Who are your Inner Circle Hall of Famers?

[Seven]

Many of the names have already been mentioned. I'm going to provide three Negro League Players that everyone should consider.

1. Satchel Paige
2. Josh Gibson
3. Oscar Charleston

Paige is very self explanatory IMO. His two seasons with the Indians, in 48 and 49 while he was ages 41 and 42 respectively gave a brief glimpse into his dominance as a pitcher. I have little doubt that if there was no Color Barrier, he'd be considered right there with Johnson, Grove, Mathewson and Young as one of the greatest pitchers to ever take the mound.

Concerning Gibson and Charleston. Gibson's dominance as a hitter was borderline unparalleled by anyone in his day, and the same goes for Charleston's prowess in both hitting and pitching.

[dmats33312]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Your analogy is flawed because the Sistine Chapel's fame is 100% due to the skill employed by the best artisan of the day... not because it was painted. Integration is a watershed moment in baseball because somebody did it.

If Rickey chooses to make Campanella the guy to break the color line, Robinson would be a borderline HOFer. Roy won 3 MVP awards and was the better player, and that's just one example.

This hot take is so off base. I guess Koufax was borderline too? 48.9 WAR in 12 years to 61.8 for Robinson 10 seasons starting at 28 having to deal with all the racist idiots through out. Come on man.

[familytoad]

If you make the circle big enough, a lot of players fit.

I think 5 or 6 batters is the right amount for my version of the circle.

Here they are, but I reserve the right to expand the circle. Pitchers will be included once I scan more cards. It's pretty hard to keep it to so few...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by dmats33312

This hot take is so off base. I guess Koufax was borderline too? 48.9 WAR in 12 years to 61.8 for Robinson 10 seasons starting at 28 having to deal with all the racist idiots through out. Come on man.

There's a whole thread about this

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Your analogy is flawed because the Sistine Chapel's fame is 100% due to the skill employed by the best artisan of the day... not because it was painted. Integration is a watershed moment in baseball because somebody did it.

If Rickey chooses to make Campanella the guy to break the color line, Robinson would be a borderline HOFer. Roy won 3 MVP awards and was the better player, and that's just one example.

I'm sure other artists could have done something amazing at the Sistine Chapel. Yes my analogy is not 100%.

What if Rickey choose someone who got fed up with being called the N word and took a bat to someone's head? How many years would that have set integration back.

Jackie did it. Quite well. Others woulda, coulda, shoulda. But we have to give kudos to the man who actually DID IT

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Your analogy is flawed because the Sistine Chapel's fame is 100% due to the skill employed by the best artisan of the day... not because it was painted. Integration is a watershed moment in baseball because somebody did it.

If Rickey chooses to make Campanella the guy to break the color line, Robinson would be a borderline HOFer. Roy won 3 MVP awards and was the better player, and that's just one example.

Both Campanella and Jackie Robinson were amazing players, but its hard to say that Campanella was a better player than Jackie simply because he won more MVPs. In 1951, Campanella's first MVP year he had a WAR of 6.9 Guess who actually led the Natioanl League? It was Jackie with a whopping 9.7.

In 1952, Campanella's second MVP year he had a WAR of 6.8. Jackie beat him out again with 6.9.

And in 1953, Campanella's third MVP year, his war was only 5.2, tied for 12th in the National League with Ted Kluszewski and teammate Don Newcombe.

The fact is that for some reason if you were a catcher, it was easier to win MVP in the 1950s. Just look at Yogi Berra's 3 MVPs including in '51 (WAR of 5.3), '54 (WAR of 5.3) and '55 (WAR of 4.5 which was 11th in the league).
https://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/...st-mvp-winners

Its hard to think of Jackie Robinson has having been underrated as a player, but he may very well have been.
https://www.mlb.com/news/most-underrated-hall-of-famers

[Seven]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

B
The fact is that for some reason if you were a catcher, it was easier to win MVP in the 1950s. Just look at Yogi Berra's 3 MVPs including in '51 (WAR of 5.3), '54 (WAR of 5.3) and '55 (WAR of 4.5 which was 11th in the league).

https://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/...st-mvp-winners

Mantle had one of the best seasons of his career in 1955, and fell victim to the voters valuing catchers more. I digress though, we didn't have the numbers back then that we do today.

