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

[the 'stache]

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.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Hell, look at the NFL Hall of Fame... 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.

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.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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.

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.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by howard38

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.

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.

[clydepepper]

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.

[K-Nole]

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.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by K-Nole

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.

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by K-Nole

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.

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)

[barrysloate]

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.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

Originally Posted by clydepepper

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

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[howard38]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

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)

More like Coors Field. Yankee Stadium doesn't have near the effect on stats as the Baker Bowl did and Coors Field has now. The Baker Bowl made poor hitters seem good and good hitters seem great. I don't know if Chuck Klein was a great hitter or not but he batted over .400 at home three straight years in the 1930s while batting under .300 on the road each season and with considerably less power.

[the 'stache]

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:



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.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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

[t206trader]

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.