First player to reach 3000 hits not to make the HOF?

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

He's made all of one all star team, this year.

Bit of an old post but this has the makings of an interesting conversation in itself.

Do you think its possible that a player could make the HOF based on his playing career without having ever appeared in an all star game (obviously limited to those who played since the All star game was introduced)?

I think Tim Salmon, Kirk Gibson and Eric Karros are the names that come to mind off the top of my head among "best careers of guys who never made an all star team" and they are not even remotely HOF worthy. At the same time though I think they could all reasonably qualify as members of the Hall of Very Good and to have put together decent careers like that without making an all star game suggests it might be possible for someone who, say, played a few more years than they did to amass enough hits or wins or home runs to meet the usual Hall cut offs.


It could happen two ways I think. One way is you have a guy who is consistently good but not great over a very long career and just piles up enough numbers to get the nod (Bert Blyleven comes to mind, having only made 2 all star appearances and never really having been considered among the top pitchers in the game for most of his career).

The second route would be a guy who has a lot of great seasons but is always overshadowed by an even bigger star at the same position whose career by coincidence happens to overlap with his. I'm not really sure who the prototypical player meeting this description would be, but probably there are a lot of first basemen out there who fit the bill.

But do you think this is even a possible accomplishment?

[parker1b2]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

The second route would be a guy who has a lot of great seasons but is always overshadowed by an even bigger star at the same position whose career by coincidence happens to overlap with his. I'm not really sure who the prototypical player meeting this description would be, but probably there are a lot of first basemen out there who fit the bill.

But do you think this is even a possible accomplishment?

Fred McGriff

[orioles93]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

The second route would be a guy who has a lot of great seasons but is always overshadowed by an even bigger star at the same position whose career by coincidence happens to overlap with his. I'm not really sure who the prototypical player meeting this description would be, but probably there are a lot of first basemen out there who fit the bill.

But do you think this is even a possible accomplishment?

I think this is the answer. The all star game is great, majority of the time it shows the greatest players at that time. But it also turns into a popularity contest sometimes. It also doesn't show position weakness any given year. So basically one, a player can become extremely popular and just make the all star team every season, not because they are the best at their position that year, but because they are popular and get voted in. Or two, that specific position was weak that season and the person voted in was just the best of the bunch, not necessarily great. So an example, a mediocre second baseman who is just the best out of a bunch of mediocre players at 2B can have an all star appearance, meanwhile an outfielder having a great season gets beat out by a handful of other great OFs, doesn't get the all star appearance, even though he is a far superior player and has far better stats than the second baseman. It all depends what position you play and who else is playing that position that season. Not necessarily what you do personally, but what everyone else does as well. That is why all star appearances is a terrible way to judge players abilities or career accomplishments.