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

[bobbvc]

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".

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bobbvc

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.

[bobbvc]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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).

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[cardsfan73]

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.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by CobbvLajoie1910

Fred McGriff -- agree with Ian; its a travesty he's not looked at more favorably.

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

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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

[Jeffrompa]

Larry Bowa , first comes to mind .

[ZachS]

Pete Rose

[wolf441]

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.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

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.

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

[Brian Van Horn]

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)

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Other players for consideration:

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

You have pretty low HOF standards, IMHO.

Baby Doll Jacobson? Career 112 OPS+, less than 100 HRs, and only 1700 hits.

Charlie Grimm? A 1B with a career OPS+ of just 94?!? Has a much stronger case as a manager and absolutely zero case as a player.

Emil Meusel? Simply didn't play enough. 9 seasons (discounting his 1 game in 1914 and 42 in 1927) just ain't enough. And he wasn't elite in those 9 seasons.

Bob Muesel? Decent enough candidate though he also didn't really play long enough. Just 11 years, none of which were GREAT by the standards of the day. With a higher peak, maybe he gets in.

Stuffy McInnis? A 1B with a career .381 slugging percentage? Even by dead ball era standards, that's terrible.

Bobby Veach? This one's a pretty solid pick. The Hall isn't incomplete by his absence but he is a much better candidate than I expected when I looked him up. Certainly a lot better than some of the other guys on this list.

Bob Johnson? Yep. Hurt by being in the shadow of other, greater players of the era but he probably belongs.

[Peter_Spaeth]

288-1283-.296 in a hitters' era.

I don't see it.

Neither did anyone else.

Hall of Fame
1948 BBWAA ( 0.8%)
1956 BBWAA ( 0.5%)

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

288-1283-.296 in a hitters' era.

I don't see it.

Neither did anyone else.

Hall of Fame
1948 BBWAA ( 0.8%)
1956 BBWAA ( 0.5%)

Career OPS+ of 139. 7 straight 100+ RBI seasons, 9 straight of 92+. Yep, a hitters' era where his numbers were 40% above league average. You do that, you're elite.

That said, I should have added "but the HOF isn't hurt by his exclusion".

[Tabe]

For me, when it comes to guys not in the HOF but should be, my #1 guy is Albert Belle. 9 straight 100+ RBI seasons - and a 10th with 95. 162 game averages of 40 HR and 130 RBI. While people spout the nonsense that Jim Rice was a "feared hitter", Albert Belle really was. His career ended in a heartbeat but you talk his 10 full seasons in the majors and he was an elite hitter for at least 9 of them. The guy absolutely belongs.

As for Don Mattingly, I see him get compared to Puckett, Dizzy, and Koufax all the time. I get it. The difference between those guys and Mattingly is this: their careers were basically ended by injury. Puckett & Koufax never played again, Dizzy only made 31 more starts. Mattingly? He kept playing. And, sorry, but that gets held against him. Going out and putting him subpar numbers like 9 HRs and 68 RBI at first base *IS* going to get held against you. Don't really care if it's because you hurt your back. If you're healthy enough to play, you're expected to play well. A great player who puts up average (or worse) numbers because he's hurt is no different than an average player who puts up average numbers.

You know who had a similar career to Don Mattingly? Lance Parrish. Parrish was unquestionably the best catcher in baseball putting up excellent power numbers for the era while playing stellar defense. Four Gold Gloves and who can forget the orange highlighter catcher's mitt? On his way to his best season ever in 1986 when he's felled by a back injury. Falls off the cliff after that but still manages 2 more All-Star appearances. Sounds a lot like the career of Don Mattingly* doesn't it?

* - In no way am I saying their careers were identical. Mattingly was obviously a LOT better as a hitter than Parrish. Just saying they were both the best at their positions, both hurt their backs, both hung around for years after putting up subpar numbers but nobody's giving a pass to Parrish for it.

[sayhey24]

It sure is a fun discussion. My two cents on a couple of themes that have come up here. I think through statistics and the eye test, Mattingly was a much better player than George Foster.

I believe there was a comparison between Mattingly's shortened career and Koufax's shortened career. Let's face it, Koufax's 5-6 prime years were much greater and much more dominant than Mattingly's, and Koufax led his team to the World Series and championships.
And for whatever reason, the writers and others treat a player like Koufax, who
didn't linger, but retired at a young age after one of the greatest pitching seasons ever, differently than a player facing injuries who continues to play for a number of years. For some reason, they're perceived differently.
I'd actually put Tony Oliva in ahead of Mattingly when it comes to great players who didn't achieve their full potential because of injuries.

