OT: Who should be in the Hall that isn't
 

This is a huge topic of debate, yet fun as I love hearing opinions as to who else should be considered for the Hall.

I am and always will be a monstrous supporter of Jimmy Ryan, and I'm saddened he still isn't considered. But, I digress, who else do you think should be in the Hall (outside of Jackson and Rose)?

This list is for intended on players no longer eligible.

My list is:

Jimmy Ryan (for sure)
Joe Start (borderline)
Dale Murphy (little past borderline)
Bill Dahlen (close to my magic vote)
Dick Allen (borderline, more towards no)
Lou Whitaker (past borderline)
Ted Simmons (close)
Joe Torre (close)
Riggs Stephenson (I would vote for him)

The list will go on, these are the ones I can think of briefly. Because I mentioned them, doesn't mean I think they should be in (except a few), I think we should take a little longer look.

It would be fun to also look at active modern players:

Pujols (Yes)
Miguel Cabrera (Yes)
Jeter (Yes)
Kershaw (looking good)
Mauer (if he can put up a few more good years, Yes)
Trout (way early, but easily on pace)
A-Rod (Yes)
Carlos Beltran (few more years)
Matt Holliday (see Beltran)
David Wright (No)
Longoria and Tulo (stay healthy then maybe)
Felix Hernandez (see Kershaw)
Giancao Stanton (will hit 600+ to get in)
Justin Upton (consistency issues, but if he reverts to MVP form, chances good)
David Ortiz (if he gets in so should Edgar)
Torii Hunter (no, close but very fun to watch him for years)
Alfonso Soriano (see Beltran)
Josh Hamilton (no, damn drugs)
Joe Nathan (no)
Adam Dunn (he will hit 500, but not really 'elite', coin toss for me, but I like him)
Starlin Castro (Yes, he will get 3k+ hits)
Jimmy Rollins (close, please get to 3k)
Ichiro (Yes)
Chase Utley (stay healthy, decent shot)
Ryan Howard (see Utley, pray for 500 HR's, not likely)
Prince Fielder (get back to elite, hit 500+ then in)
Johan Santana (love him, but unfortunately no)
Morneau (if only no concussion, but no)
Peavy (no, loved him in SD)
Lincecum (was good, no)
Freeman, Harper, Machado (too early, health issues except Freeman)
Jayson Heyward (all the tools, no clue what is wrong, Liriano syndrome)
Raul Ibanez (no, thought career was over 7+ years ago)
Mark Buehrle (no, still surprises me)
David Price (need more)
Stephen Drew (no)

Let's make this fun!






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Barry Bonds

Larry Doyle
Edgar Martinez
Vern Stephens (maybe)

I would say Tommy John and Gil Hodges deserve to be in.

Castro and A-Rod will not be elected.

Minnie Minoso
Luis Tiant
Thurman Munson
George Van Haltren
Bob Caruthers


PEDers...NO - a thousand times NO!!

People always say that they deserve it because of what they did on the field.

I have what I feel are two strong arguments against their inclusion:

1.) Most importantly, they made the decision to go after honors, fame and accolades DURING their careers, instead of reaping those rewards in retirement...so why should they be HONORED twice?

2.) As long as guys like those on my list above are on the outside, cheaters should not be allowed in without a ticket.

Oppps totally missed the outside of Jackson & Rose part! Btw Joe Torre is already on the Hall Of Fame.

Honestly I am a huge fan of a lot of the players mentioned (Murphy, Simmons & Whitaker) but I can't agree that any of them are Hall Of Famers.

Oliva was a lifetime .300 hitter & had a great stretch of about 8 years, but over all I don't see his career numbers being HOF worthy. Am I missing something with him?

...and Tony Oliva

No. Never.

No way should A-Rod even be considered. And that's coming from a Yankee's fan.

Pretty sure I disagree with you, but I also have no problem with that or with your overall sentiment/opinion. This is a very decisive issue, and I have trouble saying either side is wrong. Different people have very different POVs on this.

