Top 25 Worst MLB HOFER’S

[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.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

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.

This.

There is no stat that accurately measures clutch hitting. To see Tony Perez at #20 on the list made my blood boil. I shut it down immediately after seeing that.

Ask any '70s Reds fan, fellow team member, or Sparky himself.... Perez was the glue that held the Big Red Machine together. Bob Howsam later admitted that trading the Big Dog after the '76 season was the biggest mistake of his career.

They definitely had another Championship or two in them, had Perez stayed.

[G1911]

Perez had 2.8 and 3.3 WAR in 1977 and 1978, and his traditional stats line up similarly. Good seasons. After that he was basically replacement, besides his part time 1985 surge.

In 1977 the Reds lost the west division by 10 games. In 1978, by 3 games. Dan Driessen posted 2.1 war, 1.2 below Perez. Maybe Perez could have made a difference that year to win the division, but the available math doesn't suggest he would. It doesn't seem very likely that we can say they would have had a WS win with this slight 1B upgrade.

Perez's clutch splits don't seem to indicate anything unusual or unusually good performance 'when it counts'.

A good player for many years, very much an accumulator in a prime position to rack up RBI's. A weak hall of famer looking at the traditional and new math both, but I wouldn't really consider him among the worst selections. His career percentages by his very long downfall as he played until he was 44. WAR has him as worth 2 George Kelly's, and the traditional stats seem to say that that is about right.

[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).

[Yoda]

Eppa Rixey just because of his name.

[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?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by G1911

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?

His being in the Hall implies he's an all-time great.

I suppose you could argue that Eck has more career value than Sutter but that's just because he has a decade+ of mediocre years as a starter. Sutter, who also doesn't belong in the Hall, was clearly a better reliever than Eck.

Didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

[MailboxBaseball]

For my money its Alan Trammell
Jim Kaat for honorable mention

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tabe

His being in the Hall implies he's an all-time great.

I suppose you could argue that Eck has more career value than Sutter but that's just because he has a decade+ of mediocre years as a starter. Sutter, who also doesn't belong in the Hall, was clearly a better reliever than Eck.

Didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

Yes being in the Hall does imply that he is an all-time great. But as I have said twice now, I do not think he should be in. It sounds like we agree here.

One could argue that Eck has more career value than Sutter did. It’s a very easy case as he pitched triple the innings and has 250% more WAR. I cannot come up with a way to conclude Sutter had more value and that WAR is wildly off in this case. I also very explicitly noted in my post that Eck’s starting career is what puts him over many other relievers in the math. So I don’t see where we disagree here either.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Unlike nearly everybody on the card side of the forum, I haven't dealt with (unsigned) cards for eons. I'm an autograph guy. I've been at this for a very long time and can tell you that prior to their inductions, I never once had anybody ask me if I had any Bruce Sutter or Harold Baines autographs I was looking to move. Not a single request. Literally nobody cared, and their autographs were worth nothing. This has to be mirrored on the unsigned card side of the equation. Then again, I've still not had any requests for their autographs, but see the obvious escalation in demand.

I had extremely sporadic requests for Mazeroksi and Cepeda pre-induction, but perhaps only once or twice. I specialize in vintage material, so am certainly not the go-to guy for readily made collectibles from the card show signing circuit, but you'd still think more requests for some of these players would have been made. Nope.

[ClementeFanOh]

Tabe- with regard to G1911 (and your stating you didn't mean to put words
in his mouth), I must refer you to G1911s "rules for comment"

1) G1911 is ALWAYS right- always.

2) G1911 has decreed that any dissenting opinion is inherently wrong

3) See rule 1 for any questions.

I'm sure he's a real hit at parties... don't worry about his feelings too much.

Trent King

[mr2686]

I love the one of the articles knock on Catfish Hunter: "He also was fortunate to play with two loaded teams in a pitchers-friendly decade at the time'"
I've never considered the A's and the Yankees from those WS teams "loaded". The A's had Catfish, Fingers and Jackson as future hall of famers, and a team of guys that knew how to play their positions and could come up with some key hits. The Yankees had Catfish and Jackson (for Cat's last 3 years) as future hof'ers but also had a couple that should be in (YMMV) in Munson and Guidry. They may have had a high payroll, but Steinbrenner over spent on some average players.
Sorry, you can run all the new metrics and create all kinds of fancy numbers, but if you never saw The Cat pitch, you missed out on a true hall of famer.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Tabe- with regard to G1911 (and your stating you didn't mean to put words
in his mouth), I must refer you to G1911s "rules for comment"

1) G1911 is ALWAYS right- always.

2) G1911 has decreed that any dissenting opinion is inherently wrong

3) See rule 1 for any questions.

I'm sure he's a real hit at parties... don't worry about his feelings too much.

Trent King

The thesis is that Tabe and I seem to actually agree in an arbitrary opinion, not that anyone is factually right or wrong in their opinion…

I do not understand why I live rent free in your head and blood pressure and you do this almost every week after I said I think Kaline slightly squeaks Clemente in career value in a thread specifically about that, but you might want to find a healthier obsession. Can’t you just PM me or email me your hate mail instead of spamming the board unprovoked again and again? Or make a Watercooler thread “G1911 sucks”? Hijacking for a vendetta is rude to third parties and a little weird.