Baseball Hall of Fame Vote

[ctownboy]

packs,

If you want to think Rizzuto is a Hall Of Famer because of his broadcasting career that is fine (then I will counter that if having a lengthy MLB career and then an even longer broadcasting career are good criteria to use for people getting elected to the HOF then Joe Nuxhall should be in).

However, the fact is, Rizzuto was NOT elected to the HOF by the people responsible for electing sportswriters and broadcasters. he was elected by the Veterans Committee. This means he was elected based on what he did as a player.

Even Ted Z, a self-proclaimed Rizzuto fan, admits that Ted Williams used his influence to get Rizzuto elected. So, Rizzuto was not elected to the HOF when he was on the regular ballot and it took an all-time great like Williams to lobby for him with the Veterans Committee.

To me, that is like George W. Bush getting into Yale because of who his Father and Grand Father were. Both Rizzuto and George W. made it into prestigious institutions but neither did it on their own merits. They had outside influences help to get them in.

Again, like I said in another post, so what that Rizzuto lost time due to serving in WW II? Just because he lost time doesn't mean his stats would have gotten better. Sure, he could have played during all of that time and performed well. Conversely, he also could have been taken out at Second Base by a guy trying to break up a Double Play, had his knee ruined and never played again. Nobody knows.

So one cant just assume he would have played, played well and put up better numbers. You have to look at what he did on the field and the numbers he actually put up.

Again, I say there were other players on the Yankees who were better than Rizzuto and had more input to them winning games than Rizzuto did. Just because Rizzuto happened to be a starter on those teams that won World Series doesn't mean he automatically should be considered a better player than what he was.

David

[ctownboy]

kcohen,

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

Really? I will ask you then, who do you think was a better Short Stop, Phil Rizzuto or Ernie Banks?

Most people would say Banks.

But, even if a guy like Banks were available to play from 1941 until 1947, he wouldn't have been allowed to because of the color of his skin. Also not likely to have been playing during those years were Latin players like Luis Aparicio, Dave Concepcion and Omar Vizquel.

Furthermore, in the five to 10 years after WW II, competition for MLB jobs was thinned because so many young, able bodied guys were in the War and were either injured or killed, thus thinning the herd as far as competition goes.

On top of that, those soldiers who did come back from the War healthy had a choice to make; become a pro baseball player and have a slight chance to make the Majors OR take advantage of the GI Bill and go to college for little to no cost. Which option do you think a lot of those guys chose?

Finally, as another person posted, the Yankees had a ban on Black players until 1955. This means they HAD a chance to sign Ernie Banks but didn't. Who do you think would have won the competition for the Short Stop job between Banks and Rizzuto?

Banks. And if that had happened then guess what would have happened to Rizzuto? He would have either been relegated to being a back up player for the Yankees, traded to another (probably lesser) team or he would have retired.

Either way, without the competition, Rizzuto was a starter for a team he probably otherwise wouldn't have been and won rings he probably otherwise wouldn't have won and gets rewared with an HOF induction because of it.

David

[mr2686]

Interesting that you think Rizzuto would be on the bench or traded if the Yankees had Banks. Banks only played 9 of his 19 major league seasons as a short stop (Rizzuto had 13) and they had almost identical fielding percentages...and Rizzuto had about 2446 more chances. Why wouldn't they have moved Rizzuto to 2b...or moved Banks to 1b (he played there 11 seasons). By the way, I do believe Concepcion should be in the hall as well for a lot of the same reasons I think Rizzuto and Reese are in.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

Ted Williams used his influence to get Rizzuto elected. So, Rizzuto was not elected to the HOF when he was on the regular ballot and it took an all-time great like Williams to lobby for him with the Veterans Committee.

I tend to stay out of these HOF "worthy / not worthy" threads, but in this situation, I feel like I need to say that if Ted Williams thinks somebody should be in the Hall, that trumps all of the opinions and stats that I've seen mentioned.

