O/T, but HOF voting is near

[Archive]

Posted By: steve

It would be interesting to get educated opinions from you folks on the yes/no HOF for these players:

Raines - No
Blyleven - No
Dawson - No
Trammell - No
Gossage - Yes
Rice - No, but close

Gossage has every bit the stats as Sutter in their primes. Gossage had more longevity than Sutter.

Jim Rice just didn't do the big numbers long enough, kind of like Maris. Rice almost won the Triple Crown in 1978 winning HR and RBI, 3rd in BA. Rice was the heavy hitter in the 3,4 slot in several all star games

steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Raines - Yes
Blyleven - No, but close
Dawson - No, but close
Trammell - No
Gossage - Yes
Rice - No

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken McMillan

You left off the list Lee Smith. Awesome player in his era and awesome person in general. He unlike trevor Hoffman often pitched multiple innings in a close type situation and He started out with the Cubs in an era when they did not give him as many opportunities. Also, Dawson yes and Gossage Yes.

Ken

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Raines - No
Blyleven - YES!
Dawson - No
Trammell - No
Gossage - Yes, by a whisker
Rice - No

[Archive]

Posted By: Patrick McHugh

The player who should go in this year is Jack Morris. My second choice would be Tim Raines.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

Trammell - no
Raines - I used to think so, but no, not even close
Rice - close, but no
Gossage - Yes
Lee Smith - Yes
Dawson - YES
Santo - YES
Blyleven - Yes
McGwire (and other of the roids suspicions) too hard to say...they're done playing, but the book's not closed on them yet
Jack Morris - I think so

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Blyleven gets no respect. His in the top 5 all-time in strikeouts and is close to 300 wins (287) although he didn't hit the magic figure. He pitched for some horrible teams throughout his career but did manage to lead his teams to a couple of World Series with the Pirates and Twins. Veterans of his era almost unanimously support his induction (of course the same can be said for Tony Oliva who still isn't in).

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Rice, Blyleven, Gossage --yes; others-no. Would really love to see some more 19th century guys get in.

[Archive]

Posted By: nbrazil

goose will get in. i doubt anyone else will. rice might get in.

funny...if blyleven pitched in the 90's and the 00's he would likely get in the HOF. Unfortunately for him, he pitched in an era where pitching and contact hitting was at its peak.

and i agree with the lee smith assessment. a shame he wont get a sniff of the hall. consistent and reliable, but never flashy. once again, put those numbers (especially the number of 2 inning saves he accumulated) in today's game and he would be a definite HOF candidate rather than a fringe candidate.

[Archive]

Posted By: jon freund

Check out http://bertbelongs.com/.

Blyleven had the best curve of his era.

Hopefully this will be his year!

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

looking up tim raines' stats, i was surprised that he put up some pretty good numbers. great base stealer, and could hit for both power and contact. i would put him in before i let dawson in.

the main thing gossage has going for him is the "save" stat, which i think is an overrated stat.

rice is a fringe guy, but he was an mvp, and many times led the league in more than one hitting category. i think i'd put him through (and i'm a yankees fan!).

blyleven deserves to be in the most IMO. had some great years and seems to be similar to nolan ryan in that he played for some crummy teams and had alot of strikeouts.

but when i see that list, i see some good players, maybe even great players. but HOFers? i dunno. of course 1 or 2 will get in though ... so if i had to pick two, i'd say blyleven and gossage, with raines and rice just missing.

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

I've never understood why Alan Trammell doesn't get more support for induction into the HOF. Look at his stats ... he was no lesser a player than HOFers (and fellow shortstops!) Pee Wee Reese, Phil Rizzuto and Lou Boudreau, and he was clearly a better player than Bobby Wallace, Rabbit Maranville and Dave Bancroft ... why are players from the 60s, 70s and 80s (pre-steroid era) being held to a higher standard than players from pre-1960? I've never received a satisfactory answer to this question ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

I believe it was due to his pock-marked complexion.
generally.
yes.
I think.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve

A few people like Jack Morris. I should have considered him. But looking at his stats - No HOF.

