Talk about Shore, etc. made me wonder: What SHOULD keep a guy out of the HOF?

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

..if anything?

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

I visited Cooperstown last summer. While in the wonderful building, not for one second did I think about the "bad things" that some of the players had done off the field. The HOF is for lifetime achievement on the field, except when somebody intentionally attempts to alter the game's outcome through gambling. Modern baseball management has its faults and voting in an average player such as Bill Mazeroski was a mistake, but for the most part the HOF is a perfect place for the perfect game.

[Archive]

Posted By: John Grillo

Gambling bans you from baseball, but nowhere is it written that it bars you from the HOF.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett

Not too sure a 6 time all-star and 8 time gold glover constitutes an average player. While definately not the best player enshrined in Cooperstown, I don't have any problems with Maz being there.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

Rhett - I understand your point and I'll meet you halfway and say that Mazeroski was an "above" average player or arguably even an excellent player, but definitely, positively should not be a Hall of Famer. I'll admit that I am very conservative when it comes to who should be in the Hall. I am a huge Phillies fan, but do not think that Richie Ashburn should be in there either. The Hall should be for outstanding players not simply above average or even excellent players. Some pre-WW2 players such as Joe Tinker should not be in there either. But just as Mazeroski's famous 1960 game seven WS homer got him in, Tinker's association with Evers and Chance got him in. There are some much better players than Mazeroski and Tinker who are not in the Hall. That being said, once a player gets in, I respect that and honor the achievements.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

Why isn't Carl Mays in the BB HOF? His record is better than some enshrined?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

How is the greatest defensive 2nd baseman not worthy of enshrinement? Maz is not in the HOF of his 1960 HR. He is there because there has never been a better defensive player at his position.

There are far too many players that can hit well, but can't play a lick of defense in the HOF. Everyone's idea of who should be in the HOF is different, but how can omit a player, or players, that are considered the greatest defensively at their position?

Carl Mays is the pitcher that threw the ball that killed Ray Chapman. This is believed to be the reason that he has been kept out of the HOF.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

Well, some interesting points made about Mazeroski. I watched him a lot in the 1960's and he always struck me as an average player. His lifetime batting average was 260. Despite his terrific defense, 260 should not get you in the Hall - that just simply isn't good enough. You may remember that a lot of players he played with couldn't believe he got in and I think some voting rules were changed after he was elected so that players such as him could not get in anymore. All that negative fuss sure tells you something. My deep feeling on getting into the Hall is to mention a player's name...and if there is much thought about whether he should be in or not, then he probably shouldn't be in. But you're right Jay - everyone has their opinions about who should be in the Hall and I certainly respect the opinions of people from this fine forum. But you are incorrect about the 1960 series HR - he was considered for the Hall because of the examples you gave but that HR put him over the top - he would have never gotten in if not hitting that HR - people loved it and remembered when he and the Pirates stuck it to the New York Yankees that year...which of course is not a bad thing - LOL.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

1. Saying "this guy should not be in because that guy is not in" is not a valid argument. All it says is that the guy who is omitted belongs more than the guy who is in, not that the guy who is in does not belong. Each admitee should be judged on his merits, period. After all, the plaques don't say "this guy was better than that guy", they say "this guy did all the following great things."

2. Maz: I think Bill James can speak best for Maz: "In the Win Shares system I have Mazeroski credited with 113 Win Shares for his defense at second base, which is the highest of all time. ... Total Baseball rates him as the best defensive player at any position..." He belongs in Cooperstown at least as much as a damned reliever.

3. Off-field behavior should be included as a criteria for selection if it negatively impacts on baseball. The rules of the HOF do say that no person who is ineligible to be in the majors can be voted into the hall. Pete Rose belongs in the Hall on his talent; but he should be excluded for his betting on baseball. He took the benefits of being in baseball and knew the rules, and he violated them anyway. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time...

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Not sure what pubs read adn don't read, but Maz was one of the few players passed over by the sportswriters that there was a huge outcry of injustice. You can probaaly blame as SABR as much as the HR for getting him into the HOF. Off the top of my head, Bobby Grich is the only other player that gets as much attention from SABR for not being in the HOF but whose numbers seem to warrant election. I am not going to go into details here. You can grab just about any book by Bill James, Pete Palmer or Rod Thorn and see what they have to say.