Without getting into the details of my logic (typing from a mobile device... But may add more later), I think the toughest thing with your position is- where do you draw the line? Do you have to have tested positive and/or been disciplined by MLB's policy? If so, you would be rewarding a lot of people who were just better at beating tests (can't help but be suspicious of Pujols... Based not only on appearance, but on things I've heard from a couple pretty inside sources... And frankly feel we should be suspicious about anyone now that lean muscle guys like Braun, or speed guys like Furcal have been caught). Can you omit people based on circumstantial evidence alone (this seems unfair and Piazza comes to mind)? It's just very tough, and then what bugs me more is that popularity begins to play too big a role... And many writers seem to revel in their role as gate keeper. I don't want to blast writers in general, but there are surely a lot of weasels in that bunch too.

A few "yes" for HOF--

Mussina given I think 250 should be the new 300... Hoping Hudon can rack up a few more to get serious consideration.

Crime Dog McGriff. This guy was so underrated. He hit 30 a year for over a decade, starting when 30 was a lot.. And for many years was one of the top 2-3 power hitters in the game. 490+ is close enough.

Also think Bonds/Clemens/etc should be there eventually.

If there was a Hall OF Really Really Good Players a lot of these guys would be in! As far as modern guys I think Vlad Guerrero has a good shot.

Huh?? Torre was unanimously elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame by the 16-member Veterans Committee on December 9, 2013. He will be inducted on July 27, 2014

Not as a player


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry for not clarifying


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stephen Drew? Adrian Beltre is probably more eligible than 75% of that modern list, yet isn't accounted for.


Nap Rucker
Marty Marion
Omar Vizquel
Alan Trammell
Edgar Martinez
Albert Belle
Dale Murphy
Fred McGriff -- agree with Ian; its a travesty he's not looked at more favorably.

None of the above. :D:D

Still waiting for a "real" Hall of Fame. 40 man roster. If someone goes in, someone comes out. (Ok, they could just move down an aisle). But would love to see a HOF where there weren't any guys "on the bubble".

Agreed. Although I think I would go higher than 40. Maybe to 100 or so tops.

Yeah, I know. I said 40 because of 40 man rosters. Another barrier to entry in my HOF. No voting for players who were playing when you were alive.
Especially in the voting for MLB players of the 20th Century, I always thought recent players had major bias in favor, to the point of not being able to take that team seriously. (I'm referring to the team the fans and MLB voted on in 1999 or so).

Gil Hodges &
Don Newcombe

The Hall is not much more than a popularity contest. Look at Chuck Klein he got voted in after he passed away by the Veterans Committee yet he was 1932 MVP, 4 time Homerun Champion, 2 Time RBI Champion, 320 Lifetime Avg, 300 Homeruns. He got elected in 1980 and passed away in 1958. When I looked at this, I lost a lot of respect for the writers who elect the inductees.

It's funny, on this board it seems to me there is the exact opposite bias, the romantic overrating of old time players relative to modern players.

I am confused, are we talking about players who belong in the Hall Of Fame? Or players we like?

A lot of good ball players being mentioned here but I have yet to see a name mentioned (that is no longer eligible) who belongs in the Hall. Just my opinion though.

I'm with you on that sentiment, and in many more instances than Klein (Mr McGriff included.. Do seriously only 11% think he deserves the nod? And if so, did they pay attention in the late '80's and '90's?).

In recent years, hearing many of these writers' interviews has been a nauseating experience. I do think a lot of these guys really know the game, but there seem to be nearly as many that love the opportunity to get on a soap box and grandstand (think photo ops during senate hearings). When I hear or read the bad ones, I often think of Max Mercy doing everything he could to discredit Roy Hobbs in the Natural... A guy who never played the game, and probably at heart loves to destroy boyhood idols because he's secretly jealous of all the attention these jocks got when he was was kid. This of course is not representative of all, but Max often comes to mind, and I have lost a lot of respect for many of them over the past several yearS. (though do love Scott Ostler from the SF Chron)

If based strictly on batting:

Pete Browning
Babe Herman
Riggs Stephenson

Other players for consideration:

Baby Doll Jacobson
Charlie Grimm
Emil Meusel
Bob Meusel
Stuffy McInnis
Bob Veach
Bob Johnson

Pitchers:

Tommy John
Tony Mullane
Jim McCormick

Both player and pitcher:

Kid Gleason (over 1900 hits and 138 wins)

LOL, Peter. You know you want Omar in, Man. :)

How about what they did to Santo?

writers are like lawyers- an unfortunate necessity.

Them's fightin words on this board!

Given that my wife and 4 of my 6 siblings/siblings in laws have JDs, I have to say I concur though:D

The Indians had some great hitting teams in the 90s, but it seemed Omar was always the one who torched the Red Sox.