18 year career. Only in top 10 ERA 5 times. Only 5 all star appearances.

He got a lot of brownie points for his 1991 World Series performance - 2 wins, no losses, 1.17 ERA, clutch! This does deserve extra credit.

Fabulous #2 pitcher, lots of innings, but not an ace.

steve

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Chris,

Alan Trammell will eventually get into the Hall, the problem is that he is being overshadowed by the numbers put up by Ripken, Jeter, and Rodriguez.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Raines - No
Blyleven - Yes
Dawson - No
Trammell - No
Gossage - Yes
Rice - No


And then if they'd just vote in Ed Reulbach and Jim Kaat, then vote out Puckett and Carter (and a few more), then we'd have something!

[Archive]

Posted By: keyway

HOF voting. Gossage is the only one I would pick. Two others belong IMO. They would be Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy. I know they don't have the numbers but they carried thier teams. If they had some other players behind them imagine the numbers. To much is put on numbers and not enough on good give it all you got players.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Russo

I'll go out on a limb and say that most of those mentioned here eventually get in with the possible exception of Jack Morris and Raines. Even though he won more games than anyone in the 1980's, Morris didn't have enough monster years. Raines was a very good hitter but his steals total (over 800)is his best qualification. I think that stolen bases as a statistic are just not that important to HOF voters. If they were, Maury Wills would be in and Vince Coleman would have gotten consideration. This year, its Gossage, Rice and possibly Blyleven. I loved Roger Maris but he had three great years and was a .260 hitter. Rice hit .298, drove in 100 or more runs 8 times. Even this life-long Yankee fan must admit Rice should be in; Roger, no. They just changed the Veteran's Committee procedure... again. Hope Santo makes it next time.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

No across the board. HOF should be for the best of the best not merely the very very good. No question there are some in the HOF who do not meet that requirement but comparing a Trammel to a Maranville who also should not be in is no reason to compound the mistake.

Lets also hope the writers have some backbone and refuse to admit anyone involved with steroids in their career.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

"They would be Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy. I know they don't have the numbers but they carried thier teams."

Yeah, to losing records. The both belong in the "Hall of Very Good". Gossage has become too much of a whiner about his omissions in the past, so Blyleven it is.

James

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

I've said this several times before, but Andre Dawson is the best eligible player not in the HOF.

Hits: 2774
HRs: 438
RBIs: 1591
BA: .279 (this is the one stat that apparently hurts his chances, but he is so far above the other HOF offensive benchmarks, it should not matter)
1977 Rookie of the Year
1987 N.L. MVP
8 gold gloves
8-time All Star

Not sure why he hasn't made it yet, but it is an absolute joke that he isn't in.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

every time we have a thread like this someone points out only the true greats should be in the hall of fame. that is just not what the hall of fame is about. here is the mission statement "Honoring, by enshrinement, those individuals who had exceptional careers, and recognizing others for their significant achievements." that being said i think all of the mentioned players deserve the honor. perhaps it is time we have a HALL of GREATS.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Green

> I've said this several times before, but Andre Dawson is the best eligible player not in the HOF.

absolutely.. and when you add his strong moral character to it, he's one of the all-time greats.. I've lost track of the number of ballplayers I've spoken to, that feel exactly the same way I do..

Hawk! Hawk!

my votes also go to Santo, Blyleven, Morris, and Jim Kaat..

as for relievers, either dump Sutter, or elect Goose Gossage and Lee Smith.. I can't understand how one gets in, and the others don't..

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Goose was as good as Sutter, if not better, and deserves to get in. But Bruce was elected just 2 years ago, so it's unlikely that another reliever would be elected so soon.

With the revamped Veteran's committee, it's possible that Santo would be the only new Hall of Famer.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: NickM

I predict Gossage and Rice will go in this time. I think Dawson should go in (and may in 2009).

