Let's talk about Hall of Fame candidates who have been "neglected"

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

He wasn’t banned for rigging games, he was banned for knowing others were rigging games and keeping his mouth shut as it happened, of which there was some evidence.

But if he did not take money or do anything to actually throw a game then why, there was no such rule in place when that happened? He was retroactively banned by Landis, who was basically paid off by the owner's to be their hit man. In fact, there was actually no law on the books that made throwing a baseball game a criminal activity at the time either. The Black Sox trial was for alledgedly cheating others out of money they would have gotten had they won the series. If I remember correctly, I believe White Sox teammate Shano Collins was listed as the injured party in the trial, or one of them at least.

And if you are going to retroactively ban someone for one rule, then shouldn't the same be true for all rules? In which case, shouldn't the rule be retroactively applied to anyone taking amphetamines before they were banned then? And since it is basically a known fact that virtually all ballplayers back in the 50's and 60's were taking, or at least tried, greenies/amphetamines, there is an even more compelling case for most of the HOFers from back then to be banned from baseball permanently as well. I believe the current rule is three strikes for PEDs and you're out forever, right?

And before even one of you jumps on here to say you can't prove anyone did greenies because they didn't test for amphetamines back then, go look up all the stories and admissions. I believe Mays even admitted to going to his doctor for a prescription to help him get through the season, and conveniently said he didn't know what was in the pills he got though so he could always feign ignorance of knowingly taking amphtamines. I believe you could find enough evidence and support to permanently ban quite a few HOFers if that rule against PEDs were retroactively applied, like the gambling rule apparently was against Weaver.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Ricky

I don't think Ortiz is obvious the way McGwire, Bonds and Sosa were. Ortiz was never cut... even as a young player, he was a bit plump. And he still looks the same as he did when playing. McGwire, Sosa, Bonds.... they physically changed and if you look at McGwire now, he looks like he shrunk. Bonds' hat sizes increased two sizes. That's not normal. Did Ortiz' stats improve from his time in Minnesota as a young player? Yes, but how much of that was maturation as a player and being given a chance to play full-time? He apparently tested positive for something, but who knows what it was? There were a lot of substances were on the list but were meaningless... and his numbers continued to improve after that test and more stringent testing was put into place. Meanwhile BALCO swirled around McGwire, Bonds and Sosa... I forget the deal with Clemens but didn't someone report that he was sticking needles in his butt (I could be confusing that with someone else)?

Clemens' old trainer accused him of cheating but there was no "proof". So, why is he guilty because a guy said so but others aren't? Ortiz failed a test in 2003. He then later claimed that when he finds out why he failed the test, he'd share the information publicly. But he of course never did that. Timing seems suspicious though, doesn't it? In 2003 Ortiz was more or less nobody. In 2004 he makes his first All Star team. Hmmmm......

Ivan Rodriguez though, to me, is the most obvious case. All you have to do is look at a photo of him in his Texas prime and compare it to the little guy who ended up on the Yankees later on.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by packs

Clemens' old trainer accused him of cheating but there was no "proof". So, why is he guilty because a guy said so but others aren't? Ortiz failed a test in 2003. He then later claimed that when he finds out why he failed the test, he'd share the information publicly. But he of course never did that. Timing seems suspicious though, doesn't it? In 2003 Ortiz was more or less nobody. In 2004 he makes his first All Star team. Hmmmm......

Ivan Rodriguez though, to me, is the most obvious case. All you have to do is look at a photo of him in his Texas prime and compare it to the little guy who ended up on the Yankees later on.

Though it shouldn't matter, clemens and bonds are a-holes- and that DOES resonate.

.

[packs]

Want to hear another coincidence? Pudge turned 32 in 2004, the same year MLB institutes testing. He then goes the next 7 years without putting up an OPS over 100, which is technically not even replacement level talent.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by cammb

vada pinson was every bit as good as clemente

wtf?

[shagrotn77]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

wtf?

When I first saw that I had the same reaction, but then I took a deeper dive into Pinson's stats. As good as Clemente? Of course not. Very underrated, though? Indeed.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by shagrotn77

When I first saw that I had the same reaction, but then I took a deeper dive into Pinson's stats. As good as Clemente? Of course not. Very underrated, though? Indeed.

I love Pinson and would love to see him inducted some day. Very underrated, and playing for small-market Cincy didn't help either.

But there's no universe in which he was as good as Clemente.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by packs

Want to hear another coincidence? Pudge turned 32 in 2004, the same year MLB institutes testing. He then goes the next 7 years without putting up an OPS over 100, which is technically not even replacement level talent.

Wow, a catcher who had below league average offense after turning 32? Sounds like, we’ll…95% of catchers ever.

Not saying he didn’t use…but this guessing is dumb. We should just elect on merit for anyone who didn’t fail a test once the league got serious about testing.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by packs

Ortiz failed a test in 2003. He then later claimed that when he finds out why he failed the test, he'd share the information publicly. But he of course never did that. Timing seems suspicious though, doesn't it? In 2003 Ortiz was more or less nobody. In 2004 he makes his first All Star team. Hmmmm......

Ortiz allegedly failed a test that was to set a baseline for if future testing would happen. This was leaked by the NY media….and no confirmation has ever happened, and no other names were released or leaked.

And it’s not like you take steroids and then you’re good for a decade…you know once testing started the HR hitters were “randomly” tested more than the 150 utility infielders.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by packs

Clemens' old trainer accused him of cheating but there was no "proof". So, why is he guilty because a guy said so but others aren't? Ortiz failed a test in 2003. He then later claimed that when he finds out why he failed the test, he'd share the information publicly. But he of course never did that. Timing seems suspicious though, doesn't it? In 2003 Ortiz was more or less nobody. In 2004 he makes his first All Star team. Hmmmm......

Ivan Rodriguez though, to me, is the most obvious case. All you have to do is look at a photo of him in his Texas prime and compare it to the little guy who ended up on the Yankees later on.

Ortiz was pretty good in 2003 - 31 HR, 101 RBI, .288. If you look at his career, he was playing more and getting better up to 2003. And after that positive result .... for what? .... he was tested pretty stringently and regularly and he continued to produce at ever greater levels.

[egri]

Originally Posted by packs

Ortiz failed a test in 2003. He then later claimed that when he finds out why he failed the test, he'd share the information publicly. But he of course never did that. Timing seems suspicious though, doesn't it? In 2003 Ortiz was more or less nobody. In 2004 he makes his first All Star team. Hmmmm......

The Twins were trying to turn Ortiz into a singles hitter who didn't strike out, and it didn't help that he fractured his wrist a couple times and then his mom died just as he was starting to break out. When he got to Boston, Pedro and Manny told him to forget about hitting singles and swing for the fences.

[Peter_Spaeth]

How is Pinson underrated? Seems to me your classic very good player which is how he is thought of.


Hall of Fame Statistics





Black Ink
Batting - 18 (153), AverageHOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink
Batting - 135 (158), AverageHOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 95 (194), LikelyHOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 36 (215), AverageHOFer ≈ 50

JAWS
Center Field (20th):
54.1 career WAR| 40.0 7yr-peak WAR| 47.0 JAWS| 3.6 WAR/162
Average HOF CF (out of 19):
71.9 career WAR | 44.8 7yr-peak WAR | 58.3 JAWS | 5.4 WAR/162

[Fred]

Bobby Mathews

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Ross Barnes. The first superstar of recognized professional baseball. Only player to hit over .400 in four seasons. Pioneer type players are shamefully underrepresented and almost omitted in the HOF.

