Good for Bill James then :)

Hernandez may have been better than Olerud defensively but the difference between the two would have been very, very, VERY small. He was an all-time great at eliminating throwing errors, for example.

Besides, Olerud is the subject of one of the best Rickey Henderson stories of all-time*. Can Keith Hernandez say THAT???????????

* - Upon joining the Mets in 1999, Henderson saw Olerud wearing his helmet in the field and asked him about it. Olerud explained he always wore the helmet in the field. Rickey says "weird. We had a guy in Toronto who did the exact same thing." Olerud says "Rickey, that was me."

That was GREAT!

Does that mean that we all look the same to THEM? lol - I hope

Apparently that story's urban legend. Though I prefer to believe it's true.. As I do the Cal Ripken/Kevin Coster/fake blackout at Camden story

Well, if it's an enjoyable urban legend, please share:
 

I haven't heard the Ripken story

I'll go with some negro leaguers. There are others who merit discussion but I'll start with these:

John Beckwith
Dick Lundy
Blll Monroe
Grant Johnson
Ed Wesley
Nip Winters
Oliver Marcelle
Bill Wright
Spottswood Poles
John Donaldson
Dick Redding
Dobie Moore
Alejandro Oms

I agree with your Negro League opinions but would like to add 2 names to your list:
Sammy Hughes
C. I. Taylor

I have no problem with either Hughes or Taylor. I should probably have put Chet Brewer on my list too.

Huh?

THEM= players who always wore helmets on the field.

I remember George Scott and Dick Allen doing the same, not sure what their reasoning was but Olerud had a brain aneurism and took step as a precaution.

I think Scott wore it because he was afraid of fans throwing stuff at him. LOL. Would not surprise me if Allen had a similar reason.

Uh, no he didn't. Check the Cleveland years, where he took a pile of money and basically never stepped foot in town.

I love that story about Olerud and Henderson, whether it is true or not.

I don't have anything against Olerud, and really don't have an opinion about whether he deserves to be in the Hall, but as an avid Mets fan for decades, I can tell you that Hernandez meant much more to his team. Besides his fielding and hitting, he was the first team captain in Mets history and really kept a young, and notably rambunctious, team together. He was known for counseling pitchers during tight situations, a job usually designated for the shortstop, and even called pitches for some of the young guys.

His value may be reflected in the MVP voting. Hernandez was named on the ballot eight different times, winning it once and coming close two other times. Olerud was listed only twice, coming in third in his best year.

And while Olerud was certainly an excellent fielding first baseman, Hernandez was so adept on bunts and at throwing to all bases that he changed the position. The Mets even used to have him handle outfield relay throws sometimes instead of the second baseman (although with Gregg Jeffries and Wally Backman at second, that is a bit more understandable). As one commentator has stated, "If you never saw him play, it's hard to describe how a first baseman can be such an impact player in the field. Just saying he won eleven consecutive Gold Gloves doesn't do him anything near justice. He was a master at fielding bunts, often cutting down the runner at second, and covered an enormous amount of ground. He covered a multitude of sins handling throws. Who else could hold together an infield that sometimes included Wally Backman at second, Howard Johnson at third, and Kevin Mitchell at short - on a first place team"

Bill James even devised a stat based on Hernandez, after figuring out that one way to measure a first baseman's range was to count assists at all bases other than first, and that Hernandez was making 20-30 more outs per season than the average team. He named it, "The Keith Hernandez Breakthrough.“

According to one sabermetric stat (Total Zone Runs), Hernandez's defense saved 117 runs in his career, the most ever for a first baseman. Olerud comes in fourth at 97, still excellent, but nearly 20% behind.

All this having been said, Hernandez still has to answer for a few things. Besides the short career and the admitted drug use, many consider his mustache and his "Just For Men" ads unpardonable.

He was past his prime, like saying Steve Carlton isn't a HOFer based on the end of his career.

You said he was a winner everywhere and made his teams better. I say he was a money-grabbing SOB with no interest in playing for Cleveland, just cashing the checks.

To get the thread moving again:

Bob Howsam!

Both Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker, as they have turned more double players then any other double play combination, ever. Between them, 12 All Star appearances 7 gold Gloves, and that is just the defensive side.

Offensively, between them they averaged over 280, hit 429 home runs, I rookie of the year award, one World series MVP award, 3 Silver slugger awards at SS and another 4 Silver Slugger Awards at second base.

Tinkers, Evers made the Hall with their double play numbers, but they are now ranked 10th, while the best DP combination is left looking at the "HALL" from the outside.

THEY SHOULOD GO IN TOGETHER.

Costner is a guest at Ripken's home, Ripken leaves the house but returns sooner than expected, only to find Costner in bed with his wife. There's a fight and Ripken informs the Orioles he's not coming to the park, thus ending his streak. The Orioles, not wanting the streak to end, fake a blackout and cancel the game, preserving Cal's streak.

:)

That is a hilarious story, heard it long ago, but Rickey being Rickey is classic!!!