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Dawson

Here are the ten who I would vote for:

Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Goose Gossage
Tommy John
Mark McGwire
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Tim Raines
Jim Rice
Lee Smith



Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

Raines/NO
Trammell/NO
Blyleven/NO
Rice/NO
Goose/NO
Dawson/NO

Santo shoulda been there yrs. ago!!

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

Raines-won't sniff election this time
Blyleven-eventually
Dawson-no
Trammell-I hope so, but probably not
Gossage-no relievers, unless they have a bunch of wins
Rice-he dominated for awhile, but no ring...maybe. If he could've juiced...then yes.

Morris-Absolutely.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

"Every time we have a thread like this someone points out only the true greats should be in the hall of fame. that is just not what the hall of fame is about. here is the mission statement "Honoring, by enshrinement, those individuals who had exceptional careers, and recognizing others for their significant achievements." that being said i think all of the mentioned players deserve the honor. perhaps it is time we have a HALL of GREATS."

Dennis, I couldn't have said it better. The idea that the standards of the HOF need to be raised in the 21st century seems so unfair to modern players. Yes, putting Rabbit Maranville and Bobby Wallace in the HOF may have been a mistake. But putting Pee Wee Reese and Phil Rizzuto in there wasn't. That's why I believe that players who are their equals should go in. And in the case of shortstops, Alan Trammell, Cecil Travis and Barry Larkin were just as good as Reese and Rizzuto. There is simply no compelling evidence to the contrary. Just look up the stats ... the same arguments holds for many of the underappreciated stars of yesteryear, including Ron Santo, Minnie Minoso, Bert Blylevin, Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Goose Gossage, etc. They're all HOFers as far as I'm concerned ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Williams

Trammel gets no love, I'd put him in before Gossage. For that matter, I'd put his keystone teammate Sweet Lou Whitaker in as well. Then when you look at Lance Parrish numbers compared to other HOF catchers, throw in Jack Morris, and you got a lot of disrespect up in Mo Town.

Had they been able to win a few more pennants, instead of just that one in 84, they'd already be in.

Dawson was a great player, even if he did steal the 87 MVP from my favorite Ozzie Smith.

The problem is, we are comparing them to todays steroid HGH numbers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Larry

None of the players mentioned ever deserves to be inducted.

[Archive]

Posted By: Patrick McHugh

O.K I will stick up again for Jack Morris. Just look up his stats. Jack was a bull! Innings pitched year by year . 5 times over 250 todays pitchers can not even go 200. Take into account he pitched and won a world series with 3 different teams. That tells you he was well liked and respected by all mlb players and managers. When looking at this years list I see a bunch of players with better than average stats. When I look at Jack Morris I see a consistent winner and a stand up guy!

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

When I think of Jack Morris, Hall of Famer Don Drysdale comes to mind. They are both borderline Hall of Famers. But Don's career was more visible because people instantly think of him as a Dodger and part of the Koufax and Drysdale pitching duo. Although Jack was just as good he doesn't have the instant identification and may never get in.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Although it certainly doesn't merit HOF induction, anyone who has ever personally met Andre Dawson (I have), will tell you that along with Lou Brock, Ernie Banks and Brooks Robinson, he is in that rarified group of nicest guys who ever lived.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

Peter,

Your comparison between Jack Morris and Don Drysdale illustrates just how biased the HOF voters are. Quite literally, it's worth more to a player to be a Dodger than Tiger. I try to make the same point in the debate between Pee Wee Reese and Alan Trammell. Here's another example of the type of inconsistency I'm referring to ...

Which one of these pitchers is in the HOF?

1) He started in 1930, played 14 years, won 189 games, lost 102 and had a 3.34 ERA

2) He also started in 1930, played 15 years, won 192 games, lost 121 and had a 3.18 ERA

One is Lefty Gomez, who just about everyone concedes is a legit HOFer; the other is Lon Warneke, whose name never comes up when the HOF is discussed. Now what if Warnecke was the one playing for the Yankees ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Warneke was a poor role model for children....just look at that cigarette poking out of his mouth while signing autographs.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

Hmmmm...

