eras committee candidates baseball HOF

[Exhibitman]

Overall,



We scream bloody murder over Harold Baines (38.8 WAR, 2800+ hits) and they give us Steve Garvey (38.0 WAR. 2599 hits), and Dave Parker (40.0 WAR, 2700+ hits). Same guy. I loathe the Red Sox but, as much as it pains me to say so, Evans is a way better player than any of these guys and is far more deserving of the HOF.

Ken Boyer and Graig Nettles are basically the same guy. Boyer had a better average, Nettles had more pop. 3B is an underrepresented position, so I would be OK with Boyer if Nettles goes too.

Tommy John is a participation trophy, as is Tiant; David Cone, Rick Reuschel and Kevin Brown had similar careers to them. John's wins are an accumulation stat; he averaged 13 per year. It's the Don Drysdale-Milt Pappas argument all over again.

[scotgreb]

As a lifelong Pirates fan, I love(d) Dave Parker -- and Garvey was certainly a great player. I just feel like there are countless others with similar (or better) credentials; namely be beloved Al Oliver.

Every thread needs a card . . .

img651.jpg

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Overall,



We scream bloody murder over Harold Baines (38.8 WAR, 2800+ hits) and they give us Steve Garvey (38.0 WAR. 2599 hits), and Dave Parker (40.0 WAR, 2700+ hits). Same guy. I loathe the Red Sox but, as much as it pains me to say so, Evans is a way better player than any of these guys and is far more deserving of the HOF.

Ken Boyer and Graig Nettles are basically the same guy. Boyer had a better average, Nettles had more pop. 3B is an underrepresented position, so I would be OK with Boyer if Nettles goes too.

Tommy John is a participation trophy, as is Tiant; David Cone, Rick Reuschel and Kevin Brown had similar careers to them. John's wins are an accumulation stat; he averaged 13 per year. It's the Don Drysdale-Milt Pappas argument all over again.

Evans was never THE man on teams that had Yaz and Rice and Fisk (and Lynn was more popular), then Boggs. I think that hurt his public perception.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Evans was never THE man on teams that had Yaz and Rice and Fisk (and Lynn was more popular), then Boggs. I think that hurt his public perception.

My favorite player growing up. Never flashy, never egotistical, never sought the spotlight. Just went out there and played. A kind, low-key, private family man.

I'd like to see him inducted but there are definitely so many more who need to go in before him--not to mention SO many less.

[Scocs]

I don’t understand how Donaldson and Harris get voted on again after a couple of years have past, without looking at a few other noteworthy Negro League candidates like Lundy, Marcelle, Beckwith, Oms, Poles, Winters, etc.

It’s really infuriating!

[bbcard1]

The HOF is probably hopelessly screwed up. It is now a collection of players that were at worst pretty good but not including some that are considerably better than many in the hall. And the only player ever admitted with 100% of the vote was a fricken relief pitcher.

[packs]

Am I the only one who feels like the HOF's own ridiculous ballots are going to kill the committees they established?

If no one from this list gets in again this year, what is the point of continuing this era so that the same group of people can be voted on again and again? There wouldn't seem to be a purpose and then the entire sentiment behind this process is useless.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Me I would vote for Tommy John #1

His pitching stats should get him in AND he has a surgery named for him. That covers the fame.

Honestly, any one on this list is worthy and it would be a shame to have either Allen or Tiant go in after they passed when we could have gotten them in when still alive

Rich

I would suggest that Tommy John would be lower on everybody’s list without Lewis Yocum, who was instrumental in developing the “Tommy John operation”.
Lew and I were surgical residents together at Northwestern. Considering the longevity and increased use of the procedure today, why not put Dr. Yocum on the Hall of Fame ballot. He also served as the team physician for the Angels for several decades, so he could have an Angel’s hat and a stethoscope on his HOF plaque. I do believe his procedure has made a significant contribution to history of baseball and every hall of fame needs a doctor. Dr. Jobe’s clinic is often associated with the Tommy John procedure, but Jobe gave his associate, Yocum, the bulk of the credit for its development.

Unfortunately Lew passed away in 2013.

[packs]

I would prefer Tommy John's surgeons get in before he does.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by packs

Am I the only one who feels like the HOF's own ridiculous ballots are going to kill the committees they established?

If no one from this list gets in again this year, what is the point of continuing this era so that the same group of people can be voted on again and again? There wouldn't seem to be a purpose and then the entire sentiment behind this process is useless.

Yes, it's just push, push, push these same tired names, while for reasons nobody seems clear on, a long list of truly deserving candidates are ignored.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Yes, it's just push, push, push these same tired names, while for reasons nobody seems clear on, a long list of truly deserving candidates are ignored.

+1 could not agree more

[BioCRN]

If Lou Whitaker doesn't get in on next year's modern ballot then what are they even doing over there?