The HOF should create a "pioneers or early years" section for the fans. There are a few players that should be in there and Ross Barnes is at the top of the list. Bobby Mathews is another player that could be considered a "pioneer". He started the same year as Ross Barnes but lasted a bit longer. If he'd won 3 more games in his career, he'd already be enshrined.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

wtf?

My 82 year old mother would tell you that those three letters stand for "well that's fantastic"

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

But if he did not take money or do anything to actually throw a game then why, there was no such rule in place when that happened? He was retroactively banned by Landis, who was basically paid off by the owner's to be their hit man. In fact, there was actually no law on the books that made throwing a baseball game a criminal activity at the time either. The Black Sox trial was for alledgedly cheating others out of money they would have gotten had they won the series. If I remember correctly, I believe White Sox teammate Shano Collins was listed as the injured party in the trial, or one of them at least.

And if you are going to retroactively ban someone for one rule, then shouldn't the same be true for all rules? In which case, shouldn't the rule be retroactively applied to anyone taking amphetamines before they were banned then? And since it is basically a known fact that virtually all ballplayers back in the 50's and 60's were taking, or at least tried, greenies/amphetamines, there is an even more compelling case for most of the HOFers from back then to be banned from baseball permanently as well. I believe the current rule is three strikes for PEDs and you're out forever, right?

And before even one of you jumps on here to say you can't prove anyone did greenies because they didn't test for amphetamines back then, go look up all the stories and admissions. I believe Mays even admitted to going to his doctor for a prescription to help him get through the season, and conveniently said he didn't know what was in the pills he got though so he could always feign ignorance of knowingly taking amphtamines. I believe you could find enough evidence and support to permanently ban quite a few HOFers if that rule against PEDs were retroactively applied, like the gambling rule apparently was against Weaver.

I didn’t say he should be banned, I said that the reason cited for his banning was factually wrong. He was banned for guilty knowledge and effectively helping cover it up, not throwing the series himself.

Whether he should have been for that is a legitimate question. I think that a player can reasonably be banned for doing something that common sense should tell you is very wrong, even if there is not a specific rule. For example, I don’t believe MLB has a rule specifically saying you can be banned for assault with a deadly weapon or attempted homicide, but I think Juan Marichal could reasonably have been banned for life for trying to smash John Roseboro’s head open with a bat.

Likening covering up the biggest scandal in sports history that ruined public trust in the game to every player that has taken a greenie, amphetamine, or sought an unfair advantage (which is probably almost every player in history) is not reasonable. The obvious difference here is that seeking an unfair competitive advantage is a different kind of bad thing from covering up the throwing of the World Series, trying to win vs. covering up trying to lose. Weaver can be defended on the reasonable ground that the line should be drawn at direct participation and not guilty knowledge. This is a better argument, and one I don’t necessarily disagree with.

[molenick]

You can get elected as a pioneer or early years selection...that committee last had an election in 2016 and no one got in (top vote-getters were Doc Adams, Bill Dahlen, and Harry Stovey). The last people to get in via this committee were Hank O'Day, Jake Ruppert, and Deacon White in the 2013 election (results announced in 2012). The next scheduled meeting of the committee is this December.

One problem is that they cover a very broad range of years. There are four different veterans committees and the one called Early Baseball currently covers 1871-1949. So in the last election, Bucky Walters and Marty Marion were on the ballot along with pioneers and actual early players (I don't think of Marty Marion as an early player). The first hurdle is getting on the ballot and it is much harder when you are competing against people over such a wide range of years. This to me is four eras (pioneer/pre-league, organized 19th century, dead ball, pre-integration live ball). The other three committees are much more focused (for example, the Golden Days committee covers 1950-1969).

The other problem is that after this year's election, they are not meeting again for another ten years! So basically if Adams, Barnes, Creighton, Dahlen, Ferrell, Magee, Mathews, etc. don't make it this time they are not getting in for a long time (unless the HOF changes its rules).

[packs]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Ortiz allegedly failed a test that was to set a baseline for if future testing would happen. This was leaked by the NY media….and no confirmation has ever happened, and no other names were released or leaked.

And it’s not like you take steroids and then you’re good for a decade…you know once testing started the HR hitters were “randomly” tested more than the 150 utility infielders.

You sure about that? How do you explain the second prime of Clemens' career then? He didn't fail a test either. Was he cheating? Obviously.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by packs

You sure about that? How do you explain the second prime of Clemens' career then? He didn't fail a test either. Was he cheating? Obviously.

Am I sure Ortiz or Clemens did or didn’t cheat? Of course not…none of us are.

Is it LESS likely that they used after testing became widespread? Yes, although obviously the testing isn’t infallible.

It’s impossible to know who used what when and what effect it had. We can know someone used something at a point in time if they test positive. We can see evidence that they used (Mitchell report, accusations from Clemen’s trainer). But approaches like “leaked test results” and “backne” are less reliable.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by molenick

You can get elected as a pioneer or early years selection...that committee last had an election in 2016 and no one got in (top vote-getters were Doc Adams, Bill Dahlen, and Harry Stovey). The last people to get in via this committee were Hank O'Day, Jake Ruppert, and Deacon White in the 2013 election (results announced in 2012). The next scheduled meeting of the committee is this December.

One problem is that they cover a very broad range of years. There are four different veterans committees and the one called Early Baseball currently covers 1871-1949. So in the last election, Bucky Walters and Marty Marion were on the ballot along with pioneers and actual early players (I don't think of Marty Marion as an early player). The first hurdle is getting on the ballot and it is much harder when you are competing against people over such a wide range of years. This to me is four eras (pioneer/pre-league, organized 19th century, dead ball, pre-integration live ball). The other three committees are much more focused (for example, the Golden Days committee covers 1950-1969).

The other problem is that after this year's election, they are not meeting again for another ten years! So basically if Adams, Barnes, Creighton, Dahlen, Ferrell, Magee, Mathews, etc. don't make it this time they are not getting in for a long time (unless the HOF changes its rules).

The worst part is that I believe this committee still requires a decade of Major League Baseball service to be selected, and thus Creighton who died before it existed cannot ever be considered in the current system. Barnes only played 9 years and thus cannot be considered either. Marty Marion can be considered by the committee for pioneers, but not the two actual pioneers who clearly merit induction.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by G1911

The worst part is that I believe this committee still requires a decade of Major League Baseball service to be selected, and thus Creighton who died before it existed cannot ever be considered in the current system. Barnes only played 9 years and thus cannot be considered either. Marty Marion can be considered by the committee for pioneers, but not the two actual pioneers who clearly merit induction.

Never forget.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by G1911

The worst part is that I believe this committee still requires a decade of Major League Baseball service to be selected, and thus Creighton who died before it existed cannot ever be considered in the current system. Barnes only played 9 years and thus cannot be considered either. Marty Marion can be considered by the committee for pioneers, but not the two actual pioneers who clearly merit induction.

That could be true of some committees, but I think this committee would allow someone in as a pioneer without that requirement (and without them being designated as an executive, which is the other way you can get in without playing ten years).

I think that is how Cartwright, Chadwick, Cummings, etc. got in. Also the fact that Doc Adams was on the most recent ballot as a pioneer means it is possible, unless the rules have changed (see below for that vote and committee members).

I just don't like the fact that there are only ten people on a ballot covering a very large time period. Even if they made it two committees (19th century and 1901-1949) as opposed to the four I suggested, I'm sure many of us could think of ten very legitimate candidates (we would probably have trouble limiting it to ten).