Lee Smith - yup, he was one of those long tenured guys but there are quite a few already in the hall, why not another. At least he held the all times saves record for a while.

[Archive]

Posted By: Misunderestimated

Gomez does benefit from being on the Yankees but its a 2-way street he helped make the Yankees the dominant team they were during his career. Also, the statistical similarity between Gomez and Warneke omits one of "Goofy's" major selling points -- a 6-0 World Series record and 5 World Series crowns (4 of which he played an integral role in winning).

Anyway:

my choices are:
Only one of the new entrants does it for me:

Raines YES (I am not a big believer in applying a higher standard for first year candidates -- because it is a "greater honor" to get elected on the first go around)

With respect to some of the holdover candidates (Rice and Gossage have the best chance based on their past vote totals)

Gossage YES (all things considered the best reliever/closer of all-time)

Baines: NO (a dependable excellent hitter for a long time; never dominant, not powerful and one dimensional).

Dave Parker: NO

Rice NO -- strong offensive production but at a position that requires it. He benefited from Fenway which is fine but his away numbers are downright bad.

Blyleven : YES : Playing on terrible teams and failing to reach the magic 300 number are the only reasons he isn't in already. These reasons aren't good enough to keep him out.

Trammell: NO (very close)

Morris: YES a tremendous workhorse and big-game pitcher. I'm giving him a lot of credit for his October pitching.

McGwire: YES Simply stated one of the best of his era -- regardless of what you think about steroids etc. BTW how many other players (Pitchers included!!) were also using steroids. It is silly to simply hold Mac (or whomever) responsible for the era he played in.

Mattingly/Murphy: NO: Great seasons but not enough of them -- career numbers are weak too. Both were true "ballplayers"

Lee Smith: No (for now) Big career numbers but I can't even think about him until Goose goes in.

Dawson: YES (barely) An incredible all-around talent who had heart to boot. Played for a long time but never reached magic hitting numbers still I think his total package warrants induction.

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

16 seasons, 2169 hits, 1176 RBIs, .291 Lifetime BA, 441 SBs, and a terrific outfielder.

Similar stats to Joe Judge, Joe Kelley, Edd Roush, Richie Ashburn, and better stats than Mazeroski, Rizzuto, and a few others...and yet, he still escapes notice. Was a true star in his day.

Sherry Magee...put him in the hall already!

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark L

I don't think the writers need to bring anyone in this time. Let the veterans pick someone. Anyone want to jump on the Barney Dreyfus bandwagon?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

you said; however, I would like to refrain from passing judgement on, or really even considering, Andre Dawson's package at this time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

As I see it the Hall gets further and further diluted by the selection of players who were stars in their day but not all-time greats. And it is a self-perpetuating problem because it becomes harder to rationalize not electing guys who have similar numbers. To me the Hall should be reserved for the type of player as to whom there would be close to a consensus about their all-time great status. You know those guys when you see them; they are the guys who make it in immediately. I would not let anyone in who didn't get elected in their first three years of eligibility -- if there was enough doubt about them then, they are not deserving. I don't think any of the players mentioned in this thread are all time greats, with the possible exception of McGwire.

[Archive]

Posted By: Shawn Chambers

Of the list presented, I totally am behind getting Blyleven into the Hall. Trammell and Dawson I think both belong. It's unfortunate they played for smaller market teams and maybe didn't get more of a spotlight.

Most of my mental list of missing HOF hopefuls are pitchers...and mostly pre-30s.

Joshua,

I think if Magee gets in...it shouldn't be before Bobby Veach. I guess I'm one of the few Veach supporters. Compare his numbers to Magee. 14 Seasons, 1821 Games, 2063 Hits, 1166 RBI, 147 triples, 195 SB and .310 to boot lifetime. Led AL in RBIs 3 times, doubles 2, and Hits once. Decent outfielder, too!

