Top 25 Worst MLB HOFER’S

[packs]

Wilhelm really was an underrated guy. What a beast of a career. Obviously lights out from the pen but given the chance start almost full-time at 36 years old he wins 15 games and leads the league in ERA and ERA+.

Guy pitched in over a 1,000 games and didn't even start his career until he was 29.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Wilhelm really was an underrated guy. What a beast of a career. Obviously lights out from the pen but given the start at 36 years old he wins 15 games and leads the league in ERA and ERA+.

Guy pitched in over a 1,000 games and didn't even start his career until he was 29.

Wilhelm is the reliever who really screams "why didn't they let him start?" to me. He got to be a starter for only one full season, a season in which he led the league in ERA. Back to the bullpen after that.

[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.

[D. Bergin]

If Baines and Sutter are your guys punching bags, consider yourselves lucky.

I’m all for putting in just about anybody into any specific HOF for any particular reason, as long as they made their mark on the sport. Now go look up Jackie Tonawanda. International Boxing Hall of Fame recently put her in the hall.

I’m all for trailblazing female boxers getting in. Problem is, there’s no record of her actually being a boxer, or fighting any other women. She happened to fool a bunch of writers in the 70’s and 80’s that she was some sort of gym warrior. Most have admitted they got taken by her, through made up news clippings and press releases.

She was one of the first women to get licensed to box in the state of New York, but never actually used it. She called herself “The female Muhammad Ali”, and even conned Ali into taking pictures with her and talking her up, but she ignored any women who actually wanted to fight her. She was a manufactured persona.

Weird thing is, she was dead 10+ years before she got elected into the HOF, so somehow she conned a bunch of people from the grave to let her in. It’s basically the equivalent of Sidd Finch getting into the Baseball HOF.

[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).

[Yoda]

Eppa Rixey just because of his name.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by G1911

The list is just sorting by WAR rate, but I agree. WAR absolutely hates Traynor, and there may be a lesson that he’s been overrated, but I have a hard time seeing how he isn’t a hall of famer at all by the standards of his time and his election time.

I wouldn’t put in Evers or Tinker, personally.

Baines and Lloyd Waner are hard to top in my book as the worst choices. As I understand it Tommy McCarthy was inducted more for his inventive plays and innovations and role as the anti-Oriole when baseball was getting a thuggish reputation. A lot of the bad picks were elected for reasons other than the numbers we are looking at. Baines wasn’t, and Waner was because he hit .300 and his brother was great.

I think Tinker, Evers, and Chance are all UNDERRATED.

The Cubs were a powerhouse with them and then became losers after they left. Also, Evers went to the Braves and was the MVP of the whole league and helped that sorry franchise win the WS.

[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.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by paul

I'd take Pie Traynor off the list. Until Brooks Robinson's performance in the 1970 World Series, Traynor was almost universally ranked as the greatest third baseman of all time. Everyone couldn't have been that wrong for so long.

There was that long-forgotten guy in between Pie and Brooks who was always touted as the greatest defensive 3B of his era. Many who saw him actually said he was the best, and many of those also saw Traynor! See my username.

I have a handwritten letter written to me from none other than that wonderful man, Brooksie, letting me know that he concurred about Cox' prowess (although Brooks would have never seen Cox in his prime as far as I know).

[Mike D.]

Just interested on Sutter...do people think that relievers other than the top few shouldn't go in, or that there are more deserving closers than Sutter NOT in, or both?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

I think Tinker, Evers, and Chance are all UNDERRATED.

The Cubs were a powerhouse with them and then became losers after they left. Also, Evers went to the Braves and was the MVP of the whole league and helped that sorry franchise win the WS.

Don’t think it has more to do with the pitching staff leaving or falling apart then too? I don’t see a mathematical argument for Evers. Perhaps I am missing something. He’s slightly above league average at the plate, excellent glove. I’m not seeing much to make a HOFer, using the modern analytics or the traditional. Tinkers bat was below league average. I personally don’t find poetic/romantic arguments compelling and I don’t see one besides this.

Chance was a regular for like 6 years, but he gets major points for his managerial success and I’m fine with him overall. If a player only, he’s an egregious choice.

[bbsports]

How about Bill Mazeroski. Do you think he was inducted into the Hall of Fame because of a game winning home run to win the 1960 World Series?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bbsports

How about Bill Mazeroski. Do you think he was inducted into the Hall of Fame because of a game winning home run to win the 1960 World Series?

