn't play 162 game seasons, but to each his own.

What's interesting about the list is how much it skews "old timer". People always talk about the Hall of Fame like the Hall of Fame standard is going DOWN, but in reality, it's been trending UP for a few decades.

Just as not every Hall of Famer elected today isn't a "inner circle" Hall of Famer, most Hall of Famers historically also aren't "inner circle".

I think we were doing really good until a few years ago; selections were getting better and better but the last few years we’ve had a lot of highly questionable selections from the era committees. I think the writers have pretty much always picked deserving candidates on the whole. The Fritsch committee period and it’s open corruption was probably the worst; I give a lot more leeway in context for the 1950’s selections of 19th century players. The research industry in baseball wasn’t really a thing then, they had limited information and most of them aren’t terrible selections on the whole.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think we were doing really good until a few years ago; selections were getting better and better but the last few years we’ve had a lot of highly questionable selections from the era committees. I think the writers have pretty much always picked deserving candidates on the whole. The Fritsch committee period and it’s open corruption was probably the worst; I give a lot more leeway in context for the 1950’s selections of 19th century players. The research industry in baseball wasn’t really a thing then, they had limited information and most of them aren’t terrible selections on the whole.

I think the most egregious part of the whole Baines fiasco was that it was basically a carbon copy of the "bad old days" Fritsch committee. Baines get voted in by a closed door committee that just happens to have a former owner and a former manager from Baines playing days on it.

There have been some borderline selection of late, although other than Baines, I can't think of that truly offend me. Even the year Jack Morris got in, Alan Trammell did too. I remember thinking "I'll take that trade" at the time.

[bigfanNY]

Baines is the guy I an issue with. But I have more issues with this list. Pie Traynor was on a number of all time great teams as late as the 70's ( rold gold / kelloggs all time greats). Waner lifetime 316 hitter hit over 350 3 times and was a gold glove level center fielder. Catfish was a Great pitcher for some great teams. Teams that don't win world series without him. Tough to judge so many different era's with WAR.
JMHO
J

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I think the most egregious part of the whole Baines fiasco was that it was basically a carbon copy of the "bad old days" Fritsch committee. Baines get voted in by a closed door committee that just happens to have a former owner and a former manager from Baines playing days on it.

There have been some borderline selection of late, although other than Baines, I can't think of that truly offend me. Even the year Jack Morris got in, Alan Trammell did too. I remember thinking "I'll take that trade" at the time.

The three worst picks of the 21st century are, I think, Baines, Morris, Effa Manley and Sutter. I disagree with some others, but those were the ones that seemed dubious.

The corruption that seems readily apparent in Baines’ pick really helps make it stand out, and I think has a lot to do with why people were particularly unhappy with that one. Fritsch hurt his own legacy by shoveling a dozen or more picks like Baines of his pals.

[Mungo Hungo]

I can't believe that it took until post 32 to mention Bruce Sutter. He barely broke 20 in bWAR and was below 20 in fWAR. Even if there were an anti-reliever bias in the WAR calcs (and I'm not saying there is), there's really no justification for his selection.

[cubman1941]

Not going to mention any names as everyone has their own opinion. The theme through this article seems to be Home Run's (lack of), longevity and Veterans Committee and, in many cases, New York. I do believe the Veteran's Committee feel they MUST vote someone it and how best to do it is longevity. If a player played for so many years he must have been great and, especiality, if he was in New York.

I admit I am biased but look at Phil Cavarretta's numbers:

Career 22 YEARS
WAR AB H HR BA R RBI SB OBP SLG OPS OPS+
37.0 6754 1977 95 .293 990 920 65 .372 .416 .788 118

Played a long time - has a WAR of 37 but not in New York. I believe if he had played on some other team he would have been voted in by the Veterans Committee. Do I believe he belongs in the HOF? No, but he was better than some of the ones in.
Just my opinion.

[jp1216]

I didn't know 10 of those guys were even in the hall!

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by G1911

The three worst picks of the 21st century are, I think, Baines, Morris, Effa Manley and Sutter. I disagree with some others, but those were the ones that seemed dubious.

Agree on Baines, and the Morris selection almost felt like a "FU" to anyone who uses modern analytics (you know, in our mom's basements with our stained t-shirts).

