Talk about Shore, etc. made me wonder: What SHOULD keep a guy out of the HOF?

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

1. Kiner did not get in because of his broadcasting--that was Uecker. Kiner was admitted because he led the league in HR 7 straight times and averaged 36.9 HR and 101.5 RBI per year for his career. If there had been a DH in the 1940's and 1950's this guy would have been the model.

2. Rizzuto definitely was helped by his broadcasting career and Yankee association, but far more so by Pee Wee Reese's induction. Bill James says he deserved a gold glove in 41-42-46-50; Reese in 41-42-48. Rizzuto was the best player in 1950 when he won the MVP; Reese never had such a year but lasted longer than Rizzuto (played about 500 more games). Reese seemed to have more pop and drive in more runs but played in a bandbox compared to Rizzuto. Rizzuto had a slightly higher average. Also, one cannot overlook the number of pennant and WS winning teams he played on. Like it or not, the success of your team in winning does factor into the equation. Look at the beef about Nolan Ryan.

3. It is utterly incomprehensible to me that writers would not unanimously vote to induct certain players when they become eligible. I cannot fathom why Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Tom Seaver, Johnny Bench, Steve Carlton and Bob Gibson (to name a few) were not unanimous first ballot inductees. Who in their right mind could advance a legitimate rationale for not voting for these guys? For that matter, who could legitimately advance a reason to make them wait for years to be eligible? Hockey has a very good induction idea that baseball should copy. When an obvious HOFer retires (Gretzky, Lemieux, etc.) the board of governors of the hall waives the waiting period and instantly inducts the man.