A better question is who is in the HOF who shouldn't ? About 1/3 the inductees. :eek:

McCartney -- Let em in
 

Omar Vizquel
Tommy John
T Oliva
Mattingly Don
Luis Tiant
Marion
Open the Hall,
Let em in, in, in

The question is if he hit 7 more HRs would he be in the Hall.

This is pretty true. If Rickey Henderson played in the 1910s he'd be better then Ty Cobb.:eek::eek::eek:

Larry Bowa , first comes to mind .

Pete Rose

Jack Morris should be in.

And as regards your list of current players, how did you leave off Verlander?

OT, but I think that if you flipped teams and put Nap Rucker on the Giants and Rube Marquard on the Dodgers, the other guy is in the HOF (and probably with much better career numbers than Marquard).

Bill Dahlen, Sherry Magee and maybe Ginger Beaumont are all better than many players already enshrined.

The way he's been pitching lately, I wouldn't include him.

John Wesley "Jack," "Pebbly Jack" Glasscock

Nicknamed "Pebbly Jack" for his habit of scrutinizing the infield for small stones, typically pocketing them, the practice helped him to avoid the bad-hop ground balls which more regularly afflicted other infielders; fielding averages of the era rarely exceeded .900 among shortstops. He led the National League in fielding percentage seven times and in assists six times (without a glove until 1890), with both marks remaining league records until Ozzie Smith surpassed them in the 1980s; he also led the NL in double plays four times and in putouts twice. He won the 1890 batting title with a .336 average for the New York Giants and led the league in hits twice; in his final season he became the sixth major league player to make 2,000 hits. He was the first player to appear in over 600 games as a shortstop, and ended his career with major league records for games (1,628), putouts (2,821), assists (5,630), total chances (9,283), double plays (620) and fielding percentage (.910) at the position. When he retired he ranked fifth in major league history in games (1,736) and at bats (7,030), seventh in total bases (2,630) and eighth in doubles (313).

Glasscock left the major leagues with a .290 career batting average, 2040 hits, 27 home runs, 63 runs, 825 runs batted in and 98 triples. He was one of the most difficult players of the 19th century to strike out, doing so just once in every 33 at bats. In 1887 and 1890 he struck out only eight times. It would be 35 years before Joe Sewell bettered his 1890 average of 64 at bats per strikeout. He played a notable role in the advancement of defensive tactics, being one of the first shortstops to use signals indicating which infielder would cover second base on steal attempts, and also one of the first to back up throws to the second baseman.

Braun didn't use a performance enhancer, though, Ian, and I wish the sites like ESPN and Yahoo sports, who were so quick to condemn him absent of the facts, breaking the story during what was supposed to be a confidential appeals process, and before Shyam Das had even ruled on his appeal, would expend even half the energy they did then to report the truth.

The substance he took was used to accelerate healing of a pretty serious calf injury that had been bothering him all season. The bottom line is that he broke the rules, and yes, he should have been suspended, as he was at the end of last season. He let Brewers fans down big time. He let me down. I've been the biggest Ryan Braun fan since he came to the Majors in 2007. I loved it when he extended his contract, and stayed in Milwaukee for far less than he could have made if he tested free agency. And he's done an awful lot of good in Milwaukee, including working with a lot of charities. Of course, you never hear any of these stories. All you hear is how Braun is this terrible human being that "threw a little guy under the bus to save himself". Braun made a dumb mistake. But he's hardly the pariah the media have tried to make him out to be. So much of the crap that you read about him has been made up. But, there's nobody to hold ESPN's or Yahoo's feet to the fire. So, when Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports prints an article that Ryan Braun secretly contacted Matt Kemp, Joey Votto and Troy Tulowitzki to ask them for their public support, asserting that collector Dino Laurenzi Jr was an anti-semitic Cubs fan, everybody trashed Braun. When both Votto and Tulowitzki came out the very next day, calling the story pure fiction, did Yahoo or ESPN run that story? Of course not. Joey Votto even offered to provide his phone records to prove that no conversation between himself and Braun happened. But the damage had already been done.

