eras committee candidates baseball HOF

[sports-cards-forever]

It is surprising that the most popular WAR names like Grich and Whitaker never make it onto these ballots

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by sports-cards-forever

It is surprising that the most popular WAR names like Grich and Whitaker never make it onto these ballots

The current eras committee that is voting later this year is for pre-1980s players. Whitaker's production mainly came after 1980.

The bulk of Grich's production was pre-1980, but I think he gets hurt by the fact that his career straddles 1980, with significant production after 1980.

1980 is an arbitrary year, and I think it hurts players like Grich, Dwight Evans, and Keith Hernandez whose careers straddle 1980.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

1980 is an arbitrary year, and I think it hurts players like Grich, Dwight Evans, and Keith Hernandez whose careers straddle 1980.

And it apparently hurts EVERY white player who debuted before the mid-1950's.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

And it apparently hurts EVERY white player who debuted before the mid-1950's.

Who? Wes Ferrell, Stan Hack, and some guys from the 1800s? Bucky Walters? Larry Doyle?

I'm not thinking of anyone else and some of those guys aren't HOF material to some people. I would only consider Ferrell and Hack and a few 1800s guys, myself.

It seems like pre-50s white dudes are very well represented to the point that the pool of players to consider is really shallow.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

Who? Wes Ferrell, Stan Hack, and some guys from the 1800s? Bucky Walters? Larry Doyle?

I'm not thinking of anyone else and some of those guys aren't HOF material to some people. I would only consider Ferrell and Hack and a few 1800s guys, myself.

It seems like pre-50s white dudes are very well represented to the point that the pool of players to consider is really shallow.

I believe he’s talking about era factors in WAR.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by G1911

I believe he’s talking about era factors in WAR.

Everything before mass airplane travel and integration is hard to handicap. There's also a bit too much (imo) downplaying of the talent of players who played during WW2 who have their accomplishments diminished because of the dilution of talent displaced into the military.

There's got to be PCL players that are HOF-worthy who just wanted to stay on the West coast and we've probably lost their greatness to history even with impressive counting stats...made more difficult by some years having nearly 200 games a season.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

The current eras committee that is voting later this year is for pre-1980s players. Whitaker's production mainly came after 1980.

The bulk of Grich's production was pre-1980, but I think he gets hurt by the fact that his career straddles 1980, with significant production after 1980.

1980 is an arbitrary year, and I think it hurts players like Grich, Dwight Evans, and Keith Hernandez whose careers straddle 1980.

Whitaker didn't even make the last ballot as I recall.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Whitaker didn't even make the last ballot as I recall.

Nor did Lofton. It was half 'roids guys (Belle, Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro) plus Mattingly, Murphy, Schilling, and McGriff, who got it in.

[akleinb611]

Now would be a very good time to re-read (or in the case of a few of us, read) Bill James' brilliant book, "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame" (originally published as "The Politics of Glory", a title I very much prefer).

James goes through the history of the HOF and provides an exhaustive and very reasonable review of the ever-changing standards of election. I consider myself far more knowledgeable about baseball history than most, and I learned a great many things from that book. It can be picked up from most used book sources for just a few dollars, and is money well spent.

Alan

[John1941]

Originally Posted by akleinb611

Now would be a very good time to re-read (or in the case of a few of us, read) Bill James' brilliant book, "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame" (originally published as "The Politics of Glory", a title I very much prefer).

James goes through the history of the HOF and provides an exhaustive and very reasonable review of the ever-changing standards of election. I consider myself far more knowledgeable about baseball history than most, and I learned a great many things from that book. It can be picked up from most used book sources for just a few dollars, and is money well spent.

Alan

I totally agree about the book's value and the superiority of the title "The Politics of Glory." I've always wondered why they changed it.

[jingram058]

Honestly, not to be negative here, but I couldn't care any less about the HoF. It means nothing to me personally. Other than the few complete sets I have, I collect the cards of the players I like. If they are or are not in the HoF doesn't even enter the equation. I have my own HoF.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by akleinb611

Now would be a very good time to re-read (or in the case of a few of us, read) Bill James' brilliant book, "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame" (originally published as "The Politics of Glory", a title I very much prefer).

James goes through the history of the HOF and provides an exhaustive and very reasonable review of the ever-changing standards of election. I consider myself far more knowledgeable about baseball history than most, and I learned a great many things from that book. It can be picked up from most used book sources for just a few dollars, and is money well spent.

Alan

The most recent (2003) version of his Statistical Abstract is great reading as well. It's long but you can just read individual biographies/assessments at random. It's interesting from today's perspective because the really sophisticated metrics weren't in use yet, it's sort of a bridge between traditional counting stats and those metrics.

[Misunderestimated]

If I were voting I would select Donaldson based on the limited stats and remarkable legends. Apart from him i'm not so sure.
I'm old enough that I remember the careers of most of these players (not the Negro League legends or Ken Boyer)

A friend of mine once asked whether it was the "Hall of Fame" or the "Hall of Stats"... obviously these things overlap but just saying whomever (whoever?) has the highest WAR should get in seems wrong. WAR is a very impressive combination of stats but I don't feel it should be dispositive of a player's value for the HOF.
Among other things, WAR doesn't account for post-season performance at all. Even as a lifelong Cub fan I think that's really important, especially if we're thinking of fame and even greatness.

Specifics:
Bobby Grich is one of the strongest "WAR candidates" (he's not on the ballot) but I don't feel like he's a HOFer. On the other hand Tiant, Allen, Parker, and definitely Garvey (whom I loathe) did seem like HOF caliber players during some or all of their careers.