I don't know enough about Manley to comment, although generally I think owners shouldn't be in the HOF.

To me, Sutter is borderline but not that awful. He's got 24.0 WAR on BBR. That's 26th on their list of relievers, but at least a dozen guys ahead of him on the list started a lot of games, so really he's probably top 15 for pure relievers.

Looking at relievers ahead of him on the list, I see a lot of guys who aren't in the Hall that could/should be - Wagner, Nathan, maybe Rodriguez, plus guys I'd consider borderline like Quizenberry. I also see a handful of guys who were relievers who I don't think of Hall of Famers, like Kent Tekulve.

So, the number of relievers who were pure relievers, had 300 career saves, and a WAR higher than Sutter isn't a long list, and I don't find them offensive as Hall of Famers.

So, maybe Sutter IS the borderline/floor. He's certainly a borderline candidate, but making him the floor doesn't seem to cause major issues for me.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Agree on Baines, and the Morris selection almost felt like a "FU" to anyone who uses modern analytics (you know, in our mom's basements with our stained t-shirts).

I don't know enough about Manley to comment, although generally I think owners shouldn't be in the HOF.

To me, Sutter is borderline but not that awful. He's got 24.0 WAR on BBR. That's 26th on their list of relievers, but at least a dozen guys ahead of him on the list started a lot of games, so really he's probably top 15 for pure relievers.

Looking at relievers ahead of him on the list, I see a lot of guys who aren't in the Hall that could/should be - Wagner, Nathan, maybe Rodriguez, plus guys I'd consider borderline like Quizenberry. I also see a handful of guys who were relievers who I don't think of Hall of Famers, like Kent Tekulve.

So, the number of relievers who were pure relievers, had 300 career saves, and a WAR higher than Sutter isn't a long list, and I don't find them offensive as Hall of Famers.

So, maybe Sutter IS the borderline/floor. He's certainly a borderline candidate, but making him the floor doesn't seem to cause major issues for me.

My issue with Sutter is that he represented a huge lowering of the floor. The hall will water down with time, inevitably, but when it does it should be a gradual lowering, electing the guys who just missed the previous standard (it's impossible for a hall not to do this, you elect the absolute elites the first few years and then the standard has to lower or the hall ceases). I think a big factor in highlighting terrible picks is the context of the pick, and how much the pick lowered the existing standard below just electing the best guy at that position who isn't in, which I would call the always reasonable and inevitable lowering.

Relievers in the Hall when Sutter was elected:
1985 - Hoyt Wilhelm
1992 - Fingers
2004 - Eckersley

And... That's it.

Wilhelm:
Innings: 2,254
Years: 21
Saves: 228
ERA+: 147

Fingers:
Innings: 1,701
Years: 17
Saves: 341
ERA+: 120
WAR: 25.6

Eck:
Innings: 3,285
Years: 24
Saves: 390
ERA+: 116
WAR: 62.1

Sutter:
Innings: 1,042
Years: 12
Saves: 300
ERA+: 136
WAR: 24

Wilhelm and Eck are clearly above the others. Wilhelm's saves are low, but era context eliminates that concern. Eck is greatly aided by actually being a decent full time pitcher for years before relieving (which he was elected for). Lower ERA, but he played literally three times as much as Sutter. Sutter has a good ERA, but little else. Fingers was a poor pick, elected for being on a great team with few HOF players at all, his personality and mustache (has any other player had their physical appearance appear to boost their ranking so much?) his ERA is low, he did play 70% more than Sutter which counts for a lot. Showing up produces value.

Sutter seems less egregious looking at the list today, but they skipped Smith, they skipped Gossage, they skipped Quisinberry (who still isn't in and shouldn't be, but I think the record shows was better than Sutter), they skipped Guidry who has a better ERA and double the WAR of Sutter, they skipped so many of his direct contemporaries at his position that were better. In 2006, Sutter was a an egregious lowering of the standard skipping over many better players at his position that played at the same time. Now that Gossage and Smith are in and Quisenberry is very close to Sutter, it looks more like Guidry has a good case than that Sutter is egregious. But at the time, I think it was a horrible pick.