That would at least help focus the committee. Plus if they were two different committees, the 19th century committee might lean more towards being made up of historians. Not to say that the other members were not qualified....just that the arguments for Ferrell, Dahlen, Walters, etc. are largely statistical and the arguments for true pioneers like Adams and Creighton require more of a knowledge of that era (again, not to say that the other members are not up on their 19th century baseball history).

Of course, the argument for some 19th century players is statistical as well....but it still needs to be taken in the context of that period.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by G1911

The worst part is that I believe this committee still requires a decade of Major League Baseball service to be selected, and thus Creighton who died before it existed cannot ever be considered in the current system. Barnes only played 9 years and thus cannot be considered either. Marty Marion can be considered by the committee for pioneers, but not the two actual pioneers who clearly merit induction.

If you ask the HOF powers that be, they will tell you that players whose careers that don't include 10 recognized major league seasons that are "pioneers", such as Barnes, Creighton,etc, are eligible to be considered. In theory this is true. Originally, the HOF had a pioneer type category. Candy Cummings was elected in 1939 with a career of less than 10 recognized major league seasons. I may be wrong, but I think Cummings was the first and only pioneer player elected that didn't meet the 10 year rule. The truth be told, the HOF has no motivation to elect any pioneer players, and I emphasis players because early managers, umpires, executives are better represented as pioneers in the HOF than players. This is ludicrous. There is almost no chance the HOF voters will even consider pioneer players and bypass the 10 year rule. Mind you, some of the players that played less than 10 major league seasons played more than 10 years before the recognized major leagues were formed. As an aside, most Negro League players in the HOF never played a major league game and are included. Pioneers that don't meet the 10 year rule are the only players, for all right and purposes, that have almost no avenue for election. Like Negro league players, pioneers were not able to meet the 10 year rule through no fault of their own other than being born too early.
Also, major league baseball doesn't recognize the 1871-1875 National Association as major league even though the best players of the day were playing in it. It follows that the HOF excludes the NA when calculating major league service time. This clouds the waters even more. This determination is illustrated by the fact that both Candy Cummings and George Wright are list as executives by the HOF and don't use the term, heaven forbid, "pioneer". In fact, the HOF doesn't even call this duo players because of the 10 year rule. What a joke.

[molenick]

It does seem like those part pioneer/part league players are the ones that get shafted. Barnes and McVey played baseball for more than their nine league years, but the voters see nine years played and say that is not enough. Dick McBride is another player that was a star before and after league play started but his hybrid status works against him. I think Creighton has a better chance than any of them because he is purely a pioneer (not that he is a better candidate...just that the argument for him is more straightforward as a pioneer and the game's first big star). But considering that he's never even been on the ballot, I guess he is a long shot as well.

[G1911]

I believe this is correct, that Cummings is the only "player" for which the 10 rule didn't apply (or it didn't exist then, the exact rules in the early years are difficult to come by and sources contradict, implying there weren't many rules but maybe guidelines, I claim no expertise). It was bent for Joss

Doc Adams can be considered as an executive/writer, but I don't believe Crieghton has ever appeared on a ballot and cannot under the current committee (he died before it's starting year of consideration as well). Barnes may have but has not been considered due to the 10 rule in a very long time, and this doesn't seem likely to change. I stand corrected on the NA, so he has only 4 years instead of 9. If we're going to designate new major leagues the NA seems a clear-cut choice though

It's a joke, these two seem like obvious no-brainer top-tier nominees. Creighton especially should be exempt from this rule and make a ballot, as he died before a league now retroactively considered Major League Baseball even existed.

HOF card collectors might be against his inclusion, but I've never seen an argument actually against him or Barnes being inducted for their historical contributions and Barnes' level of play.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

I didn’t say he should be banned, I said that the reason cited for his banning was factually wrong. He was banned for guilty knowledge and effectively helping cover it up, not throwing the series himself.

Whether he should have been for that is a legitimate question. I think that a player can reasonably be banned for doing something that common sense should tell you is very wrong, even if there is not a specific rule. For example, I don’t believe MLB has a rule specifically saying you can be banned for assault with a deadly weapon or attempted homicide, but I think Juan Marichal could reasonably have been banned for life for trying to smash John Roseboro’s head open with a bat.

Likening covering up the biggest scandal in sports history that ruined public trust in the game to every player that has taken a greenie, amphetamine, or sought an unfair advantage (which is probably almost every player in history) is not reasonable. The obvious difference here is that seeking an unfair competitive advantage is a different kind of bad thing from covering up the throwing of the World Series, trying to win vs. covering up trying to lose. Weaver can be defended on the reasonable ground that the line should be drawn at direct participation and not guilty knowledge. This is a better argument, and one I don’t necessarily disagree with.

G1911,

Wasn't dissing you. And agree the comparison of cheating to win and cheating to lose a game is not a pure apples to apples comparison, but regardless of the severity of the infraction, rules are rules, and enforcing some rules retroactively while not enforcing others is just wrong.

And from a philosophical standpoint, does it really matter that much what the cheating was supposed to accomplish, to win or to lose? During the Black Sox scandal, the people who were White Sox fans and who bet on the Sox to win were probably pissed as hell when they found out their team may have thrown the world Series on purpose. But guess what, the Cincinnati Reds fans and those who bet against the White Sox, along with anyone else who hated the White Sox for whatever reasons, were probably happier than pigs in mud that they ended up winning. Now lets fast forward to the Astros a couple years ago and their cheating scandal. They actually involved more than just the players on the team in what they did. They had other people in the organization at different levels as part of this concerted effort also, so it went much deeper than the issues with the White Sox organization back in 1919. So when the Astros ended up winning, their fans and anybody who bet on them were happy. But, all the other teams, and all their fans and all those others that were betting against the Astros, were all very unhappy. So in both instances you end up with some people being happy, and some being very unhappy.

But in the case where the White Sox played to supposedly lose, it was mostly just their fans that were unhappy. Think about it, most professional sports fans are concerned with winning, not necessarily how they do it. Oh they may wish the other team tried their best to win, but in the end they're just happy to have won and tough sh#t if the other team's players were stupid enough to throw the game in their team's favor. So you end up with fans from one team being very unhappy, fans from another team being very happy, and most of the fans from the rest of the teams not being overly thrilled, but mostly disinterested because it didn't directly involve their team.

Now in the case of the Astros, obviously the majority of their fans are very happy they won. "If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'", isn't that the old adage? But now you have not just the team they beat in the World Series, but also the teams they beat in the rest of the playoffs, as well as the teams they played and beat throughout the entire season, and all of those team's respective fans, who are pissed as hell at the Astros for what they did. So when I add up my scorecard, I actually think there would be more people upset and pissed off because of what the Astros did than what the White Sox did.

Personally, I think that Altuve and the rest of the group that were all found to be involved in this cheating scandal should have been immediately and permanently banned from baseball. You mentioned about some things that common sense should tell you is wrong and that players should be able to be banned for. Well I think what the Astros did should be one of those things. But guess what, the players basically got slaps on the wrist and immunity for agreeing to finally cooperate with the investigation. Meanwhile, managers, coaches and employees of the organization who knew or were directly involved in the cheating took the brunt of the punishment and lost jobs and faced suspensions. And the team lost some draft picks and paid a $5MM fine. That was basically it.

What the Astros did was far worse for baseball and negatively affected more of the people involved in baseball than what the White Sox did. Yet the players back then took the brunt of the blame and paid for it, while the players of today had virtually nothing done to them.

The reason I originally brought up the greenies and amphetamine use as a possible argument was because of the specifics of the rules involving PEDs and steroid uses and how there is an actual rule that says if you do this you are permanently banned. I may be wrong, but for what the Astros did I believe the rules put it at the discretion of the Commissioner to decide their punishment, and there is no specific automatic "permanent suspension" clause in that part of the rules.