On the subject of Gehrig because I've seen his name brought about a few times, to me he's inner circle, I don't know how anyone could disagree. The consensus greatest first basemen ever, if he didn't contract ALS he would've been a lock for 3000 Hits and 500 Home runs. Gehrig is believed to have started showing symptoms of it in 1938, which diminished his performance. Obviously by 1939 he was out of the league due to his illness. I'd wager that a healthy Gehrig would've probably continued to churn out 30 home run seasons well into his late 30's. He was in good shape and took care of his body. I think we can speculate that Gehrig would've hit in the ballpark of 600 homers for his career and had at least 3100 hits had he not tragically passed away.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Seven

Mantle had one of the best seasons of his career in 1955, and fell victim to the voters valuing catchers more. I digress though, we didn't have the numbers back then that we do today.

On the subject of Gehrig because I've seen his name brought about a few times, to me he's inner circle, I don't know how anyone could disagree. The consensus greatest first basemen ever, if he didn't contract ALS he would've been a lock for 3000 Hits and 500 Home runs. Gehrig is believed to have started showing symptoms of it in 1938, which diminished his performance. Obviously by 1939 he was out of the league due to his illness. I'd wager that a healthy Gehrig would've probably continued to churn out 30 home run seasons well into his late 30's. He was in good shape and took care of his body. I think we can speculate that Gehrig would've hit in the ballpark of 600 homers for his career and had at least 3100 hits had he not tragically passed away.

Yeah, Mantle's WAR (9.5) was more than double Yogi's (4.5) in '55. Although some people do think WAR doesn't fully account for a catcher's contribution:
http://www.thehypertexts.com/Basebal...e%20season.htm
And couldn't agree with you more about Gehrig. Definitely inner circle. A top 10 player of all-time probably. Guy averaged ~8.5 WAR per 162 games and had the most RBIs in a season for an American Leaguer after all.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Both Campanella and Jackie Robinson were amazing players, but its hard to say that Campanella was a better player than Jackie simply because he won more MVPs. In 1951, Campanella's first MVP year he had a WAR of 6.9 Guess who actually led the Natioanl League? It was Jackie with a whopping 9.7.

In 1952, Campanella's second MVP year he had a WAR of 6.8. Jackie beat him out again with 6.9.

And in 1953, Campanella's third MVP year, his war was only 5.2, tied for 12th in the National League with Ted Kluszewski and teammate Don Newcombe.

The fact is that for some reason if you were a catcher, it was easier to win MVP in the 1950s. Just look at Yogi Berra's 3 MVPs including in '51 (WAR of 5.3), '54 (WAR of 5.3) and '55 (WAR of 4.5 which was 11th in the league).
https://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/...st-mvp-winners

Its hard to think of Jackie Robinson has having been underrated as a player, but he may very well have been.
https://www.mlb.com/news/most-underrated-hall-of-famers

A few things:

First, Campanella won the MVP in 1951, 1953 and 1955, not 1951, 1952 and 1953.

Second, in 1953, his second MVP season, he had a higher WAR than Jackie - 6.8 vs 5.9. It would be hard to argue that a catcher playing good defense while hitting .312 with 41 homers and a 154 OPS+ is NOT the right choice for MVP.

Third, their 1951 seasons show just how goofy WAR is when comparing players. Campanella hit .325 with 33 homers and a 159 OPS+ while playing good defense (dWAR of 1.1) but gets a WAR of 6.9. Jackie hits .338 with 19 homers and a 154 OPS+ while playing great defense (2.4 dWAR) and gets a 9.7 WAR. Basically, Jackie benefited from the rest of his contemporaries at 2B being relatively terrible so he gets a bump from WAR. I think Campy had the better season, your mileage might vary.