Yeah Bill, sorry, I remember we'd discussed that in depth a while back. Just goes to show how far an irresponsibly reported black mark can go (damn writers). That said, think my point still applies- we probably should be suspicious of everyone. And keeping that in mind, think we should also be cautious not to over scritinize/tear down certain players (Bonds, etc), while seemingly forgiving others based on their popularity (Big Papi).

I've always felt that Cecil Travis should be in the HOF. He had fantastic numbers (.327 lifetime batting average) , before he went into the military for WWII and lost almost 4 prime years. Keep in mind that he was a shortstop and was never the same player after the war due to injuries sustained during combat. Ted Williams called him one of the five best left handed hitters he ever saw.

As to the question at hand, who should be in the Hall that isn't? I don't think the answer to this is easy. Not at all. People who aren't in Cooperstown have been vetted. Their careers have been looked over with a fine tooth comb, and for some reason, they didn't meet that standard. Are there a few players that I feel are worthy of another look? Yes. There are always exceptions. Hell, look at the NFL Hall of Fame. Jerry Kramer, the great offensive guard for the Lombardi Packers of the 60s...5 time First Team All-Pro, 3-time Pro Bowler, 5 time World Champion, voted to both the NFL 1960's All Decade Team, and the NFL's 50th Anniversary Team. Inexplicably, he's not in the Hall of Fame. But if it were up to me, I'd be removing more players than I'd be putting in. The Hall is supposed to be for the very best of the best, and there are some people in there that got in because of cronyism.

Who would I consider going in?

That I'll have to think about.

I dunno...he would have been pretty young...

I agree.

I think a big part of how Bonds and Papi are treated has to do with how they treat the media. Bonds was downright surly with the media most of the time. While Papi never met a reporter he didn't like, at least in my experiences. The folks in Boston love him, and even though he pretty much admitted to using PEDs, Ortiz could probably run for mayor and win.

NFL Hall of Fame is ridiculous. Each year there's a long list of very very deserving guys who may never get in. Tim Brown comes to mind, and I know he's nowhere near the most blatant example.

ADDING: I guess it's easier to add a few deserving guys, than to pull out some of the undeserving ones. So in that case the NFL's issue seems enviable compared to MLB.

Another MLBer I'd love to see in- Lefty O'Doul. I know he didn't have a long career, and his work in the PCL and popularizing baseball in Japan would probably need to be considered in order to give him the final nudge (rather than playing career alone), but would love to see him in.

I used to be a big advocate of Jack Morris. The argument was always that his ERA was to high. Research finds that, yes, his career figure of 3.90 would be the highest in the Hall - but I was willing to overlook this because of what a big game pitcher he was.

The truth: His lowest single season ERA was 3.05 and he performed poorly in his last post-season.

He was a very good ace of some great teams...but Trammell deserves more consideration.

I would definitely put BART GIAMOTTI in before rose. He had a lot more respect for the game. rose believed and still believes his is better than the game.

As has been said many times before, there are signs in EVERY clubhouse stating that gambling on baseball is illegal - if it was done today, it should be treated just as harshly...but I worry that we have become a too-forgiving, too-permissive society. Our standards should remain high....higher than rose.

No way - Poster boy for those feeling entitled. When he and Griffey, Jr. came to the career fork-in-the-road, we all know who went what direction and only one of those leads to upstate New York.

He already got his applause...he refused to wait.

Clemens and Belle fall into the Bonds catagory

The Cobra
 

Dave Parker for sure!! Was as good if not better than Rice & Dawson who are already in. Take a look!

7× All-Star (1977, 1979–1981, 1985, 1986, 1990)
2× World Series champion (1979, 1989)
NL MVP (1978)
3× Gold Glove Award (1977–1979)
3× Silver Slugger Award (1985, 1986, 1990)
All-Star Game MVP (1979)
2× NL batting champion (1977, 1978)
Home Run Derby winner (1985)