He should be in, 100%!!!

these are all choices I endorse as well.

I'm somewhat torn on Kaat. Yes, he won almost 300 games. Yes, he won 16 Gold Gloves (second most all-time to Greg Maddux). But was he ever the best pitcher in the game, or even in his league?

Here's the problem I have. The Cy Young Award started in 1956. Kaat started his career in 1959. Until 1967, there was just one award. Then there started being an award for each league.

But Kaat, in his 25 year career, only received votes for the Cy Young Award once in his career, in 1975. I'm not saying he only won the Cy Young once. I'm saying that he only got votes--any votes at all--in one year. He was fourth in the '75 AL Cy Young Award. He never received another vote again.

If the voters for that award only thought he was one of the top pitchers one year in twenty-five, how do we put him into the Hall of Fame, which is supposed to recognize he greats of the game?

I looked at all Hall of Fame pitchers that have thrown over 1,000 innings in their career between 1880 and 2014. There are 66 pitchers. I then looked at their ERA +. Kaat's ERA+ is 108. His ERA + would be the 6th worst out of all Major League Hall of Fame pitchers.

I then looked at career WAR. Kaat's 45.3 WAR would be 15th worst.

Next, I looked at career WHIP. Kaat would be 17th worst.

I don't know if those numbers are as reliable as they're purported to be, but it's pretty clear from those metrics, Kaat would be a lower-tier Hall of Famer if here were elected.

I then checked his career averages. Per 162 games played, here are Kaat's career averages:

13 wins, 11 losses, 3.45 ERA, 110 strikeouts

I couldn't help but notice that he only struck out 2,461 batters in 25 years.

Then, I looked at his Hall of Fame statistics

http://imageshack.com/a/img849/4007/o5bd.png

Three out of four metrics, he did not meet the average threshold for a Hall of Famer.

However, one positive would be the most similar pitcher. First is Tommy John, who is not a Hall of Famer. But next are Robin Roberts and Fergie Jenkins, two Hall of Famers. However, Roberts had six straight 20 win seasons where he had a 2.93 ERA. All these years were before the advent of the Cy Young Award. And Jenkins won a Cy Young, finished second twice, finished third twice, and sixth once.

I can see Jim Kaat getting another look, but he's a borderline Hall of Famer in my opinion. A very good pitcher with a few excellent seasons. I certainly wouldn't be upset if he got in, but if I were a voter, I would not vote for him.

I agree with everything you wrote except that I wouldn't put any stock in the Cy Young voting. For much of his career there was only one Cy Young given for the entire major leagues and voters could only vote for one pitcher. As a result in 1966 when Kaat almost certainly have won the AL award if it existed he lost out to Sandy Koufax who received all twenty votes from the sportswriters.

You're absolutely right. I'll give him 1966. He probably would have won the AL Cy Young if the award was given out in both leagues. But I would not say that "for much of his career there was only one Cy Young". Kaat became a full-time starting pitcher in 1961. In 1960, he only appeared in 13 games, starting 9. From 1961 to 1966, there was one Award. That's 6 seasons. He'd have won the 1966 Cy Young. He pitched another 17 seasons after 1966, from 1967 to 1978, 12 seasons, he was a full time starter, and he received any kind of Cy Young vote in one season, 1975.

From 1967 to 1983, the period after which we agree he'd have won the 1966 AL Cy Young, he started 406 games, and appeared in a total of 654 games. During the period of 1967 to 1983, his numbers:

185-154 (.546) with a 3.50 ERA, 1,504 K in 3,015 1/3 IP, 1.275 WHIP.

When you consider how the rules and the pitching mound gave pitchers an absolutely incredible advantage, even in his peak years, Kaat wasn't all that impressive. In 1968, Kaat was 14-12 with a 2.94 ERA while Denny McClain, a guy who'd pitched to a career 3.57 ERA, was winning 30 games with a 1.96 ERA. And Bob Gibson was 22-9 with a 1.12 ERA for the National League Cardinals. Kaat was very ordinary at a time when there was one hitter in the American League hitting .300, Carl Yastrzemski, who hit .301.

Now I've always been very open about the fact that I don't put much weight in a player's win-loss record. A very good pitcher can throw his arm off, but if the team behind him is no good, he's not going to get much run support, and he's not going to win a lot of games. And, I'm not saying Kaat was a bad pitcher. Quite the opposite. He was a good, solid pitcher. A dependable pitcher. But I just don't think the Hall of Fame should reward "sturdy and dependable".

Anyone for Bobby Grich?
Very underrated ballplayer

Billy Pierce

I agree with you on Grich . He definitely deserves consideration. I think like Ted Simmons he played in the shadow of a great Reds player during that time ...Joe Morgan.

I really like that you are considering how an 'average' HOF'er performed, as opposed to the worst HOF'er for each stat. Too many people would say: "So his WAR is higher than 14 current HOF'ers, his WHIP is better than 16 HOF'ers and his ERA is better than 5 current HOF'ers - obviously, he should be in the HOF."