Finally, during his actual third MVP season of 1955, Campy had a WAR of 5.2 while Jackie had a 2.6 while missing 49 games.

[Carter08]

I think most would agree Jackie is obviously important beyond his skills. And then the debate about whether he is the most skilled player that could have broken the barrier can be debated.

Turning back to the inner circle as far as collecting goes is it universal agreement that Ruth is number 1? If so, who is 2? Cobb? If Ruth is 10 on a scale of 1-10 where do the others fall?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Tabe

A few things:

First, Campanella won the MVP in 1951, 1953 and 1955, not 1951, 1952 and 1953.

Second, in 1953, his second MVP season, he had a higher WAR than Jackie - 6.8 vs 5.9. It would be hard to argue that a catcher playing good defense while hitting .312 with 41 homers and a 154 OPS+ is NOT the right choice for MVP.

Third, their 1951 seasons show just how goofy WAR is when comparing players. Campanella hit .325 with 33 homers and a 159 OPS+ while playing good defense (dWAR of 1.1) but gets a WAR of 6.9. Jackie hits .338 with 19 homers and a 154 OPS+ while playing great defense (2.4 dWAR) and gets a 9.7 WAR. Basically, Jackie benefited from the rest of his contemporaries at 2B being relatively terrible so he gets a bump from WAR. I think Campy had the better season, your mileage might vary.

Finally, during his actual third MVP season of 1955, Campy had a WAR of 5.2 while Jackie had a 2.6 while missing 49 games.

My mistake, I wrote the wrong MVP years, but the WAR figures I provided were from the correct years ('51, '53 and '55), as shown in Baseball Reference.com

Are you using Baseball Reference for your WAR, or FanGraphs? Or something else?

Let's not forget the year Jackie won MVP where (according to Baseball Reference) Jackie's WAR was 9.3 compared to Campanella's 4.5
https://www.baseball-reference.com/a..._NL_MVP_voting

I am not trying to argue who is the best player, I am just saying that going based off of Campanella's 3 MVPs is not a great indicator that he was a better player than Jackie.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I think most would agree Jackie is obviously important beyond his skills. And then the debate about whether he is the most skilled player that could have broken the barrier can be debated.

Turning back to the inner circle as far as collecting goes is it universal agreement that Ruth is number 1? If so, who is 2? Cobb? If Ruth is 10 on a scale of 1-10 where do the others fall?

Agreed that Ruth is hands down #1 in the inner circle. I think you can make a strong case for Walter Johnson or Willie Mays as number 2. But there's certainly arguments for others. SABR actually has Gehrig as #2:
https://www.baseball-almanac.com/leg...lisab100.shtml

While other websites have Mays:
https://baseballegg.com/all-time-pla...eball-history/

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

My mistake, I wrote the wrong MVP years, but the WAR figures I provided were from the correct years ('51, '53 and '55), as shown in Baseball Reference.com

Are you using Baseball Reference for your WAR, or FanGraphs? Or something else?

Let's not forget the year Jackie won MVP where (according to Baseball Reference) Jackie's WAR was 9.3 compared to Campanella's 4.5
https://www.baseball-reference.com/a..._NL_MVP_voting

I am not trying to argue who is the best player, I am just saying that going based off of Campanella's 3 MVPs is not a great indicator that he was a better player than Jackie.

Yes, I am using Baseball Reference for my WAR numbers.

I think the voters made the right decision in each of the three years, at least insofar as selecting Campy over Robinson.

