2009 BBW Hall of Fame Vote

[Archive]

Posted By: KBR

Andy,

That was the type of message that I orginally wanted to post, but was too lazy to look up all of the stats. If those stats do not confirm Rice has as one of the best of his era, then I do not know what to say.

Also, to compare the lifetime stats of Sam Rice and Jim Rice is difficult to do. They were two totally differen types of players playing in two totally different eras.

I think that it is most helpful to compare the players against their contemporaries, which is what Andy did so well.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Schwarz

IMO, anyone who needs a case built for them to be in the HOF should not be in. Only the "Best of the Best" should get in and those should be obvious selections like Greg Maddux and Ken Griffey Jr. If the BBWAA does not vote in a player only 5 seasons after his retirement when his career is still fresh in the minds of the voters, he should not get in, after say 5 tries. If he was not dominant enough to be voted in after 5 tries, then he was not one of the "Best of the Best". He was probably a very good player, but not a HOFer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

I would agree with your theory if the voters were impartial. Many people believe (myself included) that the main reason that Rice has not been voted into the hall is that he was not liked by the media, the very same people that are doing the voting.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Jeff-five years--great idea.

Also do away with the veterans committee who further cheapen the honor.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

One flaw with advocating a candidate for the HOF is to crunch stats to show that a certain player was in the top 3 in such and such catagories in a 4 year period, or 6 year span... That assumes that there's always a HOFer out there on the field somewhere, we need only find him.

I'm ok with Rice getting in. He was a solid player for several years. Many in the BBWA suffer from rectal craniums, and until they get their heads out they're incapable of making consistent, sound HOF decisions. They get some right, they've really screwed up on some and seriously diluted the Hall. It is now past salvation, it is hopeless.

The Veterans' Committee righted a few wrongs of the BBWA... and they also committed a few wrongs of their own. All in all, I'd rather the system keep a Veterans' Committee, the damage they do is less than the oversights they correct.

Bill James' FIRST book about the HOF, The Politics of Glory, THAT is the book to read to get some insight into what happened to the HOF. Bad reading for folks who want to cling to their biases, misconceptions, and comfortable opinions. A great book if you really want to know about the Hall.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken Wirt

I'm actually one of the rare folks who believes that the HOF voting system has worked pretty well through the years. As problems arose, they adapted, which is completely appropriate. I also am a firm believer in the Veterans committee, realizing that it has changed formats many times. You simply must have some way to judge players with the benefit of hindsight and historical context. And to the idea that the Hall has somehow been diluted, remember the mathematics: only about 300 members divided by the total number of players through the 150 or so years of the game. Compared to other major sporting Halls-of-Fame, Baseball's is by far the most exclusive. This is why I am a HOF card collector.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

In fairness, when doing that math... HOF players, almost without exception, have 10 or more years of play. So do that math with players with careers of 10 or more years. Don't dilute with the one day, or one season wonders...

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

1. The writers have not always been unbaised or intelligent in their decisionmaking. No one has ever been unanimously elected. That means some dunce did not vote for Ted Williams, Je DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Tom Seaver, Johnny Bench, Tony Gwynn, Stan Musial, Warren Spahn, etc., when each of them first appeared on the ballot.

2. Sometimes a long delay is needed to understand the historical context of the players. Those who played in a mid-1960s and those who played in the late 1990s were and are difficult calls because of how certain developments skewed the game. And what about the relievers who defined the position; there has been a lot of difficulty placing guys like Sutter and Gossage in context.

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

Gwynn and Brett "couldn't crack the everyday lineups their rookie years like Puck"

Todd, I'm all for Puckett being in the Hall but that is a misleading statement and not helpful to his case for being enshrined. Yes, Puckett was a starter the minute he joined the Twins but that was when he was 24 years old. True, Brett did not start in what you consider his rookie year when he had a cup of coffee at age twenty but he was a starter in his true rookie year when he was only 21. Gwynn was in between the two becoming a full time starter in the middle of his second season when he was 23.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Not sure I'd call them dunces, since no one, not even Ruth and Cobb
Wagner etc etc etc have ever received 100% of the vote, they do it out of tradition.


Also, in all the votes ever taken, only 20 or 21 have even received 90%

Around 10 players have gotten 95% or better, quite a small club.


I think Seaver had the best at 98.5 or something like that.