Doug

[tedzan]

1st....Hall of Famers elected to the HOF via the Veterans Committee (VC) is not something that you should diminish. Great ballplayers like Johnny Mize,
Sam Rice, Connie Mack, Vic Willis, Enos Slaughter, etc., etc. are in via the VC route.

I'm assuming that you saw Dave Concepion play and you favor him and that's fine. I saw Rizzuto play (on TV or at Yankee Stadium) during the Yankees
"dynasty" years (1949 - 1953).
All 5 of those years, Phil was in the running for the AL MVP award. He was runner-up (to Ted Williams) in 1949 and won the AL MVP in 1950. There is no
denying it, Phil was a significant factor during that 5-year dynasty.

Yes, I am biased.....Phil lived 2 blocks away from our home when I was growing up in the 1940's to 1950's. We, in the neighborhood in Hillside (NJ), saw
quite a lot of Phil. Back in those days, Mondays were usually off-days for the Yankees. Phil attended many of our Catholic Youth Organization meetings
on Monday nights at St. Catherine's school; and, spend hours talking with us and showing us pointers on playing baseball. Also, Phil would answer our
questions regarding some the great BB players of his time. I could go on with a lot more here; but, I'll spare you the details.

I'll leave you with this comparison......

7 seasons Rizzuto was in consideration for the AL MVP (top 20 ranking)

3 seasons Concepcion was in consideration for the NL MVP (top 20 ranking)

Don't misconstrue....I saw Dave Concepion play for most of his 19 years and I agree....he was a great shortstop.


TED Z

a.k.a. ......T-Rex TED

[ctownboy]

mr2686,

Here is why I think Banks would have started at SS and Rizzuto would have been benched if both were on the Yankees.

In 1953, Banks came up as a 22 year-old rookie with the Cubs and appeared in 10 Games. That year, Rizzuto was 35 and he had, basically, his last productive year.

I think if both were on the team in 1954, the Yankees would look at a 23 year-old Banks and prefer him over a 36 year-old Rizzuto. Even if they didn't in Spring Training or the start of the season, they probably would have at some point.

I mean, unlike teams today (because of Salary Arbitration and Free Agency), the Yankees weren't afraid to bring young players up and let them start IF they were talented. Mantle first appeared as a 20 year-old and was starting at 21. Berra first appeared at age 21, played half a season at 22 and was a regular at 23. So, if Banks showed any signs of his true talent, I don't think the Yankees would have hesitated to bench Rizzuto and start Banks in his place.

David

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

I tend to stay out of these HOF "worthy / not worthy" threads, but in this situation, I feel like I need to say that if Ted Williams thinks somebody should be in the Hall, that trumps all of the opinions and stats that I've seen mentioned.

Doug

Where does that leave you on Mel Harder?

[Orioles1954]

Neither Rizzuto or Concepcion are Hall of Famers in my opinion...and this coming from someone who doesn't think the Hall of Fame is "watered down".

[howard38]

.

[ctownboy]

Doug Goodman and Ted Z,

1) Phil Rizzuto was on the regular HOF ballot for 14 years over a 20 year time period and the highest percentage of votes he received during that time was 38.4%. He had plenty of time to get voted in by guys who actually saw him play and the majority of them thought he didn't warrant induction.

Hall of Fame
1956 BBWAA ( 0.5%)
1962 BBWAA (27.5%)
1964 BBWAA (22.4%)
1964 Run Off ( 5.5%)
1966 BBWAA (17.9%)
1967 BBWAA (24.3%)
1967 Run Off ( 4.6%)
1968 BBWAA (26.1%)
1969 BBWAA (22.9%)
1970 BBWAA (26.3%)
1971 BBWAA (25.6%)
1972 BBWAA (26.0%)
1973 BBWAA (29.2%)
1974 BBWAA (30.4%)
1975 BBWAA (32.3%)
1976 BBWAA (38.4%)

2) You cherry picked guys who were voted in by the Veterans Committee who were good and who some today would be arguing for HOF induction if they weren't already in.