[cgjackson222]

ESPN posted their top 100 Baseball Players this week.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...s-all-nos-25-1

Their top 10:
1) Ruth
2) Mays
3) Aaron
4) Cobb
5) Ted Williams
6) Gehrig
7) Mantle
8) Bonds
9) Walter Johnson
10) Stan Musial

Rounding out the top 25: 11) Pedro 12) Wagner 13) K Griffey Jr. 14) Maddux 15) Trout 16) DiMaggio 17) Clemens 18) Schmidt 19) F Robinson 20) Hornsby 21) Cy Young 22) Seaver 23) Rickey Henderson 24) Randy Johnson 25) Christy Mathewson

I think its a pretty defensible list, with a decent balance of old-timers and recent guys. Maybe pitchers could have done better on the list (Carlton was 58, Grover Cleveland Alexander 57, Kershaw 52, Feller 50, Spahn was 47, Satchel Paige 41, WaJo could be top 5). But I think they did a decent job of balancing peak vs. overall WAR with maybe a higher emphasis on peak. They had some peak guys pretty high with Koufax at 32, and Bob Gibson at 33.

I think Cap Anson was the only 19th Century player. No Kid Nichols, Dan Brouthers, etc.

I do think Jeter was probably ranked too high at 28. I don't think he is better than every catcher to ever play the game (Bench was the highest ranked catcher at 29) or a lot of players ranked lower than him.

I would have liked to see Sam Crawford, Al Simmons, Goose Goslin, and Carl Hubbell make the list, but they didn't. Ed Walsh and Dizzy didn't make it either.

[molenick]

Of course, a list like this will generate a lot of debate and disagreement, so I will just mention one thing that stands out to me. I love Pedro, but saying he is the 11th best player and second best pitcher (behind only Walter Johnson) of all-time seems like a very strong take. It looks like he got a lot of credit for peak performance versus longevity and for his ERA+ (essentially, ERA as compared to league ERA).

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by molenick;2p193040

Of course, a list like this will generate a lot of debate and disagreement, so I will just mention one thing that stands out to me. I love Pedro, but saying he is the 11th best player and second best pitcher (behind only Walter Johnson) of all-time seems like a very strong take. It looks like he got a lot of credit for peak performance versus longevity and for his ERA+ (essentially, ERA as compared to league ERA).

Did they say what they used as criteria, specifically peak vs career. For any five year span I think Pedro was the best pitcher ever. But if you are looking at a full career he would not be as high.

Would be interesting if they did the 100 best seasons by a player.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by obcbobd

Did they say what they used as criteria, specifically peak vs career. For any five year span I think Pedro was the best pitcher ever. But if you are looking at a full career he would not be as high.

Would be interesting if they did the 100 best seasons by a player.

"The Methodology
Based on career WAR, Hall of Fame status, peak performance and overall contributions to the game, we selected an initial pool of more than 200 players from both the major leagues and Negro Leagues, dating back to the late 19th century, plus a few of today's biggest stars.

From there, we asked dozens of ESPN editors and writers to contribute to a balloting system that pits players from the list against each other in head-to-head voting. The question we posed: "Based on a combination of career value and peak performance, which player would you rank higher?"

Would you choose Barry Bonds or Ted Williams? Mike Trout or Joe DiMaggio? Walter Johnson or Roger Clemens?

Our participants voted more than 20,000 times. Based on those votes, the players were ranked by the percentage of the time they were chosen over any competing player. Our No. 1 overall player, for example, was chosen 99% of the time. Our No. 100 player? He was taken 31% of the time. Despite that seemingly large range, the competition was fierce -- a single percentage point could raise or lower a player's ranking significantly."

[molenick]

Here is a link to the methodology https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...lb-players-all

[Yoda]

I wonder why there has been no mention of a worthy candidate to the inner sanctum: George Sisler. He played in the same era of Ruth, their RC's coming from the same set, batted over .400 twice and played a stellar first base. I know he played for the lowly Browns but records are records.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I wonder why there has been no mention of a worthy candidate to the inner sanctum: George Sisler. He played in the same era of Ruth, their RC's coming from the same set, batted over .400 twice and played a stellar first base. I know he played for the lowly Browns but records are records.