I assume by your rational then, that Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Murray, Ralph Kiner and other players that cannot play defense very well do not belong in HOF. Likewise, I suppose Pee Wee Reese, Phil Rizzuto, Ozzie Smith, Brooks Robinson and other great fielding, light hitting players don't belong either.

If you are looking for the only players that have the perfect combination of hitting, fielding and baseb running, then HOF going to be limited to Cobb, Wagner, Mays, Clemente and few others, and I mean very few others.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: John(z28jd)

I know this might sound corny but i think the Hall of Fame should have 2 different levels of induction.One for the elite players and one for players who had long careers or decent careers but arent quite hall of fame worthy.

I dont want the 2nd level guys to get plaques or anything,just think they shouldnt be forgotten.Just a section of the hall with a photo,a bio and maybe some memorabilia.

99.99% of baseball fans couldnt name a 19th century player thats not a hall of famer and thats a shame.Sure the 2nd level players would number close to 1000 but who cares,can you ever know too much about baseball history?

I still find it hard to believe 68 years after the first elections theres still deserving players who arent enshrined,how many chances do they need to get something right

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

There will always be interesting debate about the HOF's who got in that were not considered "superstars." Every voter has their own criteria for who should be in the HOF, including those who automatically don't vote for any player in his first year of eligibility. It's rediculous how anyone could not vote for an obvious HOFer only because it's his first year of eligibility. Certainly "politics" also plays some part in the voting. For example Jay - from your list, all should definitely be in except for Rizzuto and Kiner, definitely not. They only got in because of being likable guys with long broadcasting careers in NY.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

John - I don't know if you've ever been to Cooperstown but they always have on display many items from non-HOFers. Of course they have posted that permanent list of pitchers who threw no-hitters. They also have on display a fantastic collection of baseball cards including many Pre-WW1 & WW2 cards. They had on display the bat that Maris hit his 61st HR with. I found myself staring at that bat longer than I stare at a beautiful woman - maybe I'm getting old - LOL.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Any sportswriter that refuses to vote for any player in their first year of eligability needs to have thier voting priveledge revoked. I also don't understand how a player is worthy one year, but not another. A career is not like fine wine. I doesn't get better with age. And the player cannot improve his numbers.

If they truely wanted to make the HOF elite, they need to change the rules so that you are eligable 5 years after retirement and you are on the ballot only once. If you don't get elected, then that is how things go. It would also make these clowns that won't vote for someone the first year vote for these players. The verterance committee needs to be done away with too. There are only about 5 or 6 major leaguers left that worthy. The rest are boarder line. I am also sure that there still a number of Negro LEaguers that need to be in.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: John(z28jd)

Ive actually been there 5 times,as recently as the 2000 election ceremony.I know they have tons of mentions of non hall of famers but its not sectioned off like the plaque area is.They have sections for womans baseball,negro leagues,minor leagues,cards,postseason etc.

Theres alot of great players who are forgotten,maybe not hall of fame material but they were good players in their day.

The perfect example is Mike Griffin the outfielder from the old judge set.The only thing i knew about him was his career stats and that he was in the old judge set.Well i met a relative of his and basically thru them learned a ton about him and realized he was a good player that if it werent for a shortened career due mainly to a dispute with Brooklyn over him managing the team he mightve put up hall of fame worthy numbers.Thats stuff you dont learn by looking at an encyclopedia

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

Harmon played 3 different positions throughout his career (actually 4 if you count the sprinkling of games at 2b when he was a greenhorn), which is at least some testament to his athletic ability. Granted, he didn't win any gold gloves, but he was no Dr. Strangeglove either.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I grew up watching Killebrew. He got moved around be he was such a bad fielder. Most poor fielders in his day ended up at firstbase. If he had passable defensive abilities, he never would have been moved. Just think what a benefit having someone like him playing 2nd base would have been back when he played.