At one time active players could receive votes.


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Puckett has no business being in the Hall... emotion and sympathy got him in. Both of which will prompt someone to blast me for posting this.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

still haven't received a response to my post in March, Frank, which I cut and pasted for you here too. That's OK everyone has a right to their opinion, even if it is ignorant.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

Howard, I didn't mean to belittle either Brett or Gwynn--just meant to say you can throw out those partial rookie seasons they put in when looking at their first twelve years and Puckett still beats their numbers.

The ONLY rationale for keeping Puckett out is that his career total raw numbers don't reach prolific heights. That's because he only played twelve years. Look at anyone's twelve year numbers, especially from Puckett's era but most others as well (which is why I made the comparison to Rose), and Puckett absolutely stands out, even among several in the Hall. If you don't like the raw totals, change the eligibility rules so that a player must play more than 12 years. Otherwise, deal with it. Look at Kiner and Hack Wilson and you'll likely get the same debate, minus the sympathy argument that Frank incorrectly relies upon when giving us his "informed" opinion. BTW, HAck Wilson, he of the 191 RBI record season, has fewer career RBI than Puckett.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

I wish the man well with his eyesight problems, but that was a sympathy factor. He was abusive to women, not really role model material there...

He had a short career, and had the fortune to be the 'exciting' 'spark plug' component of some good ball teams that would not have won as often as they did, nor won the 1987 WS, if they'd played in a 'normal' ballpark.


Here's a link to his page at Baseball Reference Dot Com
http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/puckeki01.shtml

They list comparable players as Don Mattingly, Cecil Cooper, Carl Furillo, Kiki Cuyler, Cesar Cedeno, Tony Oliva, Minnie Minoso, Joe Medwick, Felipe Alou, Bobby Abreu, Jo-Jo Moore, Frank Demaree, Farmer Weaver, Mike Greenwell, and Al Oliver. Good players, a couple of HOFers with Cuyler and Medwick. But ya know, they have Kirby like a dozen good non-HOF players.

Kirby was a very good ballplayer for half a dozen years. He was a good player another half a dozen. He doesn't fit my concept of someone for the HOF. And Todd, I guess I must be wrong about this since you've been waiting since March.... Two or three years ago I opined about how Puckett and Carter and some others have no business in the Hall. I reckon I need to post it more often. Peace.

[Archive]

Posted By: Stephen Mitchell

This contribution addresses a post or two somewhere "up the line." It also has application, generally, to a few others.

We baseball card collectors are sometimes long on looking at the fronts of our cards and at best knowing some of the stats on the backs. I'm all for induction for Jim Rice but it's Sam who needs a little defending although you'd think a guy with his credentials would need no defense - particularly from me.

Let's start with some stats, though: Rice was a 25 and 1/2 year-old rookie when he took the field in August 1915. He would still play all or parts of 20 major league seasons. In that time he NEVER batted below .293. He made 2,987 base hits (498 of which were doubles, 184 triples) and six years made more than 200 hits. He scored 1,514 runs, stole 351 bases and 15 times hit above .300.

Furthermore, he played his first five years in the deadball era and 19 of his 20 seasons for the Washington Senators in a stadium known for its size and, until its dimensions were reduced, not for its home run hitters.

On a personal level, Rice did not have an easy go of it. In 1912, as he was starting out in professional ball, his wife, two children and his father were killed in a tornado. Rice dropped out of baseball and voluntarily joined the navy, serving 1913-14. Later, as he restarted his career, America entered World War I and he was drafted back into service, missing all but 7 games of the 1918 season.

He was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1963 by the much-maligned Committee on Veterans. (Even the Baseball Writers Association of America could not stoop to elect this man who fell 13 hits shy of the vaunted 3,000.)

There is no doubt that Sam Rice is no Babe Ruth. (Sam once struck out 9 times in a 616 AB season. Nine whiffs for The Babe was a good two week stretch, and for some moderns, a doubleheader.) But Sam Rice belongs with the greatest ballplayers of all-time since, in my view, the game should produce a few hundred Hall of Famers among the many thousands who made it to the pinnacle of their profession: the major leagues. And Jim Rice belongs, too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

Glad to see you finally offered something to support your position on Puckett, however much I disagree with it. First, if you look at you baseball reference.com "comparable players", you'll see that all but one of them played far more seasons than Puckett--most played 17 or 18 seasons. Only Ducky Medwick had more hits, and he played 18 seasons. Cuyler had fewer in 17 years. BTW, however you may want to rely on this little feature of baseballreference.com, I find it interesting to note that they list Indian Bob Johnson and Moises Alou as similar players to Joe Dimaggio. Next time you see Moises roaming the OF next year, post here on the similarities you observe between him and Joey D. Personally, I just don't see it, but if baseballreference.com says it's so, it must be true.