Agreed re: George Sisler. He is actually mentioned in their Snubs list:
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...snubs-our-list

"George Sisler, the initial first baseman elected to the Hall of Fame by the Baseball Writers' Association of America in 1939, might well be the best all-around player in the history of that position. In 1920, Sisler collected 257 hits in a 154-game season, a modern-era record that stood until Ichiro Suzuki had 262 in 2004. In 1922, Sisler hit safely in 41 consecutive games, a modern-era record that stood until Joe DiMaggio's 56-game streak in 1941. He led his league in stolen bases four times, and his defense is celebrated on his Hall of Fame plaque as follows: "Credited with being one of best two fielding first basemen in history of game." -- Paul Hembekides"

[LincolnVT]

I would agree with this, but would put Jackson (non-HOF) in the inner outer circle collectibility wise.

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I believe that the inner circle is Cobb, Ruth, Wagner, Mays and Aaron. I don’t think a pitcher can be in the inner circle. Next group would include DiMaggio, Williams, Hornsby, Mantle, Jackson, Lajoie, Delahanty, Gehrig, Foxx and Trout.
I think the pitchers have to be grouped separately. Their inner circle would be Young, Johnson and Mathewson.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by molenick

Of course, a list like this will generate a lot of debate and disagreement, so I will just mention one thing that stands out to me. I love Pedro, but saying he is the 11th best player and second best pitcher (behind only Walter Johnson) of all-time seems like a very strong take. It looks like he got a lot of credit for peak performance versus longevity and for his ERA+ (essentially, ERA as compared to league ERA).

He's obviously getting a ton of credit for peak versus longevity. However, it would be tough to argue that his peak isn't worth that credit. No one - no one - has ever dominated their league like Pedro did in 1999 & 2000. In 2000, he put up a 1.74 ERA in a steroid-fueled era where the league average ERA was 4.91. He was 3.17 runs better than the league average - in a high-scoring era. That's insane. In 1999, he had a 2.07 ERA in a league with an average ERA of 4.86. In 2000, he gave up 0.737 WHIP. Among pitchers throwing at least 200 innings, the next closest is Walter Johnson's 0.7803. All-time.

He had more great seasons than Sandy Koufax and his peak reached higher than anybody's ever did. Is #11 too high? Maybe. I think Roger Clemens was better thanks to his longevity. But I certainly understand how they put him there.

[Fred]

Sooooo.... how many players are considered "inner circle"? All I know is Babe Ruth is #1 and there is no convincing me otherwise.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Fred

Sooooo.... how many players are considered "inner circle"? All I know is Babe Ruth is #1 and there is no convincing me otherwise.

I think inner circle should be 5-10%

And I agree about Babe Ruth. He showed everyone the possibilities.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Carter08]

No doubt Ruth is number 1 and it applies to everything Ruth. I guess that’s the key. The inner circle probably includes Honus and Cy Young and a few others because all of their issues are pretty desirable and now expensive. A guy like Bob Gibson, on the other hand, may not be in the inner circle but his rookie will always be hot (awesome pink too!). So the inner circle might be rarer pre-war big names but post-war biggish names and especially their rookies are also close.

[terjung]

Shhhh! More talk like that and people will want to collect him!

Sisler could also take the mound in a pinch.

Originally Posted by Yoda

I wonder why there has been no mention of a worthy candidate to the inner sanctum: George Sisler. He played in the same era of Ruth, their RC's coming from the same set, batted over .400 twice and played a stellar first base. I know he played for the lowly Browns but records are records.

[Fred]

340 HOF members
10, 22, 40 (Umpire, manager, executive)
Total = 268 players
10% is about 27 players.

Ok, that sounds easy to pick 27 top players but I'm going to guess by the time you get to #27 there's going to be a lot of second guessing yourself.

[bnorth]

These are the best I have seen play in person. Pujols isn't in the hall yet and Roger is in my humble opinion the best to ever take the mound.

Wade Boggs
Ken Griffey Jr
Derek Jeter
Alex Rodriguez
Albert Pujols

Roger Clemens
Mariano Rivera
Nolan Ryan
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez

[Fred]

Originally Posted by bnorth

These are the best I have seen play in person. Pujols isn't in the hall yet and Roger is in my humble opinion the best to ever take the mound.