But I really do like Kaat - out of all the less-than-great-but-better-than-average players in Twins history, and they seem to have more than any other franchise, Kaat and Oliva are at the top.

Niekro didn't get a lot of Cy Young votes either.

Neither did Cy Young;)

I'd go with Joe Wood, Lefty O'Doul and Thurman Munson

He finished 2nd in '69, 3rd in '74, 6th in '78 and '79 and 5th in '82. Much better than Kaat.

Where do you think I got my condensed recap from? :)

Smoky Joe is a tough case. He was a legit HOF'er as a pitcher until he got hurt - a career 147 ERA+ guy. But...too many partial seasons and only two 20-win seasons in an era when every top guy won 20 every year. As a hitter, he was good but not great - and really only played two years. Just not enough on the resume to be a HOFer but there's no doubt he was a legitimately great player.

Lefty O'Doul - I don't care that his career was short. I don't care that he played in the offense-inflated 1930s. You hit .349 for your career with two batting titles AND some power? You're in.

Thurman Munson - Munson, to me, is in the Hall of Very Good. I think he needed a couple more good or great years to be a HOFer. And, even without the plane crash, he wasn't going to have those.

Plus he's a huge reason there's baseball in Japan still, and by association, probably why there's baseball in Korea and other parts of Asia. Had a long storied career as player and manager in the PCL too.

Separately, someone referred to Chuck Klein's home/away splits. O'Doul's home stats in Philly were better, but he still raked on the road.

IMO, he should definitely be in.

Re- Ripken and snopes, the story has evolved over the years. An older version was that Costner was at a celebrity golf tournament during the day with Ripken and his wife. Ripken left for the ballpark, but forgot he needed something at home so went there only to find Costner with his wife. The rest of the snopes story holds to the version I'd heard. 10-15 years ago this was being told as gospel in minor league (and apparently some major league) clubhouses. I heard it from a guy who I think made it double A in the Orioles organization and he told it with certainty. Several other buddies of mine heard different versions separately from friends in both the minors and majors around the same time. Snopes doesn't agree, but it was really fun to hear it.. And to believe it back then.

There are some funny anecdotes about O'Doul in Gay Talese's great mid 60s profile of DiMaggio, "Silent Season of a Hero." Apparently he was one of the few people in DiMaggio's inner circle at that time. In one of them they go to a charitable event which they were expecting to be a big deal, it turns out to be some old ladies singing in a remote church, DiMaggio is being gracious and chatting with the ladies and O'Doul is muttering under his breath "how the *&^% did you get us into this?"

O'Doul only played two years for the Phillies. His BA for the rest of his career was .332 so he surely could rake.

My point exactly. Was just pre-empting any possible Baker Bowl arguments.

Let's get him in!!!!

I think the HOF should have a "pioneers" section which honors/recognizes players in the 19th century. There are players from that era represented, but there could/should probably be a few more:

Stovey, Caruthers, Mathews, Mullane and a few others.

From the early 20th century there are some more deserving than some that are now enshrined.

I agree with you and with the players mentioned here and the viewpoints expressed for these players pros and cons. Since the reorganization of the Old Timers/Veterans committee I have believed and lobbied for 5 categories rather than the present 3. This would allow for a 5 year rotation rather than the present 3 year rotation between categories and therefore candidates would not be recycled regularly , and the same names would not be showing up all the time and we would not see voter lethargy due to the same names being nominated every 3 years. Also let the categories include players, umpires, executives, owners, and negro leaguers.
It seems we all agree that there are 10-20 19th -early 20th century players deserving election, and probably the same number of serious negro league players. The 5 year rotation would allow for possibly a greater review of these players accomplishments as well as allowing for a few fresh faces to show up on the Veterans Committee and therefore have a different look at some of these deserving players with new insights into their careers and an appreciation of their contributions to baseball and avoiding voter boredom amid repetition.
I really think a Net54 veterans committee could do as well as or better than the present Veterans Committee.
My categories would be :
1. Pioneers 1869-1900
2. Dead Ball Era 1901-1920
3. Rise to Prominence 1921-1950
4. Glory Days 1950-1970
5. Expansion Era 1971- Present
I know this doesn't mention specific players, the members have all stated their cases for players well. I too have my long list of players, execs, umps, owners and negro leaguers that I feel deserve election also. This is a viewpoint to address the broader topic of getting players elected that deserve to be.

Players

Trammell and Whitaker shoul've been in a long time ago.

Bob Johnson should be in as well.

Non Players :

This will open up a can of worms , but here goes !!!

Marvin Miller, George Steinbrenner and Dr. Frank Jobe have all dramatically changed the face of the game. They should be in.

Nap Rucker
Gil Hodges
Ted Kluewzeski
Lee Smith

The above have my vote.

Sy Berger

Marvin Miller is a no-brainer HOFer - possibly the most-deserving guy not already in.

I agree about Miller, though I'm guessing there's still a few owners who will object.