So I still make my claim that either of these, the greenies or the Astros cheating, should be retroactively used to permanently ban involved parties that were known to break the rules, the same way they retroactively treated the Black Sox players. And if not, it just shows the total hypocrisy on the part of MLB. I even read or heard one place that Landis had said he was going to suspend the Black Sox players involved in the 1919 scandal, and if they ended up being found innocent in their criminal trial he would then reinstate them. Funny, at least Manfred kept his word to the players. Oh wait, had he not, he would have had the MLBPA up his arse. Too bad the players back in 1919 didn't have a union to help and protect them against the owners.

I understand the problem with my argument of going back on all the greenie users was that pretty much everyone in baseball was using the greenies, and so no one really cared. But back then in 1919, it wasn't like the Black Sox were the first ever players to get involved with gamblers and throw games either. They just became the sacrificial lambs so baseball owners could keep making their money, which is really all they truly cared about. I'm not saying the Black Sox were all clean and not deserving of punishment, but there are valid arguments that Weaver and Jackson were screwed, and that Comiskey was so involved in all of this that of all the people banned, he should have been the first. Instead, his fellow owners protected him and I don't think he really suffered any punishment for involvement in all this. Makes you wonder if the MLB owners didn't all have enough "dirt" on each other that they dared not throw one of their own under the bus, so instead take it on the players involved so as to make fans happy, and teach a lesson to the rest of the players to shut up and do as they were told. Even Rule #21 Landis eventually put on the books, in 1927 I think, involving Misconduct and Gambling was written in such a way as to explicitly not implicate Comiskey at all for his part of the 1919 scandal. But it does make sure to cover both Weaver and Jackson, at least for what they were alleged to have done. In the end, nothing has changed. It was all about the money back then, and it is all about the money today.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

Personally, I think that Altuve and the rest of the group that were all found to be involved in this cheating scandal should have been immediately and permanently banned from baseball. You mentioned about some things that common sense should tell you is wrong and that players should be able to be banned for. Well I think what the Astros did should be one of those things.

I'm not sure if I'd favor permanent bans but I was/am definitely in favor of LOOOOOOOOOONG suspensions for everyone. As in one or two seasons, minimum. Along with returning all of their playoff money.

Fact is, they were aware what they were doing was against the rules. This isn't a "should have known" situation- they DID know. MLB had sent out memos and other teams had been punished for using electronics to steal signals.

FWIW, ESPN reported on the scandal as it was happening and it got ignored. MLB knew about it and didn't care until the one pitcher outed everything.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

G1911,

Wasn't dissing you. And agree the comparison of cheating to win and cheating to lose a game is not a pure apples to apples comparison, but regardless of the severity of the infraction, rules are rules, and enforcing some rules retroactively while not enforcing others is just wrong.

And from a philosophical standpoint, does it really matter that much what the cheating was supposed to accomplish, to win or to lose? During the Black Sox scandal, the people who were White Sox fans and who bet on the Sox to win were probably pissed as hell when they found out their team may have thrown the world Series on purpose. But guess what, the Cincinnati Reds fans and those who bet against the White Sox, along with anyone else who hated the White Sox for whatever reasons, were probably happier than pigs in mud that they ended up winning. Now lets fast forward to the Astros a couple years ago and their cheating scandal. They actually involved more than just the players on the team in what they did. They had other people in the organization at different levels as part of this concerted effort also, so it went much deeper than the issues with the White Sox organization back in 1919. So when the Astros ended up winning, their fans and anybody who bet on them were happy. But, all the other teams, and all their fans and all those others that were betting against the Astros, were all very unhappy. So in both instances you end up with some people being happy, and some being very unhappy.

But in the case where the White Sox played to supposedly lose, it was mostly just their fans that were unhappy. Think about it, most professional sports fans are concerned with winning, not necessarily how they do it. Oh they may wish the other team tried their best to win, but in the end they're just happy to have won and tough sh#t if the other team's players were stupid enough to throw the game in their team's favor. So you end up with fans from one team being very unhappy, fans from another team being very happy, and most of the fans from the rest of the teams not being overly thrilled, but mostly disinterested because it didn't directly involve their team.

Now in the case of the Astros, obviously the majority of their fans are very happy they won. "If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'", isn't that the old adage? But now you have not just the team they beat in the World Series, but also the teams they beat in the rest of the playoffs, as well as the teams they played and beat throughout the entire season, and all of those team's respective fans, who are pissed as hell at the Astros for what they did. So when I add up my scorecard, I actually think there would be more people upset and pissed off because of what the Astros did than what the White Sox did.

Personally, I think that Altuve and the rest of the group that were all found to be involved in this cheating scandal should have been immediately and permanently banned from baseball. You mentioned about some things that common sense should tell you is wrong and that players should be able to be banned for. Well I think what the Astros did should be one of those things. But guess what, the players basically got slaps on the wrist and immunity for agreeing to finally cooperate with the investigation. Meanwhile, managers, coaches and employees of the organization who knew or were directly involved in the cheating took the brunt of the punishment and lost jobs and faced suspensions. And the team lost some draft picks and paid a $5MM fine. That was basically it.

What the Astros did was far worse for baseball and negatively affected more of the people involved in baseball than what the White Sox did. Yet the players back then took the brunt of the blame and paid for it, while the players of today had virtually nothing done to them.

The reason I originally brought up the greenies and amphetamine use as a possible argument was because of the specifics of the rules involving PEDs and steroid uses and how there is an actual rule that says if you do this you are permanently banned. I may be wrong, but for what the Astros did I believe the rules put it at the discretion of the Commissioner to decide their punishment, and there is no specific automatic "permanent suspension" clause in that part of the rules.

So I still make my claim that either of these, the greenies or the Astros cheating, should be retroactively used to permanently ban involved parties that were known to break the rules, the same way they retroactively treated the Black Sox players. And if not, it just shows the total hypocrisy on the part of MLB. I even read or heard one place that Landis had said he was going to suspend the Black Sox players involved in the 1919 scandal, and if they ended up being found innocent in their criminal trial he would then reinstate them. Funny, at least Manfred kept his word to the players. Oh wait, had he not, he would have had the MLBPA up his arse. Too bad the players back in 1919 didn't have a union to help and protect them against the owners.

I understand the problem with my argument of going back on all the greenie users was that pretty much everyone in baseball was using the greenies, and so no one really cared. But back then in 1919, it wasn't like the Black Sox were the first ever players to get involved with gamblers and throw games either. They just became the sacrificial lambs so baseball owners could keep making their money, which is really all they truly cared about. I'm not saying the Black Sox were all clean and not deserving of punishment, but there are valid arguments that Weaver and Jackson were screwed, and that Comiskey was so involved in all of this that of all the people banned, he should have been the first. Instead, his fellow owners protected him and I don't think he really suffered any punishment for involvement in all this. Makes you wonder if the MLB owners didn't all have enough "dirt" on each other that they dared not throw one of their own under the bus, so instead take it on the players involved so as to make fans happy, and teach a lesson to the rest of the players to shut up and do as they were told. Even Rule #21 Landis eventually put on the books, in 1927 I think, involving Misconduct and Gambling was written in such a way as to explicitly not implicate Comiskey at all for his part of the 1919 scandal. But it does make sure to cover both Weaver and Jackson, at least for what they were alleged to have done. In the end, nothing has changed. It was all about the money back then, and it is all about the money today.