Kenny Lofton better at least be nominated. Him being a 1st-ballot-and-done rejection is an insult to those that want to ignore all the roiders. The one dude that most likely didn't roid, played against roiders, got cheated out of All-Star appearances by roiders, and still performed like he did for his full career...what the hell?

[Exhibitman]

Yeah, Lofton's treatment was a travesty. His skill set simply was not appreciated. In 1993, he had 148 singles and 81 walks. He also had 70 stolen bases. Basically, he turned a third of his 1st base reaches into doubles. Not too shabby in the field either w/4 GGs.

[deweyinthehall]

As my handle suggests, I believe Evans earned enshrinement.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am prepared.

[KJA]

Originally Posted by packs

Am I the only one who feels like the HOF's own ridiculous ballots are going to kill the committees they established?

If no one from this list gets in again this year, what is the point of continuing this era so that the same group of people can be voted on again and again? There wouldn't seem to be a purpose and then the entire sentiment behind this process is useless.

There needs to be a limit on the amount of times a player can appear on era's ballot.

[packs]

I wonder if Donaldson's potential election would open the door for a player like Perucho Cepeda. Both had mythical careers largely outside of the Negro Leagues, though Donaldson did spend some years with the Monarchs.

[Bpm0014]

Was lucky enough to pick up this Vic Harris Type I a couple of years ago hoping he got in eventually. 1939 I believe.

[Bpm0014]

Harris back

[triwak]

Fantastic item, Brendan!!

[JollyElm]

I emptied my savings and went b*lls to the wall loading up on his rookie cards, so I'm ready to rake in the dough!!!!!

1973vicharris.jpg

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I emptied my savings and went b*lls to the wall loading up on his rookie cards, so I'm ready to rake in the dough!!!!!

Attachment 639896

That's fantastic! I need to go through my boxes and stacks. Maybe I have one too!

[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.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

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.

I point to M.Rivera's 141 innings of post-season greatness any time anyone thinks that it's b/s that a reliever is the only unanimous vote HOF'r. Sure, it's not supposed to factor in a huge way, but you can't ignore 141 innings of 0.70 ERA and 0.76 WHIP vs the best of that season.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Before all this WAR got bandied about, who can honestly say they heard anybody mention Bobby Grich in any capacity for decades? Decades. Apart from infrequent paid autograph signings, his was a name that just never hit my radar, and I do this stuff full time. It's not exactly a benchmark of greatness when a guy is almost completely forgotten about when he played so recently. Then again, Harold Baines...same thing, minus the super high WAR. I can't wait for the next post-1980 ballot! Andy Van Slyke? Lloyd Moseby? George Bell? Nothing will elicit an element of surprise at this point.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Before all this WAR got bandied about, who can honestly say they heard anybody mention Bobby Grich in any capacity for decades?

Rick Reuschel strongly agrees.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Before all this WAR got bandied about, who can honestly say they heard anybody mention Bobby Grich in any capacity for decades? Decades. Apart from infrequent paid autograph signings, his was a name that just never hit my radar, and I do this stuff full time. It's not exactly a benchmark of greatness when a guy is almost completely forgotten about when he played so recently. Then again, Harold Baines...same thing, minus the super high WAR. I can't wait for the next post-1980 ballot! Andy Van Slyke? Lloyd Moseby? George Bell? Nothing will elicit an element of surprise at this point.

Because we know how infallible crowds are at assessing the true value of things.

Also, WAR rates Baines as almost exactly average for his career - his WAR is not exactly "super high."

[FrankWakefield]

I agree with Alan about reading The Politics of Glory. First edition, please. For me it was a troubling read because I'm a Cardinals fan...

I also recommend The Historical Baseball Abstract, by Bill James, First edition!!!

And, on the heels of those two reads, look at The Fix is In, by Daniel Ginsburg. Rule 21. That's the rule about gambling on baseball.

I've praised these books before, several places. Maybe more than once, here. As for The Politics of Glory changing it's title, my thinking is that the newer title is more warm and fuzzy, less accusatory than the original title. I thought they should not have changed it. too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.baseballprojection.com/special/grich.htm

It's not just WAR.

Very in depth here:
https://www.cooperstowncred.com/bobb...ame-candidate/

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by John1941

I'd be fine with all the major leaguers listed by MuncieNolePAZ (I had said ballot but looking back Jaffe said the ballot won't be released until tomorrow) except Garvey and Parker - their basic stats far outstrip their overall value.

I don't think Vic Harris belongs. Harris was an outfielder with an okay glove and a career OPS+ of 112. BR places his career value at 10.6 WAR for 645 games - and that's assuming that the Negro Leagues were 100% as good as the white major leagues, which I am skeptical of. I think he'd be close to the the worst hall of famer if inducted - probably better than Tommy McCarthy but not better than many others.