My personal unpopular opinion, separate from who makes the Hall's general standard, is that electing pitchers who barely pitch and don't even reach 2,000 innings is something of a joke. To merit induction one must be truly dominating. Wilhelm and Rivera are about the only ones I would vote for.

[Misunderestimated]

A friend of mine once remarked that it called the Hall of Fame not the "Hall of Stats"...
WAR and other Uber stats (like Win Shares) purport to capture the worth of players based entirely on their statistical performances during the regular seasons. This is insufficient to measure a career for HOF purposes. Here are some of my additional factors:
1) What if the player won a lot -- doesn't that mean something (hence the abundance of Yankees with iffy WAR scores like Scooter and Ruffing)
2) What if the player was considered the BEST or among the very best at a certain aspect of the game ? Brock with SBs, Mazeroski and Maranville as great middle infielders... Sewell and Kell were impossible to strike out).
3) What if the player was recognized at the time and and years after as the BEST at his position? As Paul pointed out above-- Pie Traynor was considered baseball's greatest 3B for many many years after his career. I have a Kelloggs' 3D card of him that reflects this estimation from the early 1970's.
4) What about innovation (I don't just mean Candy Cummings) how about Bruce Sutter, Roger Bresnahan etc.
5) What about short-term greatness ?
6) What about great Post-season performances? Jack Morris for instance.
Remember: the object of the game is to win championships.
That said, I still think T. McCarthy, G. Kelly and "Sunny Jim" Bottomley and many of the others are less than worthy. We know that Frisch packed the HOF with his cronies and some like Kelly and Lindstrom simply don't measure up.... And I also think that Dahlen and some of the others discussed above belong instead.
But it's about a lot more than WAR scores...
---
Also I note that Tommy McCarthy was a big winner in his day and considered a stellar outfielder. I don't think this is enough to put him in the HOF but it does explain why the Veterans Committee back in the day picked him without the benefit of WAR (or much else given the paucity of 19th Century stats at the time). They selected someone based on legend and reputation - he was one of the "heavenly twins" of the outfield with Hugh Duffy...
https://baseballegg.com/2010/02/01/b...eavenly-twins/

[packs]

If it's about being the best player at your position in your time then there's no reason Larry Doyle shouldn't be in. He was easily the best second basemen the NL had for a very long time.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

A friend of mine once remarked that it called the Hall of Fame not the "Hall of Stats"...
WAR and other Uber stats (like Win Shares) purport to capture the worth of players based entirely on their statistical performances during the regular seasons. This is insufficient to measure a career for HOF purposes. Here are some of my additional factors:
1) What if the player won a lot -- doesn't that mean something (hence the abundance of Yankees with iffy WAR scores like Scooter and Ruffing)
2) What if the player was considered the BEST or among the very best at a certain aspect of the game ? Brock with SBs, Mazeroski and Maranville as great middle infielders... Sewell and Kell were impossible to strike out).
3) What if the player was recognized at the time and and years after as the BEST at his position? As Paul pointed out above-- Pie Traynor was considered baseball's greatest 3B for many many years after his career. I have a Kelloggs' 3D card of him that reflects this estimation from the early 1970's.
4) What about innovation (I don't just mean Candy Cummings) how about Bruce Sutter, Roger Bresnahan etc.
5) What about short-term greatness ?
6) What about great Post-season performances? Jack Morris for instance.
Remember: the object of the game is to win championships.
That said, I still think T. McCarthy, G. Kelly and "Sunny Jim" Bottomley and many of the others are less than worthy. We know that Frisch packed the HOF with his cronies and some like Kelly and Lindstrom simply don't measure up.... And I also think that Dahlen and some of the others discussed above belong instead.
But it's about a lot more than WAR scores...
---
Also I note that Tommy McCarthy was a big winner in his day and considered a stellar outfielder. I don't think this is enough to put him in the HOF but it does explain why the Veterans Committee back in the day picked him without the benefit of WAR (or much else given the paucity of 19th Century stats at the time). They selected someone based on legend and reputation - he was one of the "heavenly twins" of the outfield with Hugh Duffy...
https://baseballegg.com/2010/02/01/b...eavenly-twins/

I agree with much of this. I don't think there's much of a Yankee bias (For every questionable Yankee in, there's one you would expect to have made it if there was a Yankee bias, like Mattingly). Winning doesn't matter much, even the absolute best couldn't win championships on their own, in a game where the impact of a single player is limited over the course of a season it's not a good measure of an individual. Context of the election is important, and why I wouldn't put Cummings on a list of the worst choices, or necessarily even McCarthy.

