Rocky Colavito: Stick it up their ***

[Peter_Spaeth]

Mattingly, Baylor, Tiant, Parker, Kaat, Hodges come to my mind as more guys one level or so below.

[Topps206]

While I do not think Colavito himself is a Hall of Famer, these Veterans Committees are remarkably terrible at what they do and an insult to living players.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Topps206

While I do not think Colavito himself is a Hall of Famer, these Veterans Committees are remarkably terrible at what they do and an insult to living players.

What they did to Ron Santo, in particular, was unforgivable!

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Mattingly, Baylor, Tiant, Parker, Kaat, Hodges come to my mind as more guys one level or so below.

You should compare Luis's record with Drysdale and Hunter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

You should compare Luis's record with Drysdale and Hunter.

That they are undeserving does not make him deserving.

[MCoxon]

Colavito is one of my favorite players and I have all his cards (except 1959 home run derby), but I don't think he's a hall of fame player. that doesn't mean he isn't beloved, and still relevant, still interviewed.

I also love Minoso and Oliva, in fact I like to collect these near-HOFers because they each have great stories and near-greatness.

It's too bad he's worried about it, but I understand that he would love to be a hall of famer - who wouldn't

I also don't have his 1959 Kahn's. If anyone has one - let me know!

[packs]

I would like to Maris in the HOF well before I ever saw Colavito there.

[irv]

Originally Posted by MCoxon

Colavito is one of my favorite players and I have all his cards (except 1959 home run derby), but I don't think he's a hall of fame player. that doesn't mean he isn't beloved, and still relevant, still interviewed.

I also love Minoso and Oliva, in fact I like to collect these near-HOFers because they each have great stories and near-greatness.

It's too bad he's worried about it, but I understand that he would love to be a hall of famer - who wouldn't

I also don't have his 1959 Kahn's. If anyone has one - let me know!

Same! Not that I know if someone has greater numbers or is more deserving of being in the HOF than Minoso, but he is my number 1 choice of someone who should be in. (JMO)

[MCoxon]

Originally Posted by irv

Same! Not that I know if someone has greater numbers or is more deserving of being in the HOF than Minoso, but he is my number 1 choice of someone who should be in. (JMO)

Off-topic I guess, but two cards I'd love to see:
- 1949 Bowman Minnie Minoso in an Indians uniform, given his call-up
- 1951 Bowman Minnie Minoso in an Indians uniform, when he finished 2nd in ROY voting.

I think Gil McDougald got the 1951 AL ROY because he played in NY and not Cleveland:

From Baseball-Reference.com
1. Gil McDougald 14 HR, 63 RBI, .306 BA, .884 OPS, 14 SB
2. Minnie Minoso 10 HR, 76 RBI, .326 BA, .922 OPS, 31 SB

[irv]

Originally Posted by MCoxon

Off-topic I guess, but two cards I'd love to see:
- 1949 Bowman Minnie Minoso in an Indians uniform, given his call-up
- 1951 Bowman Minnie Minoso in an Indians uniform, when he finished 2nd in ROY voting.

I think Gil McDougald got the 1951 AL ROY because he played in NY and not Cleveland:

From Baseball-Reference.com
1. Gil McDougald 14 HR, 63 RBI, .306 BA, .884 OPS, 14 SB
2. Minnie Minoso 10 HR, 76 RBI, .326 BA, .922 OPS, 31 SB

A Better Season Than Gil McDougald?

From 1951 to 1961, Minoso hit .305 with a .395 on base average and a .471 slugging percentage. He averaged 16 home runs, 89 RBIs and 18 stolen bases a season.

If the 1922 birth year is correct, then Minoso lost many seasons to racism. He was the Sporting News 1951 Rookie of the Year, out-hitting the Baseball Writers Association of America winner Gil McDougald, .326 to .306, out slugging Gil .500 to .488 and topping Gil in on base average, .422 to .396.

Pretty clear to see he didn't win the ROY due to racism. What a shame!

Only Williams and Musial Were Better

While there is doubt with respect to Minoso being a Hall of Famer, there is no doubt that he was a great player.

He was the third best left fielder in baseball, behind Ted Williams and Stan Musial during the 1950s—and he was to Hispanic players almost what Jackie Robinson was to American players.

Minnie Minoso belongs in the Hall of Fame.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by MCoxon

Colavito is one of my favorite players and I have all his cards (except 1959 home run derby), but I don't think he's a hall of fame player. that doesn't mean he isn't beloved, and still relevant, still interviewed.

I also love Minoso and Oliva, in fact I like to collect these near-HOFers because they each have great stories and near-greatness.

It's too bad he's worried about it, but I understand that he would love to be a hall of famer - who wouldn't

I also don't have his 1959 Kahn's. If anyone has one - let me know!

This is EXACTLY how I feel about Dale Murphy. My favorite player growing up, and a fine member of the Hall of the Very Good, but his career ended too quickly and his peak just wasn't long enough to make him a HOF'er.

But, I could care less! He's still the man in my heart!