I am pretty sure I can go down the list of players the VC chose, cherry pick some names, pull them out, put them on a poll for this board to vote on and these guys would be determined to NOT be worthy of the HOF. Heck, I am sure guys like Bill James agrees that some of the VC's decisions are not correct.

Ted, you gave Johnny Mize and Sam Rice as two such people. The funny thing is, when looking at the yearly HOF vote percentage that they received when they were on the regular ballot, Mize's percentage was consistently higher than Rizzuto while Rice languished near obscurity until his last three years. However, the last two years, he received over 50% of the vote something Rizzuto never got close to.

3) Putting faith in Ted Williams judgement during the later years of his life is something I wouldn't do.

4) From 1941 until 1956, there were only eight teams in the AL so the number of total players eligible for MVP voting wasn't as great as during Concepcion's time.

For example, in 1950 (Rizzuto's MVP year) the Yankees used 38 players during the season. 15 of those players were Pitchers (five of whom appeared in eight or fewer Games). Of the 23 position players, only nine appeared in 100 or more Games and only 10 had 300 or more Plate Appearances (if you want to go by At Bats then it is only eight players). So, at most, each team would have maybe 20 guys who could be considered for the MVP (the number is probably closer to 15 but I am giving the benefit of the doubt).

This means that during his playing days, there might be 160 guys who could be considered for the MVP each year. So, for Rizzuto to finish in the top 20 of the MVP balloting he would only have to be better than 140 players (more like 100 players if the number of guys is only 15 per team).

Now, during Concepcion's time, there were 12 teams in the NL. In 1979, (I would have used 1981 where Concepcion finished fourth in the MVP voting but that was the strike shortened year) Concepcion finished ninth in the MVP balloting. During that season, the Reds used 35 different players, 14 of whom were Pitchers. Of the 21 position players, only eight played in 100 or more Games and nine had 300 or more Plate Appearances and At Bats.

Basically it works out to, again, between 15 to 20 players per team who could have been reasonably thought of as MVP candidates. But there is the rub. Concepcion had to compete against more players (an additional 60 to 80) when looking at whether he finished in the top 20 of MVP voting or not.

So, instead of having to beat, at most, 140 players like Rizzuto did to finish in the top 20 of MVP voting, Concepcion had to beat 220, at most, other players to finish in the top 20 of MVP voting.

Also, when looking at those MVP votes, Concepcion finished fourth, ninth and 15th while Rizzuto finished first, second, sixth, 11th, 14th, 19th and 20th.

Finally, yes, I grew up watching Concepcion play and the Reds were my favorite team. However, that is NOT the main reason I am arguing that Rizzuto is not a HOF player.

The main reasons are because I think Rizzuto got in by riding the coattails of DiMaggio, Dickey, Mantle, Berra and Ford (the ones most responsible for winning those World Series rings). He got in by having Ted Williams influence the VC and he got in because he just happened to be lucky enough to play for the Yankees.

For me, Rizzuto didn't have a long enough career (which would have given him a chance to accumulate counting stats), he didn't have a high enough peak and that peak didn't last long enough and he didn't lead his league in many offensive categories (he led the AL in Sac Bunts four times but if he were such a great hitter then he should have been swinging away and advancing the runner/s' via a Hit instead of the Bunt).

So, if Rizzuto got in the HOF by riding the coattails of others then I think Concepcion should to (Rose, Bench, Morgan, Perez, Foster, May Griffey, Seaver). But, he wont and that is because he didn't play in NY.

David

[bosoxfan]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Pete:

I think that you might be right on with that assesment. Prior to joining Toronto, Clemens had four consecutive "sub-par" seasons in a row for Boston after seven great seasons in a row. At that point, would you have considered him a first-ballot HOF'er? I think maybe not where Bonds definitely was prior to the 2000 season.

totally agree!

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

Doug Goodman and Ted Z,


3) Putting faith in Ted Williams judgement during the later years of his life is something I wouldn't do.



Rizzuto..........and he didn't lead his league in many offensive categories (he led the AL in Sac Bunts four times but if he were such a great hitter then he should have been swinging away and advancing the runner/s' via a Hit instead of the Bunt).

