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

[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

[Sean]

Jack Morris should be in.

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

[DJR]

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.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by ZachS

Pete Rose

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.

[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".

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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".

His numbers look an awful lot like Will Clark's. His OPS+ is 137 for example.

[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