Baseball Hall of Fame Vote

[packs]

Even if you don't think Rizzuto was a HOF player there is no doubt at all that he was a HOF Broadcaster. Whether you call him a player or a broadcaster is semantics but the bottom line is he IS a HOFer.

Dave Concepcion is not. He wasn't the fielder Vizquel or Smith are/were and has no record in the booth or a lasting contribution to baseball. Not to metion Rizzuto lost 4 YEARS in the absolute prime of his career to the war.

[Fred]

For those of you that like Larry Walker you guys gotta love Todd Helton:

Split

                  Home     Away

Games         1039       1015

AB              3688       3637

Runs            826         503

2B               296         258

3B                26             9

HR               212         135

RBI              788         520    

B.A.             .354        .291

SlgAve         .620        .478 

OPS            1.071       .869

I suppose, even with the Denver bias he's still a pretty good hitting machine.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Fred

For those of you that like Larry Walker you guys gotta love Todd Helton:

I suppose, even with the Denver bias he's still a pretty good hitting machine.

I was joking before when I blew off the Colorado factor. But yes, Walker, Gallaraga, Burks, Castilla, Helton, Holliday, Tulo. I can't help it. I've always been a fan of those Colorado sluggers. Helton power splits shouldn't be that different. Helton only played 5 seasons pre-humidor.. However, they did build that stadium with a deep outfield to account for the pre-humidor power surge. So nowadays, it's a great park for doubles and average.. Walker and Helton are still hall worthy in my book though, and Tulo's gotten off to a great start.

[sportscardpete]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I was joking before when I blew off the Colorado factor. But yes, Walker, Gallaraga, Burks, Castilla, Helton, Holliday, Tulo. I can't help it. I've always been a fan of those Colorado sluggers. Helton power splits shouldn't be that different. Helton only played 5 seasons pre-humidor.. However, they did build that stadium with a deep outfield to account for the pre-humidor power surge. So nowadays, it's a great park for doubles and average.. Walker and Helton are still hall worthy in my book though, and Tulo's gotten off to a great start.

Gallaraga was one of my favorite players... i wish he had better stats.. To come back from what he went through and dominate is astounding.

I think Helton is well on his way to the HoF.

[abothebear]

"My point is that no one considers Finley or Reuschel to be HOFers and rightfully so. Why all the love for Morris?"

Because it isn't the Hall of Statistics.

[David W]

Back a few posts to the strike/lockout comment.

Harold Baines would be a hall of famer except for the 1981 and 1994/95 missed games, as he would certainly have made 3000 hits and 400 HR's.

McGriff gets to 500 homers without 94/95.

Neither is likely to get in......

[kcohen]

In the Rizzuto v Conception debate, I find the contention that the latter played against superior competition to be highly questionable.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by David W

Back a few posts to the strike/lockout comment.

Harold Baines would be a hall of famer except for the 1981 and 1994/95 missed games, as he would certainly have made 3000 hits and 400 HR's.

McGriff gets to 500 homers without 94/95.

Neither is likely to get in......

Completely agreed. McGriff played 50 post-season games, around the same as he missed because of the 94/95 strike. In those 50 games he hit 10 HR's...That would've put him at 503. Gehrig coincindentally, also had 10 post-season HR's. That would also put him at 503. Counting post-season. Sam Rice goes over 3000 hits.

Those I believe are the only 3 players that go over major milestones(300 W, 500 HR, 3000 K or H) if you were to count post-season stats..

[Irwin Fletcher]

Originally Posted by abothebear

"My point is that no one considers Finley or Reuschel to be HOFers and rightfully so. Why all the love for Morris?"

Because it isn't the Hall of Statistics.

That may be true, but I'm not aware of any other way to evaluate a player's performance and, just as importantly, compare a player's performance to that of his peers.

[Kenny Cole]

I would suggest that watching the person play is another, better, way. Doesn't work for the old timers, obviously, but having watched a person play and having access to the player's stats is better than simply crunching the numbers IMO.

[yanks12025]

Going by stats Jackie Robinson shouldn't be in the hall of fame. He just had basic stats. I know he didnt start his career till 28 and is the first black player in mlb.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by packs

Even if you don't think Rizzuto was a HOF player there is no doubt at all that he was a HOF Broadcaster. Whether you call him a player or a broadcaster is semantics but the bottom line is he IS a HOFer.

Broadcasters aren't HOF'ers. If you look at the list of guys in the HOF'ers, there are no broadcasters on that list (as broadcasters). Broadcasters have a separate wing and are given the Ford Frick Award but they aren't HOF'ers.

Tabe

[mr2686]

Broadcasters aren't HOF'ers. If you look at the list of guys in the HOF'ers, there are no broadcasters on that list (as broadcasters). Broadcasters have a separate wing and are given the Ford Frick Award but they aren't HOF'ers.

You are technically correct, however, for the most part they are still called HOFers, and just because they are part of the broadcaster wing or the print media wing, does not diminish their accomplishments or status in the HOF museum. As a side note, many collectors that collect HOF autographs do not collect the broadcasters or sports writers, but some do and they do make for some interesting additions for the HOF collection especially when some of those members were also on some championship teams, like Jerry Coleman, Joe Garagiola, Tony Kubek, etc.

[howard38]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[packs]

We're still dealing with semantics which is what I acknowledged in my post. Rizzuto is a HOFer no matter how you slice it. He belongs in the HOF whether you personally decide it should be as a broadcaster or a player. Dave Concepcion does not belong in the HOF at all.