David

David

1st....I would continue this discussion; however, I find your #3 statement here extremely ignorant, that this will be my last response to you on this subject.

I first met Ted Williams at a BB card show in Valley Forge, PA in 1984 and had a tremendous 40-minute conversation with him. Subsequently, I've met Ted
on several occasions in Cooperstown on HOF weekend (every year since the early 1980's, I have set-up at the BB card show there on HOF weekend). The
Summer of 1997 was the last time I met Ted in Cooperstown. Ted was his usual enthusiastic and friendly self. He was holding court with his numerous fans,
who had gathered around him. He loved to talk Baseball and respond to many questions thrown at him.

Now, let me see....didn't the Veterans Committe elect Phil Rizzuto for the HOF in 1993 ?

Ah yes, I was there to hear Phil's ceremonial speech in the Summer of 1994.

I'm asking you....have you ever met Ted Williams in person ?

I would be surprised if you did, because you appear to be totally uninformed with the statement of yours.


2nd....what the hell do you have against BUNTS ? Rizzuto was the quintessential team player. As a lead-off guy he would do whatever it took to start an
inning going by getting on base. You have completely dismissed his WALKS stat. From 1949 - 1953, Phil averaged 74 Walks / year. Furthermore, between
his Hits, Walks, and his keen running ability, he averaged approx. 100 RUNS / year during those "dynasty" years.

Hey guy, I remember seeing Mickey Mantle bunting on many an occasion. It has become a lost art in BB today.


TED Z

[doug.goodman]

Ted said everything for me, but I never met Williams.

With absolutely no disrespect intended to ctownboy, but he can talk until he is blue in the face and type volumes of text but ultimately, in my mind, it comes down to his opinion versus that of Ted Williams.

Doug


PS - and before it gets mentioned (again) I also am happy to take the opinion of Ted Williams over that of the BBWAA.

PPS - as long as I'm referencing the voters, it amazes me who DOESN'T get to vote (Bob Costas, etc). I would be perfectly happy to have the HOF members vote, and nobody else.

[howard38]

/

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

kcohen,

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

Really? I will ask you then, who do you think was a better Short Stop, Phil Rizzuto or Ernie Banks?

Most people would say Banks.

David

First, I find the Rizzuto v. Banks question to be irrelevant to the question of whether Conception faced superior competition. The contention that he did appears to be based primarily if not solely on the color line. It is obvious that within the context of pre-1950 MLB, the general level of competition would have been raised with the inclusion of players like Josh Gibson and Satchell Paiges.

However, let's look at Rizzuto's time as opposed to Conception's. In Scooter's, there was not the watering down of expansion as there were only 16 teams. There were only three major pro sports, baseball, boxing, and horse racing. Therefore, a much greater percentage of the US athletic talent was channeled into baseball. In Conception's time, so many top athletes had gone into baseball and basketball.

To contend that the level competition in Rizzuto's time was inferior solely because of the color line is simplistic. It takes into consideration one element among several that are needed if one is to validly compare the two eras.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by howard38

3)
It's not entirely true. During that period Rizzuto batted first, second and eighth. In his career he actually started more games in the 8 spot than he did leading off.

Howard

My recollection during those 5 hey-day years (1949-1953), Rizzuto batted either 1st or 2nd in the line-up. And, after the 1st inning, it's immaterial
what position in the line-up he was at. My contention is that when Rizzuto was the lead-off batter in any of the subsequent innings of a game, he
would do what it took to get on base....either by a hit, bunt, walk, or beating out an infield grounder.

There is a fundamental maxim in Baseball that says when the lead-off batter gets on base....70 % of the time he will eventually score a run in that
inning.


TED Z

[howard38]

.

[Kenny Cole]

Maybe I'm viewing this too simplistically, but IMO it is really simple -- Rizzuto is a HOFer because he has been elected to the HOF. You can argue about whether that was a good selection or a poor one, whether he should have been selected or not, whether Ted Williams' viewpoint should or should not have triumphed, but that is a different issue.