I have an open mind about Donaldson - he's an unusual case and I'd have to study his career deeply to be sure either way. His brief time in BLK/NLB is uneven - he seems to have been very good in 1918 and 1919 but undistinguished in other years. Because of that, the case for his greatness would have to depend heavily on his time pitching in the semi-pros. He dominated there, but a thorough study of the quality of his opposition would have to be made before we can know what that really means.

Harris is generally viewed as the best Negro League manager ever. I don't believe anyone sees him as getting in for his play specifically.

Whether he is the best Negro League candidate is a question, but he is a worthy one.

Donaldson played many of his games before the official leagues existed, but was a 1952 Courier 1st team member, which is a significant statement.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by John1941

Also, WAR rates Baines as almost exactly average for his career - his WAR is not exactly "super high."

Yes. I was saying exactly that.

[tod41]

Thanks to LaRussa and his buddies, the floodgates are open. With Baines in, the case can be made for so many players now. Dave Parker? What about Fred Lynn?

[packs]

Bobby Grich can get into the WAR HOF anytime he likes but it’s odd to portray him as one of the best players of all time. He was largely pedestrian in his career, no counting stats to speak of, and even the article about him seems to be steeped in WAR and then finding reasons to support his status vis-a-vis his WAR. I didn’t find it very compelling.

I just feel like he’s always been the equivalent of an underground band where guys like to see if you know who they are. Talked about like they were great. Then you put the album on and you get a lot of “you had to be there” stories because no one with fresh ears is impressed and even the guys who thought they liked them are having second thoughts.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by tod41

Thanks to LaRussa and his buddies, the floodgates are open. With Baines in, the case can be made for so many players now. Dave Parker? What about Fred Lynn?

I hear this claim, and LaRussa has helped some questionable players get in. But this is not the first time this has happened. Frank Frisch helped some players get in that were far, far less qualified.

The Hall with survive.

It is a flawed process, but it is still the best Hall in sports.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Bobby Grich can get into the WAR HOF anytime he likes but it’s odd to portray him as one of the best players of all time. He was largely pedestrian in his career, no counting stats to speak of, and even the article about him seems to be steeped in WAR and then finding reasons to support his status vis-a-vis his WAR. I didn’t find it very compelling.

I just feel like he’s always been the equivalent of an underground band where guys like to see if you know who they are. Talked about like they were great. Then you put the album on and you get a lot of “you had to be there” stories because no one with fresh ears is impressed and even the guys who thought they liked them are having second thoughts.

But you make it sound like WAR is some irrelevant number, rather than a metric developed by experts to capture excellence that counting stats might not otherwise recognize. What's your issue with WAR? And it can't be, it must suck if it thinks Grich was great, that's circular.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But you make it sound like WAR is some irrelevant number, rather than a metric developed by experts to capture excellence that counting stats might not otherwise recognize. What's your issue with WAR? And it can't be, it must suck if it thinks Grich was great, that's circular.

At the very least, it would be nice if the new metric would more greatly compliment a player's previous recognition. If a player is almost entirely forgotten about when there are so many alive who saw him play, that speaks more to me than anything a new metric has to say. Yes, Grich won a few awards, but he never led the league with any dizzying stats. In fact, the only three instances where he did so was once in games played (who cares) and once in HR with a whopping 22. (Side note: 22 HR led the league?!). Oh, and WAR one season, a stat which had yet to be created. He retired nearly 40 years ago and it always felt like his name was lost to time. Even if he had been moderately superb, logic would dictate that he'd have been mentioned with exponentially more frequency. But all was quiet for so long until WAR came about, and BOOM, he's a legend?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

At the very least, it would be nice if the new metric would more greatly compliment a player's previous recognition. If a player is almost entirely forgotten about when there are so many alive who saw him play, that speaks more to me than anything a new metric has to say. Yes, Grich won a few awards, but he never led the league with any dizzying stats. In fact, the only three instances where he did so was once in games played (who cares) and once in HR with a whopping 22. (Side note: 22 HR led the league?!). Oh, and WAR one season, a stat which had yet to be created. He retired nearly 40 years ago and it always felt like his name was lost to time. Even if he had been moderately superb, logic would dictate that he'd have been mentioned with exponentially more frequency. But all was quiet for so long until WAR came about, and BOOM, he's a legend?

If you could show that WAR in general is a bad metric, that would make sense. If you can just point to one example where it rates highly a player not previously thought to rate high, then to me what's much more logical is to say this player was underappreciated in his day for the less than obvious things he did. What I don't think you can do is cherry pick. Oh WAR is great generally, and I agree with it except in this one case. Can it really be that it's a great metric but it just completely fails in one single case? Seems unlikely.

So again, I think one has to make out a case against WAR generally. For example, it overrates the value of walks. It overrates the importance of fielding. Etc.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I am only saying that its application doesn't have any power in my mind to suddenly turn a somewhat above average player into a legend.