I think it was his reputation as the GOAT 2B that did it. Big bomb doesn’t hurt.

[5-Tool Player]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Harold Baines, that was easy.

+1

[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.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

There was that long-forgotten guy in between Pie and Brooks who was always touted as the greatest defensive 3B of his era. Many who saw him actually said he was the best, and many of those also saw Traynor! See my username.

I have a handwritten letter written to me from none other than that wonderful man, Brooksie, letting me know that he concurred about Cox' prowess (although Brooks would have never seen Cox in his prime as far as I know).

I saw Billy play at Ebbets Field a couple of times in the '50's. He played a mean 'hot corner'. There were a couple of rifle arms playing with Brooklyn in those days; Billy and Carl Furillo.
Ebbets is now a project and not a very nice one.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Whew, Baseballcrazy62, you have opened a can of worms

My thought consistently goes to Phil Rizzuto. Exactly ONE good offensive
year (1950) and, in my opinion, riding the Yankee coattails like a good surfer
riding a wave... I did not do exhaustive research on every HOF member, he
merely strikes me as someone who should be in the conversation.

G1911- back to the "overrated" thing, and your little ploy of dangling
backhanded compliments? Great. Cal Ripken owns a "hallowed record" but
is "overrated in the public mind"? I know, when questioned you'll reply, "But
I said he was a Gold Glove shortstop with a hallowed record" (before you
insulted him, of course). I know you won't consider facts that wreck your
proclamations, but for those who do:

1) Ripken is NUMBER ONE all time for home runs for shortstops.
2) Ripken is NUMBER ONE all time for RBI among shortstops.
3) The consecutive game mark isn't just a "hallowed record". It's an
astonishing accomplishment that, in today's game, is hard to imagine
anyone ever eclipsing.
4) Ripken was an excellent defensive player for the bulk of his career.
5) Two MVPs.

Pray tell, what is this "public mind" you can access? Never mind, don't tell.
Your comment was ridiculous and indefensible, but you keep being you...

Trent King (not an Orioles fan!)

Ripken is overrated in the sense that he was often called the greatest, or nearly the greatest, SS ever during his career. Not even close to that. He won two MVPs - a tremendous accomplishment! But he also hit .264 or lower TEN times during his career. He hit a ton of home runs - at basically the same rate as Travis Fryman.

But, yes, he was a great player and very deserving of his place in the Hall.

[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

[lowpopper]

Fred McGriff is reading this and grinding his teeth

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by bbsports

How about Bill Mazeroski. Do you think he was inducted into the Hall of Fame because of a game winning home run to win the 1960 World Series?

I would say without that HR, he's not in.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I would say without that HR, he's not in.

And shouldn't be in. One shining moment + a solid, albeit not great career does not = HOF.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I saw Billy play at Ebbets Field a couple of times in the '50's. He played a mean 'hot corner'. There were a couple of rifle arms playing with Brooklyn in those days; Billy and Carl Furillo.
Ebbets is now a project and not a very nice one.

Two incredibly gifted Pennsylvania boys. Billy let his arm do the talking; Carl should have taken from Cox' example!

You're so lucky to have seen them play; I had the misfortune of being born too late and too far away. I did visit the Jackie Robinson Housing Project about 30 years ago; it wasn't too bad at that time, although the surrounding neighborhood was pretty dangerous.

While I never did get a chance to meet Billy, I did speak with his widow and became good buddies with his closest lifelong friend.

[LACardsGuy]

Interesting that the card market for all these players agrees with the article EXCEPT with Brock.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

And shouldn't be in. One shining moment + a solid, albeit not great career does not = HOF.

I don't disagree. For my money Frank White had a career virtually indistinguishable from Maz's and nobody's talking about Frank White for the HOF. Might be different if he hit a game winning HR in game 7 against the Phillies in 1980.

[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.

[Jersey City Giants]

Baines is the ugly girl who got into the club because she was with her hot friend.

Was he a very good baseball player? Of course. But in over 20 years he only led the league in any "major" category once (slugging percentage).

Can't comment on the others as I did not watch them play. But I saw Baines throughout his entire career. He is NOT a HOFer in my book.

[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.

[spartygw]

Rabbit Maranville and Catfish Hunter should be in the hall of cool nicknames but not the HOF.

I disagree with the idea that Morris doesn't belong. I understand advanced statistics and use of WAR but you can't measure how guys perform under extreme pressure (as far as I know there's no stat).