Cummings was not elected for his statistical performance, he was elected because he was thought to have either invented the curveball or popularized it and brought it to the mainstream game. Which seems a clearly worthy innovation.

McCarthy was in the AA and WAR hates him and OPS+ hates him, but these didn't exist. He stole a ton of bases, scored a ton of runs, and hit .292. He had a reputation for wonderful defense and developed new plays and styles that were a counter to an unpopular-among-baseball-elitists thuggish style of play. I'm not even clear that they had available full statistics of the traditional stats for him in 1947 when he was picked.

Maranville, Mazeroski and Schalk were elected for their defense. It is reasonable to posit that defense of non-pitchers doesn't have enough of an impact to merit induction for it alone, but the use of batting stats to deride the choices that is usually done instead completely misses the context.

I think it much worse when the reasons actually present in that time for the selection are A) completely unreasonable, B) inconsistent or C) openly corrupt. Waner, the Fritsch appointments, Baines, Sutter, Morris, these types where the standards used for them are corrupt or pretty inconsistent and unreasonable are much worse picks.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

A friend of mine once remarked that it called the Hall of Fame not the "Hall of Stats"...
WAR and other Uber stats (like Win Shares) purport to capture the worth of players based entirely on their statistical performances during the regular seasons. This is insufficient to measure a career for HOF purposes. Here are some of my additional factors:
1) What if the player won a lot -- doesn't that mean something (hence the abundance of Yankees with iffy WAR scores like Scooter and Ruffing)
2) What if the player was considered the BEST or among the very best at a certain aspect of the game ? Brock with SBs, Mazeroski and Maranville as great middle infielders... Sewell and Kell were impossible to strike out).
3) What if the player was recognized at the time and and years after as the BEST at his position? As Paul pointed out above-- Pie Traynor was considered baseball's greatest 3B for many many years after his career. I have a Kelloggs' 3D card of him that reflects this estimation from the early 1970's.
4) What about innovation (I don't just mean Candy Cummings) how about Bruce Sutter, Roger Bresnahan etc.
5) What about short-term greatness ?
6) What about great Post-season performances? Jack Morris for instance.
Remember: the object of the game is to win championships.
That said, I still think T. McCarthy, G. Kelly and "Sunny Jim" Bottomley and many of the others are less than worthy. We know that Frisch packed the HOF with his cronies and some like Kelly and Lindstrom simply don't measure up.... And I also think that Dahlen and some of the others discussed above belong instead.
But it's about a lot more than WAR scores...
---
Also I note that Tommy McCarthy was a big winner in his day and considered a stellar outfielder. I don't think this is enough to put him in the HOF but it does explain why the Veterans Committee back in the day picked him without the benefit of WAR (or much else given the paucity of 19th Century stats at the time). They selected someone based on legend and reputation - he was one of the "heavenly twins" of the outfield with Hugh Duffy...
https://baseballegg.com/2010/02/01/b...eavenly-twins/

Excellent post. The value of a player to his team is more than statistics. There are intangibles involved. Also, how a player is viewed by his peers is important. By this I mean that teammates know who they value most and opponents know who they fear most.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by G1911

My issue with Sutter is that he represented a huge lowering of the floor. The hall will water down with time, inevitably, but when it does it should be a gradual lowering, electing the guys who just missed the previous standard (it's impossible for a hall not to do this, you elect the absolute elites the first few years and then the standard has to lower or the hall ceases).

This would only be true in general if new players didn't become eligible every year. In terms of say the various "veterans" committees, it is true though....no new games are being played in the 1920's.

I don't disagree with your comment on context, it's very important. But one thing with the reliever example is that the entire context at the time was "three completely dissimilar things". You had Wilhelm, a non-closer reliever with a ton of innings, Eck who was a hyrbid, and Fingers.