When all is said and done and you get down to the nut-cutting, he has been elected. He is in the HOF and is thus a HOFer. Period. He isn't going to get kicked out because some non-voters disagree with the selection, so get over it. There are a number of people on the outside looking in that I would personally have chosen before him, but I don't get to vote.

[Orioles1954]

Ted Williams' opinions mean absolutely nothing concerning the Hall of Fame and a player's qualifications in being inducted. The reason they mean nothing is because the Hall of Fame IS NOT some sacrosanct institution that belongs to baseball fans or players. The Hall of Fame IS a media award, and a media award only. Approaching it from that viewpoint only has changed my perspective on the idea of "watering it down" or who belongs or does not.

[Kenny Cole]

That statement is inaccurate. The HOF is first, an award/honor granted by certain voting members of the media. It is second, an award/honor granted by whatever the current composition of the Veteran's Committee is.

If Ted Williams' opinion, as a member of the Veteran's Committee, gets a player elected, it is simply silly to say that his opinion means nothing. It may mean nothing to you, but the player is still elected on the basis of that opinion. Therefore, by definition, it means a lot.

[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.

[mr2686]

Kenny, you said a mouth full. You can't just crunch numbers and get the full story of a player. I think some of the new analytics have been great for the game and have helped further discussion, but they've also been bad in that they over analyze things. Example, the adjusted stats based on home ball park. Does that really tell you that a home run that a player hit in ball park A, would not have been out of ball park B? I mean, if you it the ball 380ft it's gonna go out of most parks (this does not include Coors field for obvious reasons). I think Hodges was hurt the most by this type of stat (although it sure doesn't seem to have hurt Snider).
Now, to another point. There are no right or wrong answers to any of this...that's what makes baseball great. The ability to have two people argue over their favorite players, or even two random players, and try to convince each other who was a better player. These types of questions and arguements have been going on for as long as baseball has been around. From Ruth vs Gehrig, to Mantle vs Mays vs Snider, to Rizzuto vs Reese, and now Larkin vs Trammel. It makes you want to learn more about your player so that you have more of an arguement...and in the process, you learn more about baseball in general. Great sport.

[Cy2009]

One of the biggest travesties in the Hall of Fame voting is Edgar Martinez. What a great hitter he was. His stats are impeccable when it comes to being a hitter. The only reason that he is not in there is because he was primarily a DH. Maybe I am confused, but hasn't that been a position since 1973? Heck the DH has been around a lot longer than the one-inning closer. Let's not vote any of those guys in because it is not a position that has been around long enough.

The fact that his not playing the field is ridiculous. For Hall of Fame recognition, rarely is fielding equated into the formula. Martinez batted .312 for 18 seasons. If there wasn't a DH, does anyone think that his bat would have been left out because he wasn't a strong fielder? Seattle would have hid him in left field or 1st base as baseball has done for a long time. But since the DH was allowed in the AL, this wasn't necessary. Plus Martinez was clutch. If the game was on the line with a guy on base and he came to the plate, he ripped the ball into an open area of the field, consistently.

The question isn't is Edgar Martinez worthy of the Hall of Fame. He is. The question is, do we start to recognize DH's as full fledged position players or let's get rid of the DH. Because if you don't recognize something that has been around for 40 years as significant, then get rid of it.

Cy

[rdixon1208]

Regarding Edgar Martinez, that's a nice Batting Average, but 2247 hits 309 HR's and 1261 RBI's isn't that impressive. Especially for his era. When I think or Edgar Martinez, I think good hitter....not HOFer. Below is a list of his most similar batters according to Baseball-Reference. There's not a HOFer on the list in my opinion....even though some of those guys could play the field too.

Will Clark
Todd Helton
John Olerud
Moises Alou
Magglio Ordonez
Bob Johnson
Bernie Williams
Paul O'Neill
Ellis Burks
Carlos Lee

[z28jd]

Martinez was a great hitter but if he had to play the field he would've likely been nowhere near the hitter he was. He was moved to DH because of nagging injuries and if he was forced to play the field 9 innings a game he would've missed many more games, probably been injured more often and not had the career as a hitter he had. The DH role definitely helped pad his offensive stats.