I use Killebrew because I actually saw him play and used him as a conterpoint to the the argument that defensive specialists have no place in the HOF.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

1. Kiner did not get in because of his broadcasting--that was Uecker. Kiner was admitted because he led the league in HR 7 straight times and averaged 36.9 HR and 101.5 RBI per year for his career. If there had been a DH in the 1940's and 1950's this guy would have been the model.

2. Rizzuto definitely was helped by his broadcasting career and Yankee association, but far more so by Pee Wee Reese's induction. Bill James says he deserved a gold glove in 41-42-46-50; Reese in 41-42-48. Rizzuto was the best player in 1950 when he won the MVP; Reese never had such a year but lasted longer than Rizzuto (played about 500 more games). Reese seemed to have more pop and drive in more runs but played in a bandbox compared to Rizzuto. Rizzuto had a slightly higher average. Also, one cannot overlook the number of pennant and WS winning teams he played on. Like it or not, the success of your team in winning does factor into the equation. Look at the beef about Nolan Ryan.

3. It is utterly incomprehensible to me that writers would not unanimously vote to induct certain players when they become eligible. I cannot fathom why Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Tom Seaver, Johnny Bench, Steve Carlton and Bob Gibson (to name a few) were not unanimous first ballot inductees. Who in their right mind could advance a legitimate rationale for not voting for these guys? For that matter, who could legitimately advance a reason to make them wait for years to be eligible? Hockey has a very good induction idea that baseball should copy. When an obvious HOFer retires (Gretzky, Lemieux, etc.) the board of governors of the hall waives the waiting period and instantly inducts the man.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

"Who in their right mind could advance a legitimate rationale for not voting for these guys? For that matter, who could legitimately advance a reason to make them wait for years to be eligible?"

In the case of Seaver, the answer is "no one." I've always been a huge Seaver fan and followed closely his election. Four voters did not check his name on the ballot. One was in the hospital in very poor health, forgot to check Seaver's name, and later apologized for the mistake. Two were protesting Rose's omission from the ballot. One voter announced that he never, ever votes for anyone on the first ballot, presumably to insure that there is never a unanimous selection. So, like I said, in the case of Seaver, no one advanced a legitimate reason for not voting for him.

Paul

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

Sportswriters are some of the worst prima donnas on this planet. Who knows what goes through their minds sometimes. Being from Philly - we have some sportswriters who range from being unknowledgable to half-senile, although there are some good ones. I can imagine a Mays or Mantle who both had a little "arrogant" streak running through them, hissing off some sportswriter and then that sportswriter unfairly disses him on the first ballot. But how can anyone dislike Tom Seaver!!!

Also - on Kiner...very easy call...yes he had a shortened career because of injury but those are the tough breaks. His 369 career HR's for a strictly pure power hitter should not be good enough for the HOF. And of course stats don't always tell the whole story especially with pitchers. Koufax's career stats aren't that great but nobody would say he's not a HOFer. Dave Kingman had more HR's than Kiner but probably only his mother would think that Kingman should be in the Hall. Kingman was the best clutch HR hitter I ever saw when his team was up or down 15 - 0 with no one on base. LOL

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

Kiner won 7 HR titles in a row. Hey what about Cravath, he had 6 HR titles in 7 years - maybe he was on roids....

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Steve, you've never heard me talk about Koufax. I am not a big fan of Koufax and find him to be very overrated. There is no argument that if you are looking at peak performance, Koufax is one of the greatest, but he was a marginal pitcher until Chavez Ravine opened and then wasn't able to sustain his career. Should have been. Could have been. We will never know.

The thing that bothers most about Koufax being in the HOF is that Jim Rice was the most feared and dominant hitter in baseball for 5 years, yet he is dismissed as a HOF candidate, yet people act like Koufax is some sort of god. I know in the late 70s early 80s, there was no batter a pitcher feared more than Rice. And this includes Schmidt, Brett and other great hitters of the day. As a matter of fact, no batter has struck as much fear in the heart of pitchers until Bonds came along.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

Jay - as usual your points are excellent even if sometimes I disagree with them. I agree 100% with Jim Rice who is one of the players I had in mind when saying there are some players not in the Hall who are definitely better than some players who are in. If you were a manager and had to pick one for left field -would you take Rice or Kiner? - the answer is obvious.