I don't agree. I think that retroactively enforcing arbitrary rules, or new rules and applying them to the past is unfair, but something that just elementary common sense or a single iota of awareness should tell someone is now and was then wrong, it doesn't much matter if there was a formal rule or not. If you are participating in the fixing of the biggest event in sports, whether it's taking payoffs (Jackson), trying to lose (Gandil, Cicotte, Williams and others) or ignoring or covering it up (Weaver), you should be aware that you may face punishment if caught, even if you manage to hide behind "well, no rule says...". It is basic common sense, and it is the case in every single other job in the world. If I am guilty of gross misconduct at my job, openly operating against the fundamental interests of my employer, guess who is getting fired regardless of whether or not there is some technical rule I broke? Common sense IS a general rule we apply every single day in most aspects of our lives.

From a philosophical standpoint, YES intent and context matter. Because rigging games makes Reds fans happy is not a good reason to dismiss rigging games. Philosophy is not about "how many people does this make happy?" but about what is right and wrong and the proper way to happiness. Let's use the Socratic argument of analogy to show the absurdity of the standard here. Murder makes the serial killer happy and the victim unhappy, while the victim getting away makes the victim happy and the serial killer unhappy. No rational moral philosophy says "some people like it and some don't, it's all the same then".

If you think the Astros should be banned for life, based on common sense, even though they did not commit an offense that is specifically bannable for life in the agreed upon rules, then why is the same not true for the Black Sox? You want to use a "common sense" standard (even though not many would say anyone who cheats to win should be banned for life) for the Astros, but argue it must be ignored for the White Sox. That is not reasonable. I think the Astros got off way too light and should have been actually punished, but what they did not is not as bad as rigging a World Series for a group gamblers. By no means.

I do not know how Comiskey "was involved in all of this" and should have been the first one banned. What games did he rig? What payoffs did he take from illegal gamblers and gangsters? If I have missed some evidence that Comiskey was the mastermind behind the rigging of the series and played everybody, I would love to see it. I presume we actually mean that the charge that Comiskey was cheap is true and justifies the rigging of games. If Jackson's $6,000 was not enough for him (reading his testimony, there's a place where he seems to say Comiskey's pay to him was actually fairly generous), he can quit his job. If I rigged a deal my company was working on because I think I am not paid enough, and threw it to a competitor who gave me a payoff, and I was caught, do you think that I would not be banned from ever working with my employers organization ever again? Obviously I would be fired immediately and never hired again, at best (and may well end up in court). Would it be okay philosophically for me to do this? No, if I think my employment situation is no longer profitable enough (obviously I did at one point, when I signed on the line), I quit my job.

Greenies were not a big deal in 1964. Retroactively punishing players is a bit weird for that. The rigging of the World Series was a gigantic deal in 1920, punishing the Black Sox was not enforcing some new standard onto the past. Nobody in 1920 considered this proper conduct. Taking money from someone to do a job, and then taking money from someone else to not do a job (Jackson) or covering that up (Weaver) has never been an acceptable, consequence-free action in the western world. I'm fairly confident there even WERE rules against rigging games. Actions have consequences, and those consequences are fair when context and a shred of common sense tell you what the consequence will be when you commit the action. Actively trying to screw your employer gets you fired. A reasonable argument can be made that Weaver should not have been banned, but this is not it.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

I do not know how Comiskey "was involved in all of this" and should have been the first one banned. What games did he rig? What payoffs did he take from illegal gamblers and gangsters? If I have missed some evidence that Comiskey was the mastermind behind the rigging of the series and played everybody, I would love to see it.

My understanding is that Comiskey was told the Series was fixed during the Series. If so, he was guilty of the same thing that got Buck Weaver banned.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

My understanding is that Comiskey was told the Series was fixed during the Series. If so, he was guilty of the same thing that got Buck Weaver banned.

The difference being, if I recall correctly, Comiskey didn't believe it and dismissed it as gossip, whereas Weaver was quite aware it was true and was offered bribes himself. Which is a pretty big gap.

[abothebear]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

How in the world did Johnny Grubb his way into this list?

Brian

Every 8-year-old's favorite player should be in the Hall of Fame.

[Fred]

Did I just go through over 300 posts without a mention of Indian Bob Johnson?

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by abothebear

Every 8-year-old's favorite player should be in the Hall of Fame.

Great!

[howard38]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't agree. I think that retroactively enforcing arbitrary rules, or new rules and applying them to the past is unfair, but something that just elementary common sense or a single iota of awareness should tell someone is now and was then wrong, it doesn't much matter if there was a formal rule or not. If you are participating in the fixing of the biggest event in sports, whether it's taking payoffs (Jackson), trying to lose (Gandil, Cicotte, Williams and others) or ignoring or covering it up (Weaver), you should be aware that you may face punishment if caught, even if you manage to hide behind "well, no rule says...". It is basic common sense, and it is the case in every single other job in the world. If I am guilty of gross misconduct at my job, openly operating against the fundamental interests of my employer, guess who is getting fired regardless of whether or not there is some technical rule I broke? Common sense IS a general rule we apply every single day in most aspects of our lives.

From a philosophical standpoint, YES intent and context matter. Because rigging games makes Reds fans happy is not a good reason to dismiss rigging games. Philosophy is not about "how many people does this make happy?" but about what is right and wrong and the proper way to happiness. Let's use the Socratic argument of analogy to show the absurdity of the standard here. Murder makes the serial killer happy and the victim unhappy, while the victim getting away makes the victim happy and the serial killer unhappy. No rational moral philosophy says "some people like it and some don't, it's all the same then".

If you think the Astros should be banned for life, based on common sense, even though they did not commit an offense that is specifically bannable for life in the agreed upon rules, then why is the same not true for the Black Sox? You want to use a "common sense" standard (even though not many would say anyone who cheats to win should be banned for life) for the Astros, but argue it must be ignored for the White Sox. That is not reasonable. I think the Astros got off way too light and should have been actually punished, but what they did not is not as bad as rigging a World Series for a group gamblers. By no means.

I do not know how Comiskey "was involved in all of this" and should have been the first one banned. What games did he rig? What payoffs did he take from illegal gamblers and gangsters? If I have missed some evidence that Comiskey was the mastermind behind the rigging of the series and played everybody, I would love to see it. I presume we actually mean that the charge that Comiskey was cheap is true and justifies the rigging of games. If Jackson's $6,000 was not enough for him (reading his testimony, there's a place where he seems to say Comiskey's pay to him was actually fairly generous), he can quit his job. If I rigged a deal my company was working on because I think I am not paid enough, and threw it to a competitor who gave me a payoff, and I was caught, do you think that I would not be banned from ever working with my employers organization ever again? Obviously I would be fired immediately and never hired again, at best (and may well end up in court). Would it be okay philosophically for me to do this? No, if I think my employment situation is no longer profitable enough (obviously I did at one point, when I signed on the line), I quit my job.

Greenies were not a big deal in 1964. Retroactively punishing players is a bit weird for that. The rigging of the World Series was a gigantic deal in 1920, punishing the Black Sox was not enforcing some new standard onto the past. Nobody in 1920 considered this proper conduct. Taking money from someone to do a job, and then taking money from someone else to not do a job (Jackson) or covering that up (Weaver) has never been an acceptable, consequence-free action in the western world. I'm fairly confident there even WERE rules against rigging games. Actions have consequences, and those consequences are fair when context and a shred of common sense tell you what the consequence will be when you commit the action. Actively trying to screw your employer gets you fired. A reasonable argument can be made that Weaver should not have been banned, but this is not it.