The comparison to a reliever is actually a good one because I'd never vote in any reliever, especially a one inning one. I don't care how good they are, it is one inning, it isnt always a tight situation, it isnt always the heart of a tough lineup theyre facing and they don't even play half the teams games. Definitely an overrated position. If you found some guy who pinch hit his entire career and hit .300 every year I wouldn't even think of voting him in no matter how impressive that feat is.

[novakjr]

Regarding Edgar Martinez. I wouldn't be against him getting in. But I'm also not gonna lobby for the guy either...The "best DH" thing is overdone and irrelevant...The Designated Hitter, while a position in a batting line-up, is also a position for players without a legit position. Forget the "designated" part, and just focus on the "hitter". Because, at it's core, that's all they are...I've said it before, and I'll say it again.(please pardon the caps) ANY PLAYER AT ANY POSITION IS A DH THAT HAPPENS TO ALSO PLAY DEFENSE. Basically, you can't judge a DH solely against other DH's. You must judge him against EVERYBODY on the field EVER!!!! Babe Ruth(minus the pitching years)=HITTER. Reggie Jackson=Hitter. Mike Schmidt=Hitter. Willie Mays=Hitter. Albert Belle=Hitter(sorry, just had to throw him in there). So on, and so on. EVERYBODY. If Edgar were at any "corner position" with those stats, would he be in? Probably not.. If he were an up the middle player? Probably. But let's face it, those are the key defensive positions, and it perfectly acceptable to give up some offense for a solid defensive presence.. Which Edgar certainly wasn't...

Again, I've got nothing against Edgar, but the truth is the truth...And I've stated nothing but the truth..

[packs]

I think Edgar is a definite HOFer. He's an old school player. He's not the kind of guy where you can just look at his stats. If you saw him play then you know how good he was.

Sometimes you have to point to stats to make a case for a guy's career. Other times you "just know." I don't think voters ever looked at stats when they were deciding who got in and who didn't in the old days. They just "knew" if you were a HOFer, which might explain how seemingly marginal guys like Ted Lyons, Rabbit Maranville, Ray Schalk and Jesse Haines et al were voted in. It's hard to tell looking at their stats. But what if we saw them play? How would we feel?

[rdixon1208]

Originally Posted by packs

I think Edgar is a definite HOFer. He's an old school player. He's not the kind of guy where you can just look at his stats. If you saw him play then you know how good he was.

Sometimes you have to point to stats to make a case for a guy's career. Other times you "just know." I don't think voters ever looked at stats when they were deciding who got in and who didn't in the old days. They just "knew" if you were a HOFer, which might explain how seemingly marginal guys like Ted Lyons, Rabbit Maranville, Ray Schalk and Jesse Haines et al were voted in. It's hard to tell looking at their stats. But what if we saw them play? How would we feel?

When a guy keeps a single from turning into a double because of his defensive ability it doesn't show up in the stat sheet. If you do that enough times over a long enough period of time you may be remembered as a guy that outplayed his stats. But Edgar Martinez was only a hitter. His stats tell the whole story....Not a HOFer.

[HRBAKER]

The question isn't is Edgar Martinez worthy of the Hall of Fame. He is. The question is, do we start to recognize DH's as full fledged position players or let's get rid of the DH. Because if you don't recognize something that has been around for 40 years as significant, then get rid of it.


IMO, Edgar is not a HOFer and I would get rid of the DH tomorrow.

[BleedinBlue]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

IMO, Edgar is not a HOFer and I would get rid of the DH tomorrow.