Wade Boggs
Ken Griffey Jr
Derek Jeter
Alex Rodriguez
Albert Pujols

Roger Clemens
Mariano Rivera
Nolan Ryan
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez

It's too bad you didn't see Tony Gwynn play...

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Fred

It's too bad you didn't see Tony Gwynn play...

BLEEP Tony BLEEPING Gwynn and is Barry Bonds type huge jump in production in his mid/late 30s.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by terjung

Shhhh! More talk like that and people will want to collect him!

Sisler could also take the mound in a pinch.

Sisler was a monster and one of the most under appreciated players in the hobby. But you didn't hear that from me...

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Fred

340 HOF members

10, 22, 40 (Umpire, manager, executive)

Total = 268 players

10% is about 27 players.



Ok, that sounds easy to pick 27 top players but I'm going to guess by the time you get to #27 there's going to be a lot of second guessing yourself.

In that 27 I think the purpose should be to form a complete team. You could have 2 at each position, 2 DH, and 9 pitchers, or just carry 3 at each position without DH. I don't know enough about deadball to make any assessment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Fred]

Originally Posted by bnorth

BLEEP Tony BLEEPING Gwynn and is Barry Bonds type huge jump in production in his mid/late 30s.

Yeah, when Tony juiced there was no added muscle mass, only his waist line got bigger He was a true talent.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Hall of Fame plaque as follows: "Credited with being one of best two fielding first basemen in history of game." -- Paul Hembekides"

And so, the most corrupt player in baseball history, Hal Chase, gets a shout out on Sisler's HOF plaque.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mark17

And so, the most corrupt player in baseball history, Hal Chase, gets a shout out on Sisler's HOF plaque.

Very interesting that Hal Chase gets mentioned in the HOF for doing something positive, albeit his mention is indirect. Thanks for pointing out the reference.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Fred

Yeah, when Tony juiced there was no added muscle mass, only his waist line got bigger He was a true talent.

Couldn't agree more. Tony was so great he is the only super star to have his by far best 4 year run from age 34 to age 37. He was so amazing even the known juicers couldn't do that.

As for adding muscle mass I also couldn't agree more. Just look at Lance Armstrong one of the biggest juicers ever. He put Lou and Arnold to shame with his mass. Same goes for all those pitchers that have been busted over the years. With all that muscle mass they had it is amazing they could even throw a ball.

To get back on topic I don't have a all time list because I really am not a huge fan of the game or its history. I absolutely loved going to games and have been to 100s in person. My collecting has mostly been about error cards and Wade Boggs items. I have owned many cards of the all time greats but get tired of them quickly and sell to get other cards that I get tired of and sell. It has been a vicious cycle but I have owned some great cards over the last few decades.

[darwinbulldog]

My top 27, without regard to position (notice I don't have a catcher):

Babe Ruth
Walter Johnson
Cy Young
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Willie Mays
Ty Cobb
Rogers Hornsby
Ted Williams
Kid Nichols
Tris Speaker
Hank Aaron
Honus Wagner
Grover Alexander
Lou Gehrig
Tom Seaver
Eddie Collins
Stan Musial
Lefty Grove
Mickey Mantle
Alex Rodriguez
Randy Johnson
Christy Mathewson
Mike Schmidt
Nap Lajoie
Greg Maddux
Mike Trout

[MuncieNolePAZ]

My top 27 (not in order, although the first 10 are in my top 10) regardless of position

Ty Cobb
Babe Ruth
Willie Mays
Walter Johnson
Hank Aaron
Barry Bonds
Honus Wagner
Ted Williams
Roger Clemens
Lou Gehrig
Cy Young
Christy Mathewson
Satchel Paige
Rogers Hornsby
Johnny Bench
Josh Gibson
Mickey Mantle
Eddie Collins
Nap Lajoie
Mike Schmidt
Alex Rodriguez
Stan Musial
Tris Speaker
Mike Trout
Oscar Charleston
Pedro Martinez
Greg Maddux