Batting average .290
Hits 2,712
Home runs 339
Runs batted in 1,493

It always
 

amazes me how for students of the games history we get all sanctimonious about PED users. We act like this was developed as a gentlemen's game and played by men of honor and integrity. Very far from the actual beginnings and the vast majority of the early players of this game. We always suppose this guy or that guy would not have taken PED's we do not know this but we do know many have said and done things that are certainly not upstanding. The hall of fame is to honor the history of the game and no matter how hard we try to pretend these people are part of the history of the game. I am also sorry but I heard almost noone think the players were clean during the 1998 HR chase and the seasons after it. We all pretty much knew we just did not care than all of sudden when the AAron record was in jeopardy we all cared. Ratings were booming baseball was the talk of the sports world and the executives etc of the sport all knew what was going on. They did not care why should the players. Couple this with the fact that the sport deemed it illegal but had no penalties, I do not see it as just to all of a sudden impose this PED users arent allowed in attitude. This leads to a player like Bagwell who looks like PED user to me getting more votes than Clemens or Bonds because we are more positive they took. This process has become a joke and so has the hall of fame. Restore it to a museim to tell the sports history and leave the sanctimony at the door. If just taking these drugs made you an all time great why was Jason Giambi an MVP and allstar and Jeremy Giambi barely a bench warmer?

Maris HOF
 

Roger Maris. Can I bring his name up again? It seemed like 20 years ago everyone was arguing over whether Maris should get into the hall or not. Then it all died down after his final eligibility year. I know that I am a homer for the Yankees, but seriously, Maris deserves another look, especially when we are looking to clean up the game and recognize guys for determination, clean living, and sportsmanship. All of which I believe Maris was a great example. And he had respectable numbers.

What gets lost...
 

when rules are bent is that you loose both perspective and the thought that, "There, by any other flip of the coin, would be me."

What Baseball has had and struggles mightily to keep is the special contact between the individual ex-player-wanna-be and the skilled professional.

You do not have to be 7-feet tall or 250 pounds or even especially fast. Good, if not great baseball play comes from practice after practice.

I will be the first to admit that I got thoroughly caught up in the afore-mentioned Home Run race of 1998. Everyone wanted to believe. I was on the edge of my seat as not one but two nice-guys surged toward a new standard.

I watched in great appreciation when McGwire seemed to treat the Maris family like great friends who had been neglected for a long time.

I was amazed as both players not only passed but shredded the previous high. Both guys learned to share the emotion of the moment with the adoring fans.

Yes, it was all dreamlike in the summer of 1998. And as one of that following crowd, I carry the guilt of being an enabler.

I really believed in McGwire because he had a great homerun stroke from day 1 as a rookie. He was just a golf-pro working out on a baseball diamond in 1987. I still believe THAT year was legit.

Then came the injuries and the Canseco influence. He went from being a fairly slim big guy to someone with 16-inch forearms...I SAY AGAIN 16-INCH FOREARMS.

Meanwhile, in Chicago, Sammy Sosa was caught with a corked bat which evidently he only used in BP. He said it was 'for the fans.' Right then and there, I knew he did not understand that a bigger part of most of our appreciation is that believing this is someone using the same tools and opportunities that could have been available to anyone.

Then comes Bonds and Clemens, already the best position player and best pitcher of the generation. But that was not enough. These two guys stand on the shoulders of giants who came before them. They had every legitimate advantage and then decided to get more...and more.

There is simply no way to figure out exactly what was legitimate work and what was not. This is like Baseball's version of Wall Street's insider trading.

The National Baseball Hall of Fame is home to some seriously flawed individuals I grant you, but why can't that injustice be stopped.

The writers are flawed in the elections - think of all of the greatest who were not elected unanimously just so someone can have their 15 minutes. (I guess I'm having my 15 hours right now, huh).

Shakespeare said, 'The play is the thing.' - and so, regardless of anything else, the game endures.

my pick
 

Elroy Leon Face (born February 20, 1928 in Stephentown, New York) is a former Major League Baseball right-handed relief pitcher. During a 17-year baseball career, he pitched from 1953–1969, primarily for the Pittsburgh Pirates. A pioneer of modern relief pitching, he was the archetype of what came to be known as the closer, and the National League's greatest reliever until the late 1960s, setting numerous league records during his career.

Face was the first major leaguer to save 20 games more than once, leading the league three times and finishing second three times; in 1959 he set the still-standing major league record for winning percentage (.947) with 18 wins against only one loss. He held the NL record for career games pitched (846) from 1967 until 1986, and the league record for career saves (193) from 1962 until 1982; he still holds the NL record for career wins in relief (96), and he held the league mark for career innings pitched in relief (1,211⅓) until 1983. On his retirement, he ranked third in major league history in pitching appearances, behind only Hoyt Wilhelm and Cy Young, and second in saves behind Wilhelm. Nicknamed "The Baron," he holds the Pirates franchise records for career games (802) and saves (188).