The bottom line is that injuries and overall declining ability affect lots of players and keep them from having the careers we expected of them during their peak years -- you'd have to build a new Hall of Fame to put them all in.

Greg

[Batter67up]

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.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Batter67up

. When I looked at this, I lost a lot of respect for the writers who elect the inductees.

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)

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Batter67up

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.

How about what they did to Santo?

writers are like lawyers- an unfortunate necessity.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

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

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Batter67up

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.

Chuck Klein was the 1930s version of Larry Walker, Todd Helton, Jim Rice, and a whole host of other guys whose numbers were enormously inflated by their home ballparks. In 1931, for example, he hit .401 with 22 HRs at home and just .269 with 9 HRs on the road. He basically had a 5-year run of greatness thanks to Baker Bowl with a fine 1936 season mixed in.

Klein is also, I believe, the only guy besides Ted Williams to win the Triple Crown in a season but not also win the MVP (Williams did it twice).

Bottom line: The writers got it right by not electing Klein.

[Tabe]

Why am I seeing Ozzie Smith compared to Don Mattingly & Keith Hernandez? Ozzie played a super-premium defensive position at probably the highest level ever. Mattingly & Hernandez played what is - by far - the easiest defensive position. There's a reason the slow guys who can barely bend over play 1B. Hernandez gets no consideration because he never even once hit 20 HRs. Sorry, you play 1B, you gotta hit with power. It's the nature of the position.

Let me put it another way: Keith Hernandez was basically John Olerud, only with (a lot) less power. Anybody clamoring for Olerud to get in?

[Ejm1]

Tony Oliva, Fred McGriff, Roger Maris, Peter Edward Rose,

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Why am I seeing Ozzie Smith compared to Don Mattingly & Keith Hernandez? Ozzie played a super-premium defensive position at probably the highest level ever. Mattingly & Hernandez played what is - by far - the easiest defensive position. There's a reason the slow guys who can barely bend over play 1B. Hernandez gets no consideration because he never even once hit 20 HRs. Sorry, you play 1B, you gotta hit with power. It's the nature of the position.

Let me put it another way: Keith Hernandez was basically John Olerud, only with (a lot) less power. Anybody clamoring for Olerud to get in?

If you read the entire thread, you'd see I made the point that shortstop was a far more difficult position than first base. A shortstop will have to make more throws than a first baseman, and those throws are more difficult. And, a shortstop will have more responsibilities. They may have to get the ball when its been hit in their general vicinity. They may have to cover the bag on a steal, or turn a double play. So much of playing shortstop is body positioning, and while being in position to make a play, avoiding a guy that's trying to slide into you. But you make it sound like playing first base in the Major Leagues is like playing Hello Kitty with a 10 year old. When Chris Davis, or some other similar left handed superstar power hitter turns a 98 mile per hour fastball into a line drive headed towards right field, you only have a split second to react, and that's often with a base runner interfering with you. And while only the slow guys that can barely bend over play first, of those slow guys that can barely bend over (and there have been a lot of them), Mattingly and Hernandez were by far the best at their position defensively.

And the reason nobody is clamoring for John Olerud to get in is because he was never the best player in baseball. Not by a long shot. Mattingly in his prime was putting up Triple Crown-worthy numbers while playing defense better than anybody else in his league. Keith Hernandez, while not ever the best player in the game, at least was voted the best player in his league for one year. And a big part of the reason he won the MVP is his defense. Somehow he did that while hitting 11 home runs. I guess the voters that year didn't get the memo that first basemen had to be power hitters.

And by the way, nobody here is really "clamoring" for Mattingly or Hernandez to get into the Hall of Fame, either. I stated that Mattingly would likely never get in. This is interesting discussion on how some players that were spectacular defensively at their position can get in based on their defense alone, while other players who were also elite defensively at a different position, while being a top tier hitter, gets overlooked. Yes, we did take it a step further that Mattingly should at least get another look. But nobody here is organizing a massive letter writing campaign targeting the BBWAA.