Morris was undoubtedly a jerk, but with everything on the line he was nails.

[ClementeFanOh]

G1911- You have exceeded even your worst logic, congrats! "Hijacking...
is rude and a little weird"? BINGO...

Speaking of being inside heads, looks like I'm your Huckleberry

Trent King

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

Two incredibly gifted Pennsylvania boys. Billy let his arm do the talking; Carl should have taken from Cox' example!

You're so lucky to have seen them play; I had the misfortune of being born too late and too far away. I did visit the Jackie Robinson Housing Project about 30 years ago; it wasn't too bad at that time, although the surrounding neighborhood was pretty dangerous.

While I never did get a chance to meet Billy, I did speak with his widow and became good buddies with his closest lifelong friend.

I do remember well one play that encapsulated both Billy and Carl, who I heard ended up being a janitor in a building. If so, how sad. I think the Dodgers were playing the Phillies and Ashburn hit a long single into the right corner of Ebbets. The next batter hit another deep single between center and right. Ashburn decided to go to 3rd, Carl made a nice backhanded pickup and rifled the ball to Billy who easily tagged out Ritchie.
They both made it look so easy and natural.

I literally cried when O'Mally moved 'Dem Bums' to LA. I think my mother had to console me. If you lived in the NY area in the 50's, it was a Golden Age for baseball. Right, Ted?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

G1911- You have exceeded even your worst logic, congrats! "Hijacking...
is rude and a little weird"? BINGO...

Speaking of being inside heads, looks like I'm your Huckleberry

Trent King

Bingo. So you agree it’s really weird. I have never once started it with you. Grow up and find a new hobby. I’m sure you’ll be happier.

[FrankWakefield]

Kirby Puckett
Harold Baines

They shouldn't have gone in.

George Kelley should be in. Maranville, Kell, Brock, Rizzuto, Sutter, Pennock, Gomez... they should be in.


We're a bunch of haters.

[G1911]

I'd probably rather have Baines than George Kelly in my lineup.

[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.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I don't disagree. For my money Frank White had a career virtually indistinguishable from Maz's and nobody's talking about Frank White for the HOF. Might be different if he hit a game winning HR in game 7 against the Phillies in 1980.

Mazeroski 10x all star frank white 5x all star. Mazeroski was considered the best of his era in the nl. I’d say Whitaker was considered the best off his era in the Al not frank white. And Whitaker should be in. If Ozzie smith is in without complaint I don’t see mazeroski as such an egregious mistake and for those saying take away that home run but why he did do it why pretend he didn’t.

[michael3322]

Re: Kelley, just check Wikipedia...sums it up pretty nicely...

"To be inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame, a player must receive at least 75% of the vote from the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) or the Veterans Committee.Kelly was on the BBWAA ballot seven times, never coming close to being elected, and never garnering more than 1.9% of the vote. By year, voting results for Kelly were: 1947 (one vote, 0.6%), 1948 (two votes, 1.7%), 1949 (one vote, 0.7%), 1956 (two votes, 1.0%), 1958 (two votes, 0.8%), 1960 (five votes, 1.9%), and 1962 (two votes, 0.6%). Despite the lack of support from the BBWAA, he was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1973 by the Veterans Committee.[22] At the time of Kelly's election, the writers' ballot was voted on by approximately 400 writers, while the Veterans Committee had a membership of twelve former players and executives.

The selection of Kelly was controversial, as many felt Kelly was not worthy of enshrinement in the Hall. According to the BBWAA, the Veterans Committee was not selective enough in choosing members.Charges of cronyism were levied against the Veterans Committee.When Kelly was elected, the Veterans Committee included two of his former teammates, Bill Terry and Frankie Frisch, who also shepherded the selections of teammates Jesse Haines in 1970, Dave Bancroft and Chick Hafey in 1971, Ross Youngs in 1972, Jim Bottomley in 1974, and Freddie Lindstrom in 1976. This led to the Veterans Committee having its powers reduced in subsequent years. Baseball historian Bill James, while ranking Kelly as the 65th greatest first baseman of all time, also cites Kelly as "the worst player in the Hall of Fame"

[lowpopper]

0 cards in this thread

[brianp-beme]

It's no (1935 Goudey) puzzle that this man was the (line) driving force behind the induction of several not quite as qualified Hall of Famers.

Brian

[theshowandme]

I’d rather have John Olerud in the HoF than George Kelly