I agree with this.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by BobC

But if he did not take money or do anything to actually throw a game then why, there was no such rule in place when that happened? He was retroactively banned by Landis, who was basically paid off by the owner's to be their hit man. In fact, there was actually no law on the books that made throwing a baseball game a criminal activity at the time either. The Black Sox trial was for alledgedly cheating others out of money they would have gotten had they won the series. If I remember correctly, I believe White Sox teammate Shano Collins was listed as the injured party in the trial, or one of them at least.

And if you are going to retroactively ban someone for one rule, then shouldn't the same be true for all rules? In which case, shouldn't the rule be retroactively applied to anyone taking amphetamines before they were banned then? And since it is basically a known fact that virtually all ballplayers back in the 50's and 60's were taking, or at least tried, greenies/amphetamines, there is an even more compelling case for most of the HOFers from back then to be banned from baseball permanently as well. I believe the current rule is three strikes for PEDs and you're out forever, right?

And before even one of you jumps on here to say you can't prove anyone did greenies because they didn't test for amphetamines back then, go look up all the stories and admissions. I believe Mays even admitted to going to his doctor for a prescription to help him get through the season, and conveniently said he didn't know what was in the pills he got though so he could always feign ignorance of knowingly taking amphtamines. I believe you could find enough evidence and support to permanently ban quite a few HOFers if that rule against PEDs were retroactively applied, like the gambling rule apparently was against Weaver.

It would be hard to ban players for taking greenies back in the day. They didn't get them off the street, and they didn't need to get them from their personal doctor. They were pretty much readily available from the team doctors in the clubhouse. Read Ball Four and you'll see they pretty much kept them in the clubhouse by the box full. As far a Steroids go, I have no problem with players that took them BEFORE they were banned. After, well that's another story.

[Exhibitman]

I don't know if it is legit to bring up a NLer in this context, but I'd never even heard of this guy until a member here clued me in, and this guy belongs in the HOF. Maybe the NL committee will act some day.



1932 Doble Aguila from Venezuela with Tetelo Vargas, hit .471 in 1943. More:

https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/juan-tetelo-vargas/

"Tetelo Vargas was a player with exceptional skills in nearly all aspects of the game. He hit for average, had good power for his physique, and was a superb defender. He possessed a strong throwing arm and superior speed – which won him the nickname El Gamo Dominicano, or “The Dominican Deer.” He was an excellent base-stealer as well. His complexion kept him on the wrong side of the major leagues’ color barrier – he was 41 when Jackie Robinson arrived. Yet Vargas accomplished much in more than three decades of professional baseball (1923-1956), a career that took him from his homeland to Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Cuba, Canada and the U.S. Negro Leagues. He is unequivocally recognized as the greatest Dominican player of his era. As Peter Bjarkman, historian of Latin American baseball, wrote, “The slender, wiry outfielder and shortstop. . . is without doubt the most accomplished Dominican native never to spend a single day in the majors.”"

[packs]

If it fits the criteria I'd also say Perucho Cepeda has been criminally overlooked:

[rats60]

Originally Posted by mr2686

It would be hard to ban players for taking greenies back in the day. They didn't get them off the street, and they didn't need to get them from their personal doctor. They were pretty much readily available from the team doctors in the clubhouse. Read Ball Four and you'll see they pretty much kept them in the clubhouse by the box full. As far a Steroids go, I have no problem with players that took them BEFORE they were banned. After, well that's another story.

Steroids were banned in 1990. I doubt there were many players who used them before that and not after.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think the Hall will take a Paso on the Doble Vargas.

[Shoeless Moe]

Good article on it.....

Thurman Munson V. Carlton Fisk: Using Modern Statistics Reveals Better Player

There is a difference between being a great baseball talent, being a great player and having a great career.

Thurman Munson and Carlton Fisk were great baseball talents. Munson and Fisk were great players. Fisk had a better career than Munson did. As Helen Gamble of The Practice might say, "I wonder why."

Traditional statistics reveal little when comparing them, although Munson had a better batting average (.292 to .269) and a better on-base percentage (.346 to .341). Fisk's slugging average (.457) was superior to Munson's (.410).

Do you think that Munson's home park compared to Fisk's home parks was a factor?


Munson and Fisk each had Hall of Fame ability. Modern statistics shed new light on the careers of both catchers.

Munson's career WAR or WIns Above Replacement was 43.3 for his 10 full complete seasons. Fisk's career WAR was 63.7 for his 21 complete seasons. This is to be expected based on longevity.

Munson's WAR was 3.9 over an average season compared to Fisk's 2.7. It is a substantial difference that favors Munson and reveals his value.


Rbat or Runs Batting refers to the number of runs better or worse compared to average. Munson's average Rbat was 11 compared to Fisk's seven.

RAR or Runs Above Replacement is the number of runs a player is better than a replacement player. Munson's average RAR was 38. Fisk's average RAR was 25.

Turning to defense, Munson's fielding percentage was .982 compared to FIsk's .988.

Munson nabbed 44 percent of base-stealers compared to the league average of 38 percent while Fisk threw out 34 percent of potential stealers compared to the league average of 35 percent.

Munson's RF or range factor was 5.61 per nine innings. Fisk's was 6.00.

Munson was clearly as good as Fisk. Based on sabermetrics, he was probably better than Fisk. His problem was that his career was cut short.

Roy Campanella, like Munson, had his career cut short by a tragic accident. He has become terribly underrated with the passage of time, but to those who saw him play, he was every bit Yogi Berra's equal. Just ask Vin Scully.


Campanella played 10 seasons, batted .276/.360/.500. His WAR over an average season was 3.2. which is not as good as Munson's 3.9, but which is better than Fisk's 2.7.

A better defensive catcher than Campanella never played the game.

The point is that Munson's relatively brief career has resulted in his being underrated. Longevity might be more valuable than greatness, but longevity too often results in a player being overrated.

Munson was at least as good as Fisk—and Gary Carter, Roger Bresnahan, Ray Schalk and Rick Ferrell. It's upsetting that Munson will never be elected to the Hall of Fame.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Fred

Did I just go through over 300 posts without a mention of Indian Bob Johnson?

+1

[BobC]

Originally Posted by mr2686

It would be hard to ban players for taking greenies back in the day. They didn't get them off the street, and they didn't need to get them from their personal doctor. They were pretty much readily available from the team doctors in the clubhouse. Read Ball Four and you'll see they pretty much kept them in the clubhouse by the box full. As far a Steroids go, I have no problem with players that took them BEFORE they were banned. After, well that's another story.