[Chris-Counts]

Personally, I would like to see more — and not less — players get inducted. But no matter how you slice it, if you go by stats alone, Rizzuto is a borderline candidate as a player. I put him slightly below Pee Wee Reese and slightly above Maury Wills and Dave Concepcion. People can talk all day long about intangibles, but that's how Rabbit Maranville and Bobby Wallace got in. A debate about intangibles will never be resolved. I'd take Alan Trammel or Cecil Travis over any of the previously mentioned shortstops. Travis — with his .314 lifetime average — gets short-changed because he didn't play long enough, but he also was never the same after the Battle of the Bulge. That should count for something ...

[spec]

Originally Posted by mr2686

You are technically correct, however, for the most part they are still called HOFers, and just because they are part of the broadcaster wing or the print media wing, does not diminish their accomplishments or status in the HOF museum. As a side note, many collectors that collect HOF autographs do not collect the broadcasters or sports writers, but some do and they do make for some interesting additions for the HOF collection especially when some of those members were also on some championship teams, like Jerry Coleman, Joe Garagiola, Tony Kubek, etc.

Clarifying further, there is no writers wing nor a broadcasters wing at the Baseball Hall of Fame. Though writers and broadcasters perpetuate the myth by referring to their honored colleagues as Hall of Fame writers or broadcasters, the annual winners of the Spink (writers) and Frick (broadcasters) awards for lifetime contributions to the game do not have plaques in the Hall; instead their names are engraved on a plaque at the Hall's library that is much more reminiscent of the Employee of the Month plaque at your local supermarket that the plaques in the Hall. These facts are not stated to diminish the accomplishments of these men, just to set the record straight.
Bob Richardson

[bbcard1]

I think, here's the scary part...without looking it up...I would put Harold Baines in far before Edgar Martinez. There was a time Baines was the most feared hitter in the game...I don't think Edgar ever achieved that.

[sycks22]

I know it more current, but ESPN just did a write up about determining the top players in every 5 year period starting in the '70's. It's crazy how many times Boggs is in there.

To the guy who wrote about wanting to see more players instead of less in the hall, doesn't that water down the HOF? Shouldn't only the top players make it instead of just average players? When I think of the hall I think Cobb / Wagner / Mays and when guys like Sutter and Rice make it the HOF loses its luster.

[glynparson]

I feel the hall of fame is there to tell the story of the sport and therefore believe in inducting more players, and for reasons other than just stats, but also in what they added to the story of the game.

[Chris-Counts]

"To the guy who wrote about wanting to see more players instead of less in the hall, doesn't that water down the HOF? Shouldn't only the top players make it instead of just average players?"

Pete, As far as I can tell, there are no "average" players in the Hall of Fame, unless they got there for something else. There are a couple dozen players, though, who were essentially excellent players, but not worthy of being in the Hall of Fame. Most of these guys played in the 1920s and 1930s, and many were friends or teammates of Frankie Frisch, who played a key role in their election. So adding post-WWII players who were as good or better than these borderline inductees does nothing to dilute the existing standards of the Hall of Fame.

More importantly, in my mind, is the need for baseball to engage future generations of fans. A huge part of baseball's charm and popularity is its rich and colorful history. Baseball fans love to compare their heroes with those of earlier eras.

How do you explain to the casual fan — who's already saturated with news of steroid scandals, ownership scandals and a bumbling troll of a commissioner — that his heroes or his dad's heroes, guys like Tony Oliva, Dick Allen, Minnie Minoso, Luis Tiant, Alan Trammell, are not worthy of being in the Hall of Fame, but Ross Youngs, Highpockets Kelly, Dave Bancroft, Travis Jackson, Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines are good enough? To the casual fan who looks at the numbers, it just looks like incompetence or cronyism (which it basically is). Hardly the stuff that makes new fans want to learn more about the game's history — or care about its future ...

Now how is it that Jim Rice isn't worthy of being in the Hall of Fame? His stats look a heck of lot more impressive when you take away the steroid-induced stats that followed his career. I watched a lot of baseball in the 1970s and I'm not convinced there was a hitter in that decade that pitchers feared more. His OPS, by the way, is slightly higher than Reggie Jackson's. Nobody questions Reggie's merits. Just the same way nobody would ever question Roberto Clemente's merits, even though Minoso — who people will argue against all day long — has a higher OPS AND was likely as good a fielder ...

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

I think, here's the scary part...without looking it up...I would put Harold Baines in far before Edgar Martinez. There was a time Baines was the most feared hitter in the game...I don't think Edgar ever achieved that.

There was never a time when Baines was the "most feared hitter in the game". Never. His best years - 1982 to 1985 - were FAR surpassed by Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly. And Wade Boggs. After that, you've got Canseco and McGwire. And then Frank Thomas.

My problem with Baines is that he was a DH who really never put up great numbers. Lots of very good numbers but nothing GREAT. I suppose you could make a case for his .304/29/94 in 1984 or his .309/22/113 in 1985. But does that in any way compare to Edgar Martinez winning 2 batting titles (hitting .327 or higher 5 times), 145 RBI in 2000 (6 seasons over 100 RBI), and career OPS+ of 147 (vs 120 for Baines)? I don't think so.

Baines wins in longevity but, in every other way, Edgar was the superior player.

Tabe

[Orioles1954]

What is wrong with having very good numbers over a very long period of time? In baseball history, how many players have played at least 20 years like Baines? Look at his comps on baseball reference. There are 5 Hall of Famers including Perez, Kaline and others. With Martinez....there are none.