Baseball
 

It is played everywhere....

In parks, in playgrounds, and prison yards...

In back alleys and farmers' fields...

By small children and old men...

Raw amateurs and millionaire professionals.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is a leisurely game

That demands blinding speed.

The only game in which the defense has the ball.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It follows the seasons...

Beginning each year with the fond expectancy of springtime...

And ending with the hard facts of autumn.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is a haunted game...

In which every player is measured against the ghost
of all who have gone before

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Most of all...

It is about time and timelessness...

Speed and grace...

Failure and loss...

Imperishable hope

And

Coming home.

Brad, I'm sorry. I just couldn't put Roger Maris in if I had a vote, as much as I liked the man, and as much as I admire what he accomplished in breaking Babe Ruth's single season home run record. I've never read a persuasive argument in favor of putting him into Cooperstown, and while he may have set a great example with how he lived his life, that in no way strengthens the argument for inducting him into the Hall of Fame. All that counts is what he did when he was wearing his uniform.

He did have respectable numbers. But this is the Hall of Fame we're talking about, which should recognize only the greatest men to have ever played the game.

Roger Maris had two elite seasons, 1960 and 1961 when he won the AL MVP both years. He hit 100 home runs, and drove in 253 runs in those two seasons combined. Beyond those two MVP seasons, he was an All Star two other times, and he received MVP votes just one other time, in 1964 when he finished 25th in the vote. Maris was also a very good outfielder, underrated perhaps. He did win a Gold Glove in 1960.

But as hard as I try, I can't make a good argument in his favor. His career numbers, while good, don't even approach Hall of Fame consideration.

.260 AVG, 275 home runs, 850 RBI.
He had 1,325 hits. 195 doubles. 42 triples. He stole 21 bases.
His career slash line .345 OBP/.476 SLG/.822 OPS is good, but not great by any means.

Besides his two MVP seasons, he hit over 30 home runs in one other season, 1962, when he hit 33. That was also the only other season when he drove in 100 or more runs, at 100 exactly.
He hit 28 home runs in 1958, 23 home runs in 1963, and 26 in 1964. After the 1964 season, when he was 30 years old, he'd never hit more than 13 home runs in a single season again.

Roger didn't perform well in the post season, either. He was a .217 hitter in 41 career post season games. He had 33 hits in 152 at bats, with 6 home runs and 18 RBI. His .298 OBP/.369 SLG/.667 OPS wouldn't exactly excite the Veterans Committee.

Try as I may, the only thing Roger has going for him are his two MVP seasons, and there are other players with much better careers that have won two MVPs, and not made it into the Hall of Fame (Dale Murphy, for one, comes to mind).

Understanding this is a pre-war board and I am likely to open myself up to some criticism here…we have throughly exhausted good candidates from the pre-1950 era and, if we could, should probably remove several of them. The 1960s and 1970s are pretty underrepresented, especially the 60s where offense was so throttled.

I also wonder how the marginal pre-1947 HOFers (Hafey, Marquard, Bresnahan, Klein, Bottomly, etc...) would have done if they had to pitch against players similar to Willie Mays, Henry Aaron or had to hit against Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, etc...

Imagine a world where every prewar player and batboy was in the Hall of Fame and our collections were worth millions as a result. All in favor.........

I try not to judge players I never saw, not really fair to judge on stats alone. The only player I would put in thats not already is Mike Piazza, I believe he will get in eventually

There are quite a few players I would take out though.

I think Gene Tenace. He ranks 13th in JAWS on the catcher's list, above several HOF players:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_C.shtml

Also, Thurmon Munson

There is a Hall of Fame A and a Hall of Fame B. HOF A players you don't even have to think about. There is not a whole lot of them. HOF B are players require a hard look. Lots of people think requiring a hard look should be reason enough to prevent a player's induction. And I agree. Of course it's way more complicated than that b/c some feel 300 wins means automatic Hall, others don't think that is so. That's one example of many.

As for Clemens and Bonds, most writers are quick to point out they they were Hall of Famers before their embarrassingly obvious and shameless PED use. But I'm not entirely sure. Clemens got up to Toronto in 1997, dyed his hair blond and found the fountain of youth, and we all know what that fountain was comprised of. His numbers before PED use: 192-111, 3.16. Are these the numbers of a sure fire, absolutely no doubt hall of famer? Maybe they are. Maybe they are not...