I wasn't proposing that we go back and try to ban anyone who had used the greenies before the change in the rules took place. I only picked that particular issue in trying to make a point to another poster in regards to his comments about the Black Sox players being permanently banned by a retroactive application of a MLB rule that wasn't on the books until 1927. The main reason for my picking this rule on amphetamine use was that it was/is one of the few MLB rules that has a defined permanent ban feature as part of the listed punishments. I was merely trying to point out to that other poster that if his feelings about some (not all, some) of those Black Sox players that got permanently banned for something there was no rule on the books for was the right thing for MLB to do, then why weren't they being consistent and fair in doing the same thing on a retroactive basis to other players who also broke rules that call for a permanent ban when broken? I know very well that virtually everyone was using the greenies and amphetamines back in the 50s and 60s, and really no one was saying much about it for a long time. Just like the steroid and PED users of the 90s and 00s. Truth is, the use was apparently very pervasive throughout baseball for these amphetamine/PED users during both of those periods, and in most cases the fans were initially reveling in the accomplishments of these stars who were the users. It was only after speculation and concern surrounding this drug use started to catch on among the fans and that their vocal questioning and accusations started to come out that MLB, during both periods, would really start to look into the issue and take action to eventually ban the greenies, amphetamines, steroids, and PEDs. But, had MLB cracked down and really gotten rid of the offenders, they would have ended up getting rid of so many stars and popular players that it is likely the fans would have gone crazy. That would have likely put MLB in a worse situation than if they never did anything about the amphetamine, PEDs, and steroid use to begin with. And of course MLB didn't want to do anything to piss off the fans and potentially impact owner revenue, which again is the only thing they really care about. So instead they came up with the rules to warn these players and start the testing for the drugs, and only gave them suspensions at first, until they hit a "three strikes you're out" penalty where they would be permanently banned then. This solution gave MLB the chance to appease the fans concerns without also pissing them off. MLB realized that they couldn't have just banned one or two of the players to set an example for the rest of the league players. Had they tried that they would have had to go and ban all the offenders then, and because the amphetamine/PED/steroid usage was so pervasive in baseball, they'd have likely ended up banning players on virtually every team in both leagues. Now be honest, if you're a fan and against cheating in baseball, be it amphetamine or PED use, you'd be more likely to say yes, ban the cheater if he was caught. But what if that player was one of the stars of your own home town team that you rooted for? Don't lie, human nature is what it is. You may still reluctantly agree with the rule, but you sure wouldn't like having it happen to your favorite player. So imagine if MLB had gone ahead and started banning all these cheating players on all these teams across both leagues, you'd have fans everywhere pissed more at their own team's players for breaking the rules, getting caught, and getting thrown out of baseball. And how do such disgruntled fans often react to things like this, they stop going to/watching games, which of course ends up costing the team owners money. So MLB comes up with the three strike rule and prays the players aren't stupid enough to let themselves get caught three times.

Now the difference back in 1919 was that fixing to throw games and dealing with gamblers wasn't as pervasive in baseball amongst all the players as the amphetamine/PED/Steroid use was in the more recent years. I believe it is well known among most Net54 members that there were others back in those early days of baseball that were involved with gamblers and the alleged fixing of baseball games, so the Black Sox were certainly not the first to do such a thing. They were the first to get caught and be accused of doing it on such a large stage though, the World Series, at least I believe that is the case. And I've heard the stories about how baseball was suffering due to the scandal and fans were losing faith in the games, and of course the owners feared this loss of faith would end up being realized with fewer people coming through the gates in the future, in other words less money for the owners. So they had to act and do something to allay the fears of the fans. Now again be honest, do you think the fans outside Chicago were more upset and afraid of finding out the White Sox players had thrown the Series, or were they really more afraid and worried that the players on whatever team they were fans off might try to do the same thing? Simple human nature should tell you that the majority likely couldn't care less if it happened to some other team like the White Sox, just so it didn't then happen to their team then.

So why didn't MLB just suspend the players involved in the Black Sox scandal for a period of time and then rule that if someone was ever caught again that they would be permanently banned? That probably would have had a similar effect to appease and soothe the fans back then like the rules passed for drugs and steroid use did. But no, MLB waited for the trial to occur, and they apparently expected the players to be found guilty, and likely figured that way they didn't have to act the part of the heavy and punish the players themselves. And that way no fans could be upset with MLB for banning someone that maybe they didn't want banned. I had read somewhere that Landis supposedly told the Black Sox players that if they were found innocent during the trial they would be reinstated. So why did he renege on that statement after they were surprisingly found innocent? I feel pretty confident that despite what happened that there were quite a lot of White Sox fans that were extremely unhappy with MLB for banning Jackson, their star player, even if he was guilty. But being forced to act because the courts didn't, by banning the Black Sox players MLB was able to minimize the number of disgruntled fans that would result from the banning of players. Pretty much the White Sox fans were pissed because now all their good players were gone, but the rest of baseball's fans were likely very happy with MLB because now their team would have a better chance of winning with the Sox stars gone. Simple human nature!

That other, earlier poster for some reason doesn't think Comiskey did anything wrong in all this when I suggested that of anyone that should have been permanently banned for the Black Sox scandal, it should have been Comiskey first. He obviously hasn't been paying attention to anything I or anyone else has said about Comiskey's involvement, and his lack of such knowledge tells me it isn't worth responding to him anymore as he'll likely just come back saying that fixing a game is the worst thing anyone could ever possibly due in baseball, and if you ask him why, he'll likely respond "because I said so". He doesn't really give any logical evidence or ideas to support his thinking, and pretty much ignores anything I've tried to show him that suggests there may be a different possible way to look at things. He's set in his thinking, and God bless him then. I will point out one particularly laughable argument used by this other poster in coming back at me and defending Comiskey. He kept going on about how there are consequences to what people do and that if someone did something to hurt their employer, like the Black Sox players supposedly did in throwing World Series, their employer would immediately fire them and have nothing to do with them ever again. I literally laughed out loud as I realized this other poster obviously had no clue that in the case of the Black Sox players, not only did their employer, who was Comiskey and not MLB, not fire them after finding out they had possibly conspired to throw the World Series, he actually went out of his way to re-sign and hire them all for the 1920 season, and beyond. In fact, Jackson actually got a raise and was signed to a 3 year deal I believe. And if I remember correctly, 7 of the 8 Black Sox players, including Jackson, did sign and continue player for Comiskey and the White Sox in 1920, with Gandil being the only one who declined to sign and continue playing. I'm guessing this other poster doesn't know about the 1924 civil trial Jackson brought against Comiskey, and how it came out that Comiskey did learn of the fix and who was involved, or that Jackson came to Comiskey with the $5,000 given to him by Lefty Williams and asked him what to do with it, and Comiskey told him to keep it!!!! And that is why I feel Comiskey is the most guilty of all. He's one of the owners and has arguably the most to lose of anyone involved if baseball loses its fans and goes away. So why would he not have done something, why would he not have told the the AL League President or other owners, why would he have re-signed all the players supposedly in on the fix, why would he have told Jackson to keep the money and not turn it over to the cops or the league office, and on and on. If there was anyone directly or even indirectly involved that you would think had a higher duty and responsibility of doing the right thing (whatever that turned out to be) on behalf of players, fans and baseball itself in this situation besides Comiskey, exactly who would that be??? And I'm going to actually correct myself on something I'd said in an earlier post. I had said that I felt Comiskey wasn't punished by MLB at all for his actions and trying to possibly cover up what was happening, and how MLB seemed to have specifically ended up writing Rule #21 so that he wasn't possibly implicated in any of this at all. But it suddenly occurred to me that I may have been wrong all along, and also maybe explain, at least somewhat, why Jackson and Weaver got permanently banned along with all the other Black Sox players even though their involvement was maybe more indirect and they were simply put in the middle of the scandal by others, and not of their own volition. By just banning all 8 Black Sox players, MLB got their rule out to scare other players from ever doing anything to fix games with gamblers going forward, it made the fears of the fans that their own players might try to do this with their favorite teams go away, AND it did end up punishing Comiskey after all. He lost 7 of his best players, especially Jackson. I hadn't thought of this angle before, but it makes a lot of sense. And was also probably a lot easier than trying to force Comiskey out as an owner. Who knows what he may have had and known about other owners that none of them wanted to be leaked out to the public. Plus, at that time, they were still in the midst of the legal case that would ultimately result in MLB getting granted an exemption to the anti-trust laws. Can I definitely prove any of this....no. But if you think about it, or try putting yourself in the place of the other baseball owners back then, that is some solution I could see coming up with myself.

