there was an interesting story going around at one time that Lloyd Waner was inducted into the HOF at least in part because his brother Paul's stats were inadvertently distributed to the old timers commitee....

Ki Ki has a 321 career average with 2300 hits and led the league in stolen bases 4 times. Give the guy some credit.

Cuyler belongs...
 

A quick trip to http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...uyleki01.shtml reveals that Hazen Ki Ki Cuyler put up some outstanding career numbers, including: 2299 hits, 1305 runs, 394 doubles, 157 triples, 128 home runs, 1065 RBI, 328 stolen bases and 176 sacrifice hits on .321 career batting and .474 slugging averages.

The National Baseball Hall of Fame ought to honor the greatest of the game's all-time greats. As one of fewer than 300 players among the many thousands of athletes talented enough to claim the title of Major Leaguer, Ki Ki Cuyler stands among the greats on the basis of his considerable record.

Frankly, I used to wonder about a few of the men honored with plaques at Cooperstown, but Cuyler was never one of those. In the final analysis I think a convincing case can be made for each player in the Baseball Hall of Fame. The non-players are another matter for another time.

I agree. There is no other retired player with as many at bats that have a higher career BA and is not in the Hall of Fame. Look no further than a .321 BA with over 7,000 at bats...his other stats are impressive as well.

For an outfielder whose period was the post-deadball era of the 1920s and '30s, Kuyler struck me as a very good player, but like the Vada Pinsons or Domenic DiMaggios of their era, a solid case could be made that Kuyler was in no way dominant during his 15 years.

It took the Veteran's Committee to put him in there. I mean, hell, Don Mattingly had 2,100+ hits in 12 years, and at least six of those he was injured. I loved Donnie, but I don't think he is Hall worthy, and yes, a real case could be made that he was the most dominant hitter of the 1980s. I guess that's the beauty of this... we all get to have our opinion.

As to the Albert Belle issue, I'm actually one of those who thinks he should be in the Hall. He had 381 home runs in less than 12 full seasons, during a great era for the Indians. As far as I know, there have been no accusations of steroids or enhancing drugs for Belle. His strikeouts were surprisingly low for a power hitter, his averages and RBIs were consistently great. Huge slugging percentages were great, and even a few 700+ at-bat years.

I remember seeing him playing in Reading with the Canton-Akron team in 1989 or '90. The crowd taunted him ridiculously all game. In the seventh or eighth inning, he hit a moon shot that they're still waiting to land. It was evident that he was going to be unbelievable.

Someone mentioned Ray Schalk earlier. His induction used to make me scratch my head as well. But then I looked at his fielding stats, which are simply awesome. For a catcher, that seems important. Also, for what it's worth, his York Caramel card lists him as the greatest catcher ever.

Catchers are judged differently, stats-wise. Dominance in their position is one that is considered pretty consistently by the writers.

I mentioned Schalk before, and not knowing a great deal about him I very well could have been wrong in my assessment. When analyzing a player I haven't seen most of the time I attach the caviat that it is hard for me to argue a borderline HOFer either way if I never saw them play.

I second Larry Corcoran, he was the Sandy Koufax of the 19th Century
Short Career ...5 monster years

A personal test I use for players that were active when I was a kid: if I didn't get excited when I got their baseball card, while they were in their prime, why would I want them in the HOF? examples: Sutton, Niekro, Pinson... The same reasoning could be used for Bert "Be home by 11" Blyleven - no kid gave a flip about a Blyleven card, so no way he gets in the hall (from a kid's perspective). On the other hand, you wanted a Jim Rice or a Don Mattingly.

In the first 30-40 years of Baseball (1876-about 1915) defense was looked at with higher regard than offense. Hence we see a great deal of early Ballplayers who were considered the best players of their time by those who SAW them play and you can not equate that to stats.

In the 1890's for example if a player touched a baseball and did not record an out it went down as an error. That meant that the BEST Shortstops always led the league in erros for a while. Try translating that to stats by todays standards.

By contemporary accounts, the greatest all around player of the 19th century was Ned Williamson. People would look at his stats today and think it was a travesty that he was in. But if the Hall of Fame had started 30 years earlier, he would have been in its innagural class. Likewise, Bobby Wallace, Ray Schalk, Rabbit Maranville and Johnny Evers among others are not in the Hall for things you can simply evaluate on a piece of paper.

I always thought it was ironic that people will use Defense to keep you out of the Hall of Fame (Babe Herman, Pete Browning, and Edgar Martinez) but they will rarely use defense to justify your merits unless you are Ozzie Smith.

Rhys

"Don Newcombe

Win–Loss record 149–90
Earned run average 3.56
Strikeouts 1,129

Career highlights and awards
4× All-Star selection (1949, 1950, 1951, 1955)
World Series... "

If you're going to give the argument that Newcombe should be in the HOF because he won a WS, shouldn't he have performed well in said World Series:

1949 23 BRO NL WS L NYY 0 2 .000 3.09
1955 29 BRO NL WS W NYY 0 1 .000 9.53
1956 30 BRO NL WS L NYY 0 1 .000 21.21
3 Seasons (3 Series) 0 4 .000 8.59 ERA

3 superb seasons and 2 good seasons do not make him a HOF'er.

It's truly a shame that all the great defenders of the past--especially the pre-war era--are all but forgotten, as their greatness wasn't documented in the stats. Someone, truly great in the field and okay at bat, surely deserves the same/more attention as someone great at bat and okaypoor in the field.

Where have all the great catches gone? What did they look like? The great assists from the outfield? The amazing stabs, double plays, etc???

19th century
 

Harry Stovey
Ross Barnes
Deacon White

Also, Bill Dahlen.

Haven't looked through every post but I hope someone mentioned Paul Hines.

Gil Hodges. Talk about Joltin' Joe DiMaggio and the nation turning its lowly eyes to him... how about Brooklyn and Queens turning their lowly eyes to Gil Hodges, as a player with the Dodgers and a manager of the Mets? He was a cornerstone in giving the city what they never thought they'd see... twice.

I think Hodges' name came up as much or more than any other in this thread. And I agree that he is (at this time) perhaps the most glaring omission. Stats just don't paint the entire picture. I really hope he gets in before too long...