Finally, thanks for the little cheap shot at the '87 Twins and the Metrodome. The dome has been mischaracterized as a "Homer" dome for years--check the numbers if you wish. It is instead built for speed, the kind of venue where a team with Vince Coleman, Ozzie Smith, Willie McGee, Tommy Herr and Terry Pendelton would flourish. Oops, wait, they couldn't win a single game there in four chances, hmmm, how'd that happen? Yeah, I wonder what it would have been like if Puckett had to play in a "normal" stadium, indeed I do.

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

Here's an article on Sam Rice that appeared in the July 19, 1993 issue of Sports Illustrated - well worth reading for those who don't know a whole lot about him.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1138465/1/index.htm

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

Careful, Todd, you seem to be providing way too many facts.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Greg,

Thank You for the Sam Rice link. I remember reading that article in 1993 and it has always stuck with me over the years. It is probably my favorite article.

[Archive]

Posted By: Stephen Mitchell

Greg... It's a great article. Thank you.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Well ya know if Kirby plays 17 years then his averages start to dwindle...

And I didn't call it a homer dome. It did hold the noise better than Busch Stadium held the heat, though. Realistically, a BS place to play a World Series.

I'm comfortable with Kirby getting into the Hall whenever he buys a ticket.

[Archive]

Posted By: D. Bergin

Puckett has almost identical statistics to Mattingly in nearly the same amount of AB's and Games played minus the MVP award Mattingly holds. As much of a Yankee fan as I am, Donnie Baseball is not close to being a HOF'er.

Albert Belle's career ended just as abruptly as Puckett's and at a younger age but he wasn't exactly a sympathetic figure. Somebody go check his stats and then let me know when the push for Albert Belle belongs in the HOF begins.

Jim Rice put up an 11 year run in which his only competition as best hitter in the game came from the National League (Mike Schmidt).

Top 5 in MVP voting for 6 years. Someone explain to me how somebody can do this and not be considered the "Best of the Best" of his era?

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony S.

Frank,

I don't think he'll be buying any tickets anymore.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

Wow, I almost forgot about Albert "don't call me Joey" Belle. Based on his career stats I think Belle warrants induction in to the HOF, based on how well he got along with the BBWs I doubt we'll see him inducted any time soon. You have to admit that Joey knew how to swing the lumber. He was a feared hitter in his day (which wasn't too long ago).

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I'm not here to carry the torch for Donnie Baseball or Joey Belle, but would consider their numbers to be HOF worthy or very very close. Still, Donnie finished with 150 or so fewer hits than Puck, which is not really identical--it's nearly a full season's worth, and he played an extra year. His biggest knock, besides those who insist that you must reach certain raw totals (even if it means you play 5 or more substandard, mediocre or even poor seasons to get there),is his lack of post-season star power--he only played in one October series. Puckett starred in two post seasons, and led his team to two rings. Mattingly, who I always loved to watch, played in only one divisional series. I suspect that difference came into play with the voters.

Hey, I've already put up Kirby's numbers vs. his contemporaries, including Mattingly. Forgot Robin Yount, the boy wonder who started about ten years earlier, but who still played several of the same seasons as Puck. Over the first dozen years of his career---generally considered to cover a player's prime, Yount had almost 450 fewer hits, 110 fewer runs, 185 fewer RBI and 61 fewer Home Runs than Puckett. So that makes Puckett's numbers stronger than Boggs, Brett, Gwynn, Mattingly, Sandberg, and Yount. It wouldn't take huge effort to find HOFers from other eras whose numbers don't match Puckett either--Kaline and Yaz had fewer hits and fewer RBIs---Puckett actually AVERAGED more hits per season (192) than Yaz ever reached (his high was 191).

All in all I do not see how once can fairly say that Puckett's HOF appearance is meritless or that he's unworthy of it.