[abothebear]

David Wells is an interesting case. His career statistics don't measure up. He had a weird career, 22 years, but not a full-time starter until he was in his 30s. He played for a ton of teams. All strikes against the case of a typical hall of fame pitcher. Yet, when I think of pitchers from that era, he is in the handful of guys I think of as THE pitchers of that time. And he is the kind of personality and performer you want to see in the Hall of Fame. I'm not saying he should be in, but the exercise illustrates an element to all of this that is hard to quantify. Similar to why it is easier for media-center teams to have players elected to the hall. Some players come with a story (in the media center case it is often because they are surrounded by an abundance of storytellers - add post-season action into the mix and it is all amplified). David Wells is one of larger-than-life guys. Fernando was too but he needed to be good for a while longer than he was. Orel Hershiser had some great drama to his career and a fascinating persona, but again his peak was too short. Wells' career though, once it got going, was consistently jagged.

[benge610]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Good article on it.....

Thurman Munson V. Carlton Fisk: Using Modern Statistics Reveals Better Player

There is a difference between being a great baseball talent, being a great player and having a great career.

Thurman Munson and Carlton Fisk were great baseball talents. Munson and Fisk were great players. Fisk had a better career than Munson did. As Helen Gamble of The Practice might say, "I wonder why."

Traditional statistics reveal little when comparing them, although Munson had a better batting average (.292 to .269) and a better on-base percentage (.346 to .341). Fisk's slugging average (.457) was superior to Munson's (.410).

Do you think that Munson's home park compared to Fisk's home parks was a factor?


Munson and Fisk each had Hall of Fame ability. Modern statistics shed new light on the careers of both catchers.

Munson's career WAR or WIns Above Replacement was 43.3 for his 10 full complete seasons. Fisk's career WAR was 63.7 for his 21 complete seasons. This is to be expected based on longevity.

Munson's WAR was 3.9 over an average season compared to Fisk's 2.7. It is a substantial difference that favors Munson and reveals his value.


Rbat or Runs Batting refers to the number of runs better or worse compared to average. Munson's average Rbat was 11 compared to Fisk's seven.

RAR or Runs Above Replacement is the number of runs a player is better than a replacement player. Munson's average RAR was 38. Fisk's average RAR was 25.

Turning to defense, Munson's fielding percentage was .982 compared to FIsk's .988.

Munson nabbed 44 percent of base-stealers compared to the league average of 38 percent while Fisk threw out 34 percent of potential stealers compared to the league average of 35 percent.

Munson's RF or range factor was 5.61 per nine innings. Fisk's was 6.00.

Munson was clearly as good as Fisk. Based on sabermetrics, he was probably better than Fisk. His problem was that his career was cut short.

Roy Campanella, like Munson, had his career cut short by a tragic accident. He has become terribly underrated with the passage of time, but to those who saw him play, he was every bit Yogi Berra's equal. Just ask Vin Scully.


Campanella played 10 seasons, batted .276/.360/.500. His WAR over an average season was 3.2. which is not as good as Munson's 3.9, but which is better than Fisk's 2.7.

A better defensive catcher than Campanella never played the game.

The point is that Munson's relatively brief career has resulted in his being underrated. Longevity might be more valuable than greatness, but longevity too often results in a player being overrated.

Munson was at least as good as Fisk—and Gary Carter, Roger Bresnahan, Ray Schalk and Rick Ferrell. It's upsetting that Munson will never be elected to the Hall of Fame.

Thank you Paulie.
Well done.

[Mike D.]

Average WAR for a 22 vs 10 career has some value, but clearly decline phase and longevity come into play.

WAR7 looks at a players WAR in their best 7 seasons. Fisk’s is 37.5 and Munson is 37…suggesting to me that they were similarly talented/productive in their prime.

[shagrotn77]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

It's upsetting that Munson will never be elected to the Hall of Fame.

Never say never. The standards are changing all the time, as are the metrics the voters are using to make their decisions. I do think that Munson will make the HOF at some point, and I would bet it's sooner rather than later.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by shagrotn77

Never say never. The standards are changing all the time, as are the metrics the voters are using to make their decisions. I do think that Munson will make the HOF at some point, and I would bet it's sooner rather than later.

Maybe but there is SO much worthy competition for the vote of these committees and they don't vote very often. Modern Baseball doesn't even meet until 2023 I don't think. And then 2025.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Good article on it.....

Thurman Munson V. Carlton Fisk: Using Modern Statistics Reveals Better Player

There is a difference between being a great baseball talent, being a great player and having a great career.

Thurman Munson and Carlton Fisk were great baseball talents. Munson and Fisk were great players. Fisk had a better career than Munson did. As Helen Gamble of The Practice might say, "I wonder why."

Traditional statistics reveal little when comparing them, although Munson had a better batting average (.292 to .269) and a better on-base percentage (.346 to .341). Fisk's slugging average (.457) was superior to Munson's (.410).

Do you think that Munson's home park compared to Fisk's home parks was a factor?


Munson and Fisk each had Hall of Fame ability. Modern statistics shed new light on the careers of both catchers.

Munson's career WAR or WIns Above Replacement was 43.3 for his 10 full complete seasons. Fisk's career WAR was 63.7 for his 21 complete seasons. This is to be expected based on longevity.

Munson's WAR was 3.9 over an average season compared to Fisk's 2.7. It is a substantial difference that favors Munson and reveals his value.


Rbat or Runs Batting refers to the number of runs better or worse compared to average. Munson's average Rbat was 11 compared to Fisk's seven.

RAR or Runs Above Replacement is the number of runs a player is better than a replacement player. Munson's average RAR was 38. Fisk's average RAR was 25.

Turning to defense, Munson's fielding percentage was .982 compared to FIsk's .988.

Munson nabbed 44 percent of base-stealers compared to the league average of 38 percent while Fisk threw out 34 percent of potential stealers compared to the league average of 35 percent.

Munson's RF or range factor was 5.61 per nine innings. Fisk's was 6.00.

Munson was clearly as good as Fisk. Based on sabermetrics, he was probably better than Fisk. His problem was that his career was cut short.

Roy Campanella, like Munson, had his career cut short by a tragic accident. He has become terribly underrated with the passage of time, but to those who saw him play, he was every bit Yogi Berra's equal. Just ask Vin Scully.


Campanella played 10 seasons, batted .276/.360/.500. His WAR over an average season was 3.2. which is not as good as Munson's 3.9, but which is better than Fisk's 2.7.

A better defensive catcher than Campanella never played the game.

The point is that Munson's relatively brief career has resulted in his being underrated. Longevity might be more valuable than greatness, but longevity too often results in a player being overrated.

Munson was at least as good as Fisk—and Gary Carter, Roger Bresnahan, Ray Schalk and Rick Ferrell. It's upsetting that Munson will never be elected to the Hall of Fame.

The thing is, if you're comparing Munson vs. Fisk in stats like that, there is a bias for Munson, because he died close to his peak. It does not include the period of decline that Fisk had. You may be right about Munson belonging, but you have to account for every bias like that before I'm convinced.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It seems Munson had probably already started his inevitable decline when he passed. Odds are his career stats would have been borderline for a catcher. I don't think it would be the end of the Hall as we know it if he gets in, but neither is he a compelling omission IMO. I think he tends to be a bit overrated both because he was a Yankee and because of his unfortunate accident.

[Ricky]

“A better defensive catcher than Campanella never played the game.”

Johnny Bench says hi.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Ricky

“A better defensive catcher than Campanella never played the game.”

Johnny Bench says hi.

If someone wasn't going to say it, I was at the ready. Campanella was indeed fantastic, but nobody could hold a candle to Bench.