Who Should Be in the Hall that isn't

[Brian-Chidester]

For an outfielder whose period was the post-deadball era of the 1920s and '30s, Kuyler struck me as a very good player, but like the Vada Pinsons or Domenic DiMaggios of their era, a solid case could be made that Kuyler was in no way dominant during his 15 years.

It took the Veteran's Committee to put him in there. I mean, hell, Don Mattingly had 2,100+ hits in 12 years, and at least six of those he was injured. I loved Donnie, but I don't think he is Hall worthy, and yes, a real case could be made that he was the most dominant hitter of the 1980s. I guess that's the beauty of this... we all get to have our opinion.

[Brian-Chidester]

As to the Albert Belle issue, I'm actually one of those who thinks he should be in the Hall. He had 381 home runs in less than 12 full seasons, during a great era for the Indians. As far as I know, there have been no accusations of steroids or enhancing drugs for Belle. His strikeouts were surprisingly low for a power hitter, his averages and RBIs were consistently great. Huge slugging percentages were great, and even a few 700+ at-bat years.

I remember seeing him playing in Reading with the Canton-Akron team in 1989 or '90. The crowd taunted him ridiculously all game. In the seventh or eighth inning, he hit a moon shot that they're still waiting to land. It was evident that he was going to be unbelievable.

[paul]

Someone mentioned Ray Schalk earlier. His induction used to make me scratch my head as well. But then I looked at his fielding stats, which are simply awesome. For a catcher, that seems important. Also, for what it's worth, his York Caramel card lists him as the greatest catcher ever.

[Brian-Chidester]

Catchers are judged differently, stats-wise. Dominance in their position is one that is considered pretty consistently by the writers.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by paul

Someone mentioned Ray Schalk earlier. His induction used to make me scratch my head as well. But then I looked at his fielding stats, which are simply awesome. For a catcher, that seems important. Also, for what it's worth, his York Caramel card lists him as the greatest catcher ever.

I mentioned Schalk before, and not knowing a great deal about him I very well could have been wrong in my assessment. When analyzing a player I haven't seen most of the time I attach the caviat that it is hard for me to argue a borderline HOFer either way if I never saw them play.

[TheBig6]

I second Larry Corcoran, he was the Sandy Koufax of the 19th Century
Short Career ...5 monster years

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Brian-Chidester

For an outfielder whose period was the post-deadball era of the 1920s and '30s, Kuyler struck me as a very good player, but like the Vada Pinsons or Domenic DiMaggios of their era, a solid case could be made that Kuyler was in no way dominant during his 15 years.

It took the Veteran's Committee to put him in there. I mean, hell, Don Mattingly had 2,100+ hits in 12 years, and at least six of those he was injured. I loved Donnie, but I don't think he is Hall worthy, and yes, a real case could be made that he was the most dominant hitter of the 1980s. I guess that's the beauty of this... we all get to have our opinion.

A personal test I use for players that were active when I was a kid: if I didn't get excited when I got their baseball card, while they were in their prime, why would I want them in the HOF? examples: Sutton, Niekro, Pinson... The same reasoning could be used for Bert "Be home by 11" Blyleven - no kid gave a flip about a Blyleven card, so no way he gets in the hall (from a kid's perspective). On the other hand, you wanted a Jim Rice or a Don Mattingly.

[prewarsports]

In the first 30-40 years of Baseball (1876-about 1915) defense was looked at with higher regard than offense. Hence we see a great deal of early Ballplayers who were considered the best players of their time by those who SAW them play and you can not equate that to stats.

In the 1890's for example if a player touched a baseball and did not record an out it went down as an error. That meant that the BEST Shortstops always led the league in erros for a while. Try translating that to stats by todays standards.

By contemporary accounts, the greatest all around player of the 19th century was Ned Williamson. People would look at his stats today and think it was a travesty that he was in. But if the Hall of Fame had started 30 years earlier, he would have been in its innagural class. Likewise, Bobby Wallace, Ray Schalk, Rabbit Maranville and Johnny Evers among others are not in the Hall for things you can simply evaluate on a piece of paper.

I always thought it was ironic that people will use Defense to keep you out of the Hall of Fame (Babe Herman, Pete Browning, and Edgar Martinez) but they will rarely use defense to justify your merits unless you are Ozzie Smith.

Rhys

[JrMacdaddy]

"Don Newcombe

Win–Loss record 149–90
Earned run average 3.56
Strikeouts 1,129

Career highlights and awards
4× All-Star selection (1949, 1950, 1951, 1955)
World Series... "

If you're going to give the argument that Newcombe should be in the HOF because he won a WS, shouldn't he have performed well in said World Series:

1949 23 BRO NL WS L NYY 0 2 .000 3.09
1955 29 BRO NL WS W NYY 0 1 .000 9.53
1956 30 BRO NL WS L NYY 0 1 .000 21.21
3 Seasons (3 Series) 0 4 .000 8.59 ERA

3 superb seasons and 2 good seasons do not make him a HOF'er.

[drdduet]

It's truly a shame that all the great defenders of the past--especially the pre-war era--are all but forgotten, as their greatness wasn't documented in the stats. Someone, truly great in the field and okay at bat, surely deserves the same/more attention as someone great at bat and okaypoor in the field.

Where have all the great catches gone? What did they look like? The great assists from the outfield? The amazing stabs, double plays, etc???

[GaryPassamonte]

Harry Stovey
Ross Barnes
Deacon White

[GaryPassamonte]

Also, Bill Dahlen.