As for Koufax, take another look at his career. You'll find that his performance was at its peak when he was forced to retire because of severe arm pain - you probably knew that - I just may have misinterpreted your response. One of my favorite baseball quotes, taken from Koufax's latest book, is when Koufax was pitching to Mantle in the 63 World Series. Mantle strikes out on a nasty curveball, immediately turns to the catcher and says, quote: "How the f'k is anybody supposed to hit that sh't." When you can frustrate the heck out of a Mickey Mantle who as you know was one of the greatest hitters in WS history, that is pretty impressive! I understand what you are saying about Koufax - he had only a tremendous 6 or 7 years which in my view is okay for pitchers getting in the Hall because pitchers usually have shorter careers than other positions.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Trust me, I am well versed on Koufax beucase I have this debate fairly often

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett

Jay, I couldn't agree with you more on the Koufax issue. He was a .500 (WPCT)-most would consider that average- pitcher for 7 years and a great pitcher for 5.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Rhett, you give Koufax too much credit early in his career. Prior to Chavez Ravine opening, he was 36-40 and managed to win 10 or more games only once in his first 6 years. This isn't exactly a solid HOF career. And after Cahvez Ravine opened, when adjust his numbers for park factor, they aren't so impressive anymore. If you have The Hidden Game of Baseball, you can find those numbers there.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

Sandy Koufax is one of the top ten greatest pitchers of all time. That is not debatable whatsoever. Yes I'll agree, some of his lifetime career stats were not great. He only had 165 wins. But neither were Joe Dimaggio's lifetime career stats and it is also not debatable that he is one of the top twenty-five greatest players of all time - and if anyone wants to say top ten for Joe, I don't argue it that much.

You say that you know Koufax and I believe you but let me refresh your memory a little bit.
1. From 1959 to 1966 he helped his team go to 4 out of 8 World Series. Despite the fact that those Dodger teams were some of the worst hitting teams, if not the worst, from that era.
2. He won 3, count 'em 3 Cy Young awards when back then the Cy Young award was given out to just one player for the entire league.
3. Just too many numerous accomplishments such as 4 no-hitters, a perfect game, strikeout records, etc., etc., etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

Koufax's great years had little to do with Chavez Ravine. He was just about unhitable wherever he was pitching. Then after pitching with a very sore arm he decided to think about his health for the rest of his life rather than holding for some more time. As great as he was during this time I certainally don't think that that makes him top ten. Gibson was as good and was the most competive pitcher I have ever seen. He broke my heart in 67 and makes Roger seem like a teddy bear. That said I have no problem with Koufax in Hall - but not top 10. As for Rice, for 10 years he was the best hitter in baseball then is eyes went bad. He just crushed the ball - outs, singles, doubles, triples and home runs. The Green monster is still pock-marked with his singles. In the last 65 years only Williams was more fun to watch hit in Fenway. 10 great years - absoultly should be in the Hall even though he didn't kiss the writters asses.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

is inapplicable to Koufax. Bill James analyzed it and found him to be nearly as effective on the road as at home, except for ERA.

The Milt Pappas argument is what people are making; Pappas and Koufax have nearly identical W-L records.

Don't forget, Koufax won 3 Cy Young awards in 4 years when they handed out only 1 per league, broke the season record for strikeous and posted a record 4 no-hitters. He went to the HOF because he was the absolute best pitcher in baseball for five or six years.

Puckett and Mattingly are another great example of why nowadays it is better for a ballplayer to burn out than fade away if he wants to make the Hall. They have essentially the same stats lifetime, but Mattingly came out of the box looking like DiMaggio and ended looking like Mark Grace, while Puckett went through his whole career at essentially the same level. I happen to think that the modern emphasis on statistical analysis is good, but it also complicates things. Where would Dizzy Dean be today if he was up for election? Conversely, Harold Baines...

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett

I don't care how good you are for the 5 years that yu are a great pitcher, you can never be considered one of the "top ten" at that position. Steve, your logic is completely flawed, you use it to suit yourself, but you aren't consistent. How can you say about a player (Kiner) that for a "pure-power hitter" like him that 369 HR's is just not enough to be inducted. But then say that Koufax only had 165 wins, but that shouldn't be considered. I personally have nothing wrong with Koufax being in the Hall of Fame, he belongs there for what he did for his 5 good years (not the 7 bad years). I just have a problem with people throwing him on a list of the 5-10 best pitchers of all-time. He is nowhere close to that.