So, really the comparison is:

Fingers:
Innings: 1,701
Years: 17
Saves: 341
ERA+: 120
WAR: 25.6

Sutter:
Innings: 1,042
Years: 12
Saves: 300
ERA+: 136
WAR: 24

Fingers pitched longer, for sure. But he didn't have THAT many more saves, and not THAT much higher WAR, and a lower ERA+...not that voters at the time were looking at those things, but are Fingers and Sutter's stat lines THAT dissimilar?

[Misunderestimated]

Strike out rate for batters.... interesting list that includes many of the less "worthy" HOFers under WAR.

I'm just putting this out there. I think it's hardly the most important stat in measuring greatness.

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/hit...istrkop1.shtml

baseball reference has a slightly different list (with Keeler on top instead of Sewell and includes 19th century guys)

https://www.baseball-reference.com/l...t_career.shtml

Modern, analytics-driven baseball does not devalue players who strike out so much. I think it used to be more shameful for hitters to strikeout and that may explain why those who were "harder to strikeout" were considered "great" before anyone was thinking about things like OPS (let alone WAR).

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by G1911

Wilhelm and Eck are clearly above the others.

I would argue Eck doesn't belong in the Hall. He's incredibly overrated as a reliever. Does 3 great seasons plus one very good one make somebody an all-time great reliever?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I would argue Eck doesn't belong in the Hall. He's incredibly overrated as a reliever. Does 3 great seasons plus one very good one make somebody an all-time great reliever?

Look at the list. In the context the statement was made, it was the 4 relievers in the hall of fame through 2006. Is Eck “clearly ahead” of Fingers and Sutter in his careers value? Obviously yes. I also specifically said later in the post I would not put Eck in the hall. When did I say he was an all time great reliever?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by G1911

The three worst picks of the 21st century are, I think, Baines, Morris, Effa Manley and Sutter. I disagree with some others, but those were the ones that seemed dubious.

The corruption that seems readily apparent in Baines’ pick really helps make it stand out, and I think has a lot to do with why people were particularly unhappy with that one. Fritsch hurt his own legacy by shoveling a dozen or more picks like Baines of his pals.

I was beyond taken aback when Sutter went in. Never thought I'd feel more strongly about an induction; then came Baines. Will there ever be anyone lower than Baines inducted in the future? Guess we shouldn't be surprised.

It does stink on a personal level that these two nice guys always bear the brunt of such conversations, but alas, it's not solely a wonderful disposition that gets you through the hallowed doors.

I knew Rick Ferrell and am not really sure he belongs. How has Wes been overlooked all these years? He was a very strong pitcher on some classically terrible teams. Oh, there's the answer to that.

Baines, Haines and Raines. Hey, that rhymes! It should make it that much easier to remember when getting out my imaginary eraser.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

I was beyond taken aback when Sutter went in. Never thought I'd feel more strongly about an induction; then came Baines. Will there ever be anyone lower than Baines inducted in the future? Guess we shouldn't be surprised.

It does stink on a personal level that these two nice guys always bear the brunt of such conversations, but alas, it's not solely a wonderful disposition that gets you through the hallowed doors.

I knew Rick Ferrell and am not really sure he belongs. How has Wes been overlooked all these years? He was a very strong pitcher on some classically terrible teams. Oh, there's the answer to that.

Baines, Haines and Raines. Hey, that rhymes! It should make it that much easier to remember when getting out my imaginary eraser.

It is bizarre that Rick Ferrell is in the HOF, considering that his brother and frequent battery mate Wes, is not.

In addition to being a fine pitcher, Wes Ferrell is probably the greatest hitting pitcher ever not named Ruth or Ohtani, and was frequently used as a pinch hitter. In 1935 Wes led the league in wins (25), complete games (31), and innings pitched (322). And in 179 plate appearances, Wes' slash line was .347/.427/.533 with 7 HRs and 32 RBI. It was good enough for 2nd in MVP behind Hank Greenberg. But Wes led the League in WAR with a towering 10.6 compared to Greenberg's 7.5. Over the course of his career, Wes hit .280 with an OBP of .351 and 38 HRs (37 of which were hit as a pitcher, which is the most ever).

I'm a small Hall guy, so I don't think Wes necessarily deserves to be inducted. But compared to his brother? Wes' career WAR of 60.1 is almost double his brother's 30.8. What a joke.