[tbob]

Not one mention of the player John McGraw called the best hitter he ever saw?
Turkey Mike Donlin.
In a poll of the top American League pitchers in the 1960's they resoundingly said the most feared hitter they faced was Tony Oliva.
They both deserve to get in and Buck Weaver's name needs to be cleared after 94 years.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

And the reason nobody is clamoring for John Olerud to get in is because he was never the best player in baseball. Not by a long shot. Mattingly in his prime was putting up Triple Crown-worthy numbers while playing defense better than anybody else in his league. Keith Hernandez, while not ever the best player in the game, at least was voted the best player in his league for one year. And a big part of the reason he won the MVP is his defense. Somehow he did that while hitting 11 home runs. I guess the voters that year didn't get the memo that first basemen had to be power hitters. .

First of all, I never compared Olerud to Mattingly.

Secondly, the writers were enamored with Hernandez winning a batting title - but not enough to give him the award solo. He wasn't the best player in 1979 - Dave Winfield was.

Third, I still think the Olerud/Hernandez comparison holds. High average, elite defensive 1B. Except that Olerud hit for more power and had seasons with higher average than Keith reached.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Tabe

First of all, I never compared Olerud to Mattingly.

Secondly, the writers were enamored with Hernandez winning a batting title - but not enough to give him the award solo. He wasn't the best player in 1979 - Dave Winfield was.

Third, I still think the Olerud/Hernandez comparison holds. High average, elite defensive 1B. Except that Olerud hit for more power and had seasons with higher average than Keith reached.

Chris, you're right. You did not compare him to Mattingly. I did.

I would also agree with you that all things considered, Winfield was the best player in the NL that season.

And I absolutely agree that the comparison holds. Though I don't think you or I could find anybody with a high degree of baseball knowledge that would put Olerud's defensive abilities above Hernandez's. John won 3 Gold Gloves. Keith won 11. Again, I always like to throw in the disclaimer that Gold Glove wins alone do not accurately measure how good somebody is defensively (you could have two Gold Glove outfielders, yet one may be clearly better than the other). I just like it in certain instances where the comparison merits consideration. Receiving 3 Gold Glove Awards means for a time you were a very good defensive player (generally speaking, not always). But winning 11 Gold Gloves means you were highly regarded as a defensive player for quite a long time. You're flying in the rarefied air when you have double digit Gold Glove Award wins.

I guess for me, the bottom line is that I think a lot of players that have been labeled as "great players" do not get the consideration they merit when it comes to the Hall of Fame. That's on the BBWAA. It's too easy to look at Mattingly and say "his career numbers don't measure up".

[ejharrington]

Hernandez was a winner everywhere he went and made his teammates better. Look at the Mets pre-Hernandez and post-Hernandez. That's the ultimate sign of a great player. I'm not going to argue 1B is as important a defensive position as SS/2B/3B but it is underrated in that a great 1B can make mediocre infielders much better as they otherwise are. This does not show up in the stat sheets but if you're an erratic thrower you don't overthink a throw when you know your 1B can bail you out if your throw is off. Hernandez was the best fielding 1B ever. Anybody can just look up WAR and say one player is similar to another. WAR is useful but (especially with regards to defense) is flawed.

The HOF is incomplete without him and I hope his peers correct the mistake the writers made.

[pbspelly]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Let me put it another way: Keith Hernandez was basically John Olerud, only with (a lot) less power. Anybody clamoring for Olerud to get in?

Actually, yes. See Bill James, often regarded as the best ever at determining a player's true value (as opposed to what the public, or sportswriters, perceive that player to be worth):

"In recent years it has been suggested that the Cy Young Award for Felix Hernandez or the Hall of Fame selection of Bert Blyleven show how far sabermetrics has come in winning general acceptance. Well, let me suggest that the near-unanimous rejection of John Olerud shows how far we haven’t come…. In my analysis, John Olerud rates as an obvious Hall of Famer."

Furthermore, Hernandez was a superior defensiver player and far more influential team leader than Olerud.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by pbspelly

Actually, yes. See Bill James, often regarded as the best ever at determining a player's true value (as opposed to what the public, or sportswriters, perceive that player to be worth):

"In recent years it has been suggested that the Cy Young Award for Felix Hernandez or the Hall of Fame selection of Bert Blyleven show how far sabermetrics has come in winning general acceptance. Well, let me suggest that the near-unanimous rejection of John Olerud shows how far we haven’t come…. In my analysis, John Olerud rates as an obvious Hall of Famer."

Furthermore, Hernandez was a superior defensiver player and far more influential team leader than Olerud.

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."

[clydepepper]

That was GREAT!

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

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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."

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

[Davino]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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