[Archive]

Posted By: John(z28jd)

The best argument for me as far as how good Koufax's career was,is that if you flipped his stats over and 1966 was his first year and 1955 his last he would be just an afterthought,mentioned in the same breath as Ron Guidry,Dwight Gooden and Jim Maloney among others....when you look at a hall of famer you shouldnt be able to do something like that.

To me he was a great pitcher with a very good career.He definitely has one of the more interesting careers tho ,subpar/average for 5 years,very good for 2 years then great for 4 years then nothing

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Steve, it's people like you that irk me on the Koufax subject because you treat him like a god when he was far from it. He was less than mortal for more years than he was god-like. And comparing Koufax to DiMaggion is just plain bad. DiMaggio was great from the get go.

I've never said Koufax shouldn't be in the HOF. He just shouldn't be getting the god-like worship that Steve and others give him. And as others have mentioned, there is no way he top 10 material, other than peak performance. The only players that get the tag "There is no debate they are top 10" is Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Ted Williams, Lefty Grove, Christie Mathewson, Honus Wagner and Willie Mays. I'd put Bonds in there, but I know there are people that will debate this for all the wrong reasons.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

Jay - Be more assertive about Bonds. Whether he is personally liked or not, and I don't know anyone who does personally like him, he is definitely one of the top 10 players of all time. Remember that a lot of people didn't and still don't like Ty Cobb, but he is the 2nd best player of all time behind Ruth with Williams a close 3rd. Also you should have put Gehrig on your short list - no debate that Gehrig is definitely in the top ten. Also, pitchers and hitters should never be lumped together in a top ten list - has to be two seperate lists. I don't even know how I got to having to defend Koufax, I don't even like the Dodgers, but his accomplishments and records, as previously noted, clearly speak for themselves and make him a top ten pitcher. As always, except for those 3 or 4 pitchers and hitters at the very top who nobody should disagree with, everyone has their own top ten list and I respect their opinions, even when the opinions are incorrect - LOL.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

People will argue about the steroids and as you mentioned, because they think he is a jerk. I got to meet him and he was pleaseant. I know sportswriters don't like him. But I wasn't even aware of it until about a year or so before he broke the record.

I was assuming a seperate list for hitters and pitchers. And as I said, Koufax makes it if you are talking peak performance, but that doesn't cut it when you talking all-time greats. You have be great for the vast majority of your career, not just 5 years. Personally, I'd prolly put Gehrig on the top 10, but I've also seen lists with him left off and I couldn't really argue with choices

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett

Jay, I don't want to get into another debate about Bonds, but my (and many other peoples) position about Bonds and steroids has NOTHING to do with him supposedly being a jerk. There were many jerks before him and heaven knows there will be many more after him.

[Archive]

Posted By: Albie O'Hanian

The final point about Koufax by Jay makes the most sense. If you are evaluating careers than Koufax is absolutely not a top 10 pitcher. However, if you are talking dominance than he very well might be. It all depends on the criteria used. If you had to pick one pitcher at his best to pitch a seventh game it might be Koufax.
As for Rice, I have been a Red Sox and Rice fan my whole life. I still have my "pitchers pay the price when they face Jim Rice t-shirt." However, he was only dominant for three seasons (77 to 79). The wrist injury he suffered in 80 hurt him for a while and in the 80's he was good but not dominant. Because he was not that patient a hitter, and grounded into Dp's at a prolific rate he created a lot of outs at the plate. He was also a terrible baserunner. He is a Hall of Fame candidate but certainly not a slam dunk.
He does have some amazing feats - breaking bats on checked swings, hitting monster homeruns etc. I once saw him hit 5 homeruns in a doubleheader against the Blue Jays in old Exhibition Stadium and he just missed a sixth when he SINGLED off the centerfield wall. First and only time I have ever seen that. He hit the ball so hard that he could only get a single on a drive to dead center.