Shawn

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

"Honoring, by enshrinement, those individuals who had exceptional careers, and recognizing others for their significant achievements."

Where do we draw the line then? By your standards it seems you would have 1,500 players in. Barry Larkin? Sure. Ralph Garr? Why not? Ellis Burks? His numbers are comparable to Rice, so he's in.

Seriously, the key word is exceptional. Were players like Jim Rice, Andre Dawson and Alan Trammel considered the elite or the exceptional players of their times? Sure they were very good ballplayers, but not exceptional.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

"Where do we draw the line then?"

James, you get right to the heart of the debate with that question. The voters in recent years are clearly drawing a different line than they did 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 years ago, when the floodgates of the HOF were opened to many players who were clearly not as good as the guys we're currently debating. By raising the bar, today's voters are saying that the voters of the past didn't get it right and HOF standards need to be set higher. But by raising the bar, I believe the voters are doing a great disservice to the general public's understanding of baseball history. Many fans will just assume Bill Mazeroski is better than Alan Trammell, even though that clearly is not the case. Others will look at the stats and either be confused by the inconsistencies or be angry at the unfairness. So by raising the bar, I believe the voters are creating more problems than they are solving.

How bad would it really be if we put guys like Andre Dawson, Bert Blylevin, Alan Trammell, Jim Rice, Ron Santo, Lee Smith, Jim Kaat, Goose Gossage and Minnie Minoso in the HOF? The standards of the HOF, set by 70 years of voting, would not be compromised by the inductions, and most fans, especially those who grew up in the 70s, would love it. It would also generate a tremendous amount of good publicity around the country, especially in the cities where the those players played. And who can doubt that baseball needs a little good publicity in the midst of the steroid scandal? Maybe by drawing more attention to baseball's glorious past, people won't worry so much about its present. Ultimately, I believe the induction of more players into the HOF would be good for baseball ...

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Peter,

Absolutely correct and well said. The Hall of Fame should be just for the All-Time Greats.

By comparing one playerws stats against someone who is already in one could make a case for a hundred players--maybe 200.

It all just cheapens the value of being in the Hall of Fame. Keeping standards very high is what is best for baseball.

None of the current nominees are worthy.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Jim, Peter S.

I admire your ideals and your desire to have only all-time greats in the Hall. But the Hall of Fame and sports fans together have pretty much created a 3 tier Hall of Fame to accomodate you.

The highest tier is for ballplayers that get in the first ballot.

The second tier is for those that are later elected by the Baseball writers.

The third tier is for those that are elected by the Veterans committee.

Ballplayers in all three tiers qualify as "exceptional" and should be remembered by the Hall of Fame, baseball fans, and hobbyists.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Except for Negro League players where there was a historical disparity, I just don't understand the case for electing someone decades after they played if they didn't get in initially. There has been enough baseball history since at least the 60s such that the contemporaneous judgment should be allowed to stand. I cannot see electing for example Ron Santo who never even came close during his initial eligibility. Nor can I see electing Jim Rice after getting nixed however many times by people who saw him play. EDITED TO ADD As for Tim Raines, I don't care how Bill James can present his statistics, the value of his rookie cards speaks volumes as to the general perception of his greatness.

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

Dawson is in the top 35 all-time in HRs, RBIs, extra base hits, total bases ... and was in the top 10 in the N.L. in most offensive categories each year for the better part of the 1980s.

There are roughly 130 players in the HOF who are non-pitchers. On average, Dawson has better offensive numbers than 100 of them.

And he was a gold glove outfielder for just about all of the 1980s.

He's not in the same category as Ruth, Aaron, Cobb, Mays, and the other truly elite players, but anyone that says Dawson doesn't belong in the HOF, or was not an exceptional player, either doesn't know that much about The Hawk or wasn't watching baseball in the 1980s.

[Archive]

Posted By: Alan U

Ever since Mazeroski (nothing against Maz) got in, I think all these guys should be in except maybe Trammel (I would insert Santo for Trammel) IMHO.