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

You should compare Luis's record with Drysdale and Hunter.

all stats career stats

Luis Tiant : 229-172 record (silly stat) - 3.30 ERA, 3.40 FIP, 6.24 K/9 , 2.85 BB per 9 54.8 career fWAR over 3485 inn



Don Drysdale: 209-166 - 2.85 ERA, 3.02 FIP, 6.52 K/9, 2.24 BB/9, 59.3 fWAR over 3433 inn


Catfish Hunter:224-166 3.26 ERA, 3.66 FIP, 5.25 K/9, 2.49 BB/9 37.2 fWAR over 3449 inn


I think Tiant and Drysdale have good cases to be made, But Hunter is pretty far below what we'd accept as HOF level these days.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Those sound like Roy Halladay numbers.

PS I am really surprised Cliff Lee and Roy Oswalt didn't have better career numbers.

[nat]

Lee's problem is that he didn't really learn to pitch until he was quite old. He was 29 in his first actually good season.

Halladay will be an interesting case for the hall of fame. He was perhaps the best pitcher in baseball for a number of years, something that neither Tiant nor Drysdale can say (Hunter really doesn't belong in this group). But his career doesn't have much bulk to it. I could see him getting elected quickly, but I could also see him sitting around 30% of the vote for years and never getting in. I really don't have any idea what they're going to do with him.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Catfish did have 5 straight 20 win seasons including a 25. His overall numbers were clearly hurt by the fact that he was done at 32.

[nat]

Catfish was never really a great pitcher. He had three good years: 72, 74 and 75. But outside of that he was pretty ordinary. He *looked* like he was great because he was pitching in front of great teams. And it's his teammates that are largely responsible for his 20 win seasons. For his career, once you adjust for the parks he was playing in, his ERA was only about 4% better than average.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Those sound like Roy Halladay numbers.

PS I am really surprised Cliff Lee and Roy Oswalt didn't have better career numbers.

He was a lot of fun to watch! So graceful!

His delivery reminded me of Floyd Bannister when he was here (in Columbus) while in the minors...so smooth.

Seems like, however, that type of delivery would be very easy to time...unless your breaking and off-speed pitches are sufficiently similar coming out of your hand.

Lee's were...but injuries stopped him...just as it has many before and since him.

As I said, they were fun to watch, but not in the 1%.


As far as Halliday is concerned, he is a border line case for Cooperstown but he did author what I believe is the best pitched game I've ever seen...

His Playoff No-Hitter vs. the Reds - IMO - it was better, even, than his Perfect Game that same year...and, dare I say it, better also than

Kerry Wood's one-hit, no-walk, 20-strikeout game...which remains the highest game-score ever.



.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

You should compare Luis's record with Drysdale and Hunter.

Hunter 5 rings
Drysdale 3 rings
Tiant 0 rings

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

Hunter 5 rings
Drysdale 3 rings
Tiant 0 rings

Judging an individual by team championships is like judging a golfer only by the Ryder Cup

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Judging an individual by team championships is like judging a golfer only by the Ryder Cup

Golf is an individual sport. Baseball is a team sport. Championships are important. Hunter would have no shot at the HOF without 5 championships in 7 years.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

Golf is an individual sport. Baseball is a team sport. Championships are important. Hunter would have no shot at the HOF without 5 championships in 7 years.

championships are 0% relevant when discussing the production of a player. It takes some serious levels of sports ignorance to say otherwise.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

championships are 0% relevant when discussing the production of a player. It takes some serious levels of sports ignorance to say otherwise.

I'm not sure that's true in basketball where you have five men on the floor at once and all sorts of complex interactive things are going on and a lot of things great players do don't show up in the box score. Baseball, where it's a succession of mano a manos and nearly everything can be measured, for sure.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by rats60

Hunter 5 rings
Drysdale 3 rings
Tiant 0 rings

Remember also that in the '60s and '70s there was no ESPN or MLB Network. The only baseball on television was the local team and the Saturday game of the week. It wasn't unusual to only see a pitcher once or twice a year. But in October everything was televised, and every result was magnified. I think that Hunter got a lot of credit not only because he was on a winning team, but also because he pitched very well in the postseason (mostly with Oakland), when we were all watching.

These games were often the only time people would see him pitch, and this made a very favorable impression. Tiant only got into the playoffs the one time, and that was well past his prime, so he didn't get this "October bump" the way Hunter did.

That may not be fair, but that's the way it worked.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Sean

Remember also that in the '60s and '70s there was no ESPN or MLB Network. The only baseball on television was the local team and the Saturday game of the week. It wasn't unusual to only see a pitcher once or twice a year. But in October everything was televised, and every result was magnified. I think that Hunter got a lot of credit not only because he was on a winning team, but also because he pitched very well in the postseason (mostly with Oakland), when we were all watching.

These games were often the only time people would see him pitch, and this made a very favorable impression. Tiant only got into the playoffs the one time, and that was well past his prime, so he didn't get this "October bump" the way Hunter did.

That may not be fair, but that's the way it worked.

That's a good point. Had Tiant won game six he certainly would have been the series MVP and may well have a plaque in Cooperstown today. Instead his two complete game victories (and another in the AL championship series) are basically forgotten.