That's surprising, I would have bet good money that Kramer was in. It's actually inexplicable to me and adds to my belief that HOF voting for football and baseball is often without rhyme or reason.

I hate saying this as a Pirate fan, but I don't see Parker getting in because of the 1985 coke trials in Pittsburgh. It is probably the same reason that Bill Madlock, who has four batting titles, will not get into the Hall of Fame.

Now, another former Pirate, Al Oliver, could be considered. Great defensive centerfielder and over 2700 hits with a .303 lifetime batting average.

Throwing another vote towards Harry Stovey. I don't care if he played in the AA. It was a recognized major league just as much as the upstart American League was when it started.

Stovey led leagues in home runs 5 times. Finished as the career leader and was third as late as 1920 (his career ended in 1893). Throughout his career he led the league in over 20 offensive categories and may have stolen up to 800 bases.

When he retired, he was the career leader in both home runs and stolen bases AND held the single season records for both categories.

He was the first great power hitter in a game that celebrates power hitters. But he is not in the HOF.

That's the reaction I get most every time I bring him up. He's the only player on the NFL's 50th Anniversary Team not in Canton.

The explanation I've heard for this slight is "there are already too many of the Lombardi-era Packers in the Hall". That's hogwash, imo. That's like saying "hey, sorry, Mr. Jeter. You can't get into Cooperstown because there are too many Yankees already in the Hall." The Halls of Fame are there to recognize excellence, and Kramer was one of the all-time greats. Besides, linebacker Dave Robinson was just elected to the Hall of Fame last year, and he was a member of Lombardi's Packers from 1963 to 1967. So, maybe they can find a spot for #64, too. It would be a crying shame if they didn't put him in while he is still alive. He's 78 years old. The time is now.

Let's take a pole on idiots:
 

How many typers (I won't call them writers) will not vote for Derek Jeter? Mariano Rivera?

Anyone who does not vote them in should not only have their vote taken away but should also (and I'll quote a Clint Eastwood movie now) "Anyone who would do that should have their A*S removed."

I am neither a Yankee Fan or Hater, but this is just too obvious.

They will justify it by saying, "Well, so-and-so didn't get every vote, so why should they."

Stupidity does not justify stupidity.

After doing a little research on a player I bought a card of and not knowing much about it, I found that, Frederick "Cy" Williams, should be in the HOF IMO.

The Williams Shift, in which defensive players moved to the right side of the playing field, is often associated with Ted Williams, but it was actually first employed against Cy Williams during the 1920s.

He was a 4X NL Home Run Champion.
He was the first NL player to break the 200 HR mark.
He was one of only 3 players, born before 1900 to hit more than 200HRs, with the other two being Babe Ruth and Rogers Hornsby.

Just my opinion, but I think he should have been voted in years ago.

Brian, I completely agree with all your points. It's a shame but true. Al Oliver should more consideration for sure.

I agree on Kramer, I also think Jim Marshall is deserving.

Ok, getting back to the topic at hand. Who do I feel should be in the Hall that isn't.

One player that I've kept hearing over and over again is Dick Allen. And, I must admit, though I knew about him, I'd never really taken a long hard look at his numbers. When you consider the era that he played in, his performance, in my opinion, definitely warrants a second look. If I had a BBWAA vote, I would put him in. And here's one reason why.

Dick Allen (also known as Richie Allen) played from 1963 to 1977. While his career numbers are nice, they don't tell the whole story, as is so often the case.

In his fifteen seasons, Allen hit .292 with 351 home runs and 1,119 RBI. He was a Rookie of the Year, and an NL MVP. He led his league in runs once, in triples once, in home runs twice, in RBI once, in On Base Pct twice, in Slugging Pct three times, and in OPS 4 times.

Now, as I have said before, as somebody who tends to rely a little more on the old school statistical analysis, and not quite as much (yet) on sabermetrics, I find a player's OPS to be one of the nest indicators of a player's offensive potency. It combines on base percentage and slugging percentage together. And in baseball, as an offensive player, a hitter's goals are getting on base, and providing power. Some players do one or the other well. And occasionally, those really transcendent players excel in both areas. Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Joe DiMaggio, Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, Babe Ruth...these players are the elite offensive forces of the game's history.