+1

[sycks22]

People are talking about how much easier it is to be just a DH instead of playing the field. I would argue that playing the field keeps many player's minds in the game, case in point what happened to Adam Dunn this year? He hits 40 bombs / year when he's in the OF, but once he DH's he loses focus and hits .170 something. Also my favorite player Frank "The big hurt" Thomas was a much better hitter when he was playing 1B (back to back MVPs) than he was later in his career as a DH. Staying warm and focused for the 30-45 minutes between at bats is not to be over looked. What do you guys think about Thome? He's DHed for the last 7-8 years for the most part.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by sycks22

People are talking about how much easier it is to be just a DH instead of playing the field. I would argue that playing the field keeps many player's minds in the game, case in point what happened to Adam Dunn this year? He hits 40 bombs / year when he's in the OF, but once he DH's he loses focus and hits .170 something. Also my favorite player Frank "The big hurt" Thomas was a much better hitter when he was playing 1B (back to back MVPs) than he was later in his career as a DH. Staying warm and focused for the 30-45 minutes between at bats is not to be over looked. What do you guys think about Thome? He's DHed for the last 7-8 years for the most part.

In the case of Thome, Thomas and especially Martinez, the position is considered easier for them because there is no way they could've taken the grind of playing the field added on to their time as a hitter. Martinez was injured in 1993, he never fully recovered from that, there is no way he plays another 1500 career games if he has to play the field too so even if he somehow hit just as well playing through the pain the overall stats he amassed would most certainly be worse. Without the DH he may not have made it through the 2000 season. Martinez was pretty bad in 1993 when he first got injured and nothing great in 1994 but as soon as he moved off the astroturf and onto the bench in 1995, he was still battling nagging injuries but was able to play almost everyday anyway and he excelled at the plate.

Thome actually played almost 1000 more games in the field than Martinez so really the only thing you can say about him is it is highly doubtful he would've reached 600 homers without the DH rule. Thomas played about 400 more games in the field than Martinez so his numbers are padded by the DH but he put up no doubt hall of fame numbers so even if you factor in the DH there shouldn't be any question with him making it

[Tomman1961]

The veteran's committee need to get Gil Hodges in.

[mr2686]

The veteran's committee need to get Gil Hodges in.

You are absolutely correct. Hodges retired with the 3rd highest homerun total for a righthander...and Mays had just past him. He led all 1st baseman in homeruns in the 50's and was 2nd in Homeruns and RBI's overall in the 50's (Snider was first). He won the first 3 gold gloves in his last 3 years as a full time firstbaseman and by all accounts he was one of the best firstbaseman of all time (at that time). Since he died so young, I don't feel it's unreasonable to add what a great job he did as a manager of some bad or average teams either.

[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.

[FrankWakefield]

And to add to what Mike just said about Mr. Hodges, from the first person accounts I've heard, Mr. Hodges was a kind gentleman.

[doug.goodman]

This seems like a fitting link...

http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/20...g-herman-long/

Doug

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by tbob

There is absolutely no proof that Jeff Bagwell ever took PEDs or steroids. He should go in with Morris next year.

Sure, there's no proof. However, he did:

- gain like 40-50 lbs of muscle during his career
- went from a career high of 20 HRs in 1993 to 39 in 1994, while playing in only 2/3 of a season
- was teammates with Ken Caminiti, an admitted 'roid user
- was teammates with Steve Finley, a widely-suspected 'roid user
- was teammates with Luis Gonzalez, another widely-suspected 'roid user
- had multiple joint injuries while playing a position that requires basically no throwing

Obviously, I have no proof that Bagwell did steroids. To me, however, the idea that he DIDN'T is pretty much laughable.

Tabe

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

Sure, if he had lived, Munson could have put up a few more good seasons to raise his OPS+. However, if Munson had played as long as Simmons did, it is also likely that he would have had a drop off in production and his OPS+ would have fallen

Here's the dirty little secret about Thurman Munson:

He was 1 step from being washed up when he passed away. Any semblance of power was gone from his game (3 HRs in 97 games in 1979, 6 in 154 in 1978). He hit .288 in 1979 was it was obvious he was slowing down and was just about finished. If he had lived, he likely would have played through about 1981, put up another 12 HRs (tops), and 300 hits. And he still would have been short of HOF'er credentials.

Tabe

[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 ...