If we look at the period of 1963 to 1977, which was Allen's career span, 15 years (which is 11 seasons, really. His rookie season he batted only 24 times. In 1973, he only had 250 at bats. His second to last season, 1976, he batted only 298 times. And his final season, 1977, he had only 171 at bats), Allen put up some impressive numbers. Now, compare those seasons to his peers.

I searched Baseball Reference for all seasons between 1963 and 1977 where a player had 400 or more at bats, and an .850 or higher slugging percentage. Look who was at the top of the list, tied with Hank Aaron:

http://imageshack.com/a/img837/7855/vgt3.png

The results on Baseball Reference.

In his 11 qualifying seasons, Allen had 10 seasons with over 400 at bats and an .850 or higher OPS. That's a big part of his excellent career slash line.

.378 OBP/.534 SLG/.912 OPS

A .912 OPS in that era? Are you kidding me?

While there might be a few other players that deserve another look, Dick Allen is going to be at the top of my list.

I grow weary of the Hall of Really Good versus Hall of Fame argument. Some players will always be better than others. If we had a Hall of Best there would only be one person. Where does one draw this supposed line? Many modern players will get in that some will think are unworthy or whose numbers are pedestrian. To say that most of the best players of the game were before the modern era or vice versa is a moot point. It's just silly to always compare apples to oranges.

You should look up the Baker Bowl where he played - tiny - inflated stats

To me a HOFer is like the Supreme Court definition of obscenity -- you know one when you see one and they usually get elected on the first ballot. Jeter and Rivera, absolutely. Dick Allen? No. Al Oliver? No.

I just looked it up to satisfy my own curiosity:

Right Field Wall was 280 feet from home ; the 'power' alley in right-center was only 300 feet.

And, yes, Cy Williams was left-handed

So this was the 1920's version of a left-handed slugger in Yankee Stadium (310 feet- in right or 20 feet short of the norm)

I think the HOF already has too many members, with lots of marginal players that probably don't belong. Therefore, I'm against admitting any more borderline players into the Hall. It should be limited to the exceptional ballplayer who had a stellar career, and not the very good one who put up some decent numbers.

What makes Derek Jeter so much better than Allen? Derek Jeter has been a great player, I don't deny that. But he's never been the best player in baseball. I would argue that he's never been the best shortstop in baseball, either.

You also have to look at what he's accomplished offensively in the context of the era in which he's played. Allen destroyed pitchers in an era where pitchers dominated the game. Jeter has racked up the hits in an era favoring hitters. How many expansion teams were added while Jeter was a player? The Rockies and Marlins came in two years before his career started. The Dbacks and Rays joined in 1998. That's a lot of pitchers that wouldn't have been in the Majors if not for the expansion teams. If you look at the offensive explosion that took place during Jeter's career, his numbers aren't nearly as impressive as the ones Allen put up.

Just my opinion, but I have to disagree with ya, Peter.

Ah, the Baker Bowl. Also known as "the reason Chuck Klein is in the Hall of Fame".

In his first 5.5 years with the Phillies, Klein his .359 with 699 runs scored, 1,209 hits, 246 doubles, 191 home runs, 727 RBI, and a ridiculous slash line of .412/.632/1.044. In 1930, he hit .386 with 158 runs scored, 250 hits, 59 doubles, 9 triples, 40 home runs, 170 RBI and 445 total bases. He averaged 239 hits every 162 games.

3400 hits, for one thing. Meaningless in the context of the era he played in, right? I don't think so.

And let's compare some meaningless baseball reference HOF numbers which are, I believe, adjusted for era.

Jeter
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 334 (11), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 67 (19), Average HOFer ≈ 50

Allen
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 99 (163), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 39 (178), Average HOFer ≈ 50

Bill, I have a challenge for you. I bet you could come up with some stats to show that Willie Stargell (classic victim of 60s suppressed stats, no?) was better than Joe DiMaggio. :D

How can you say Dick Allen is more deserving than Derek Jeter? Jeter plays a premium position and has outlasted everyone who would have claimed a spot ahead of him as best shortstop in the league. A-rod was a cheater and Nomar flamed out. Jeter is above and beyond the premier shortstop of his time and I don't even like him.

IMO Allen's biggest problem as a HOF candidate is that he was viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a clubhouse cancer throughout a large part of his career. His offensive numbers in the context of his time are pretty solid but he doesn't seem to be able to shake the reputation thing.