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

[Dan Carson]

Almost forgot...

Gavvy Cravath

[Beatles Guy]

Every time Bill posts and makes a case for a player making the Hall of Fame, I become a believer Well written posts with a lot of backup stats. I had never considered Cecil Cooper until his write up a while back, and he definitely made me reconsider Mr. Cooper.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Dan Carson

Almost forgot...

Gavvy Cravath

Gavvy Cravath - see - Cy Williams - see Chuck Klein

see Baker Bowl

[quinnsryche]

Steve Garvey (absolutely STUPID that he's not in)

Ted Simmons (one of the best hitting catchers of all time)

Dave Parker (for at LEAST 10 years one of the most feared hitters of his time)

are my top 3

[sayhey24]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

Steve Garvey (absolutely STUPID that he's not in)

Ted Simmons (one of the best hitting catchers of all time)

Dave Parker (for at LEAST 10 years one of the most feared hitters of his time)

are my top 3

I agree Tony, but it seems the door has just been slammed shut on all these guys from that period -- Dale Murphy and Trammel are other good examples.
They may be voted in by some old timers committee long after they're gone.
(As I watched Murphy play, I had no doubt he was a Hall of Famer, and I think the numbers back that up -- same for Garvey).

Greg

[MJ]

Lincecum just threw his second no-no. That helps his cause.

[SteveMitchell]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

Steve Garvey (absolutely STUPID that he's not in)

Ted Simmons (one of the best hitting catchers of all time)

Dave Parker (for at LEAST 10 years one of the most feared hitters of his time)

are my top 3

Tony's top three (while not mine) fit well within the 100+ I would add to make the Hall of Fame truly reflect the 20,000+ who played major league and Negro League baseball. These were the best to ever play the game in nearly 150 years of professional ball and to have 1-2% of them designated as Hall of Fame PLAYERS, to me, seems quite reasonable. In short, the Hall of Fame has got to get beyond Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and other obvious first ballot types.

And I have no problem with the poster after Tony (Kenny Cole) and his comments regarding both Baker Bowl (and player adaptations thereto) and Gavvy Cravath being elected to the HoF.

I enjoy this subject but cannot believe how men who were observed and chronicled by writers of their day as ranking among the all-time greats somehow slip to only Members of the Very Good after leaving as active players.

Great topic, thanks.

Steve Mitchell

[Davino]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

Steve Garvey (absolutely STUPID that he's not in)

Ted Simmons (one of the best hitting catchers of all time)

Dave Parker (for at LEAST 10 years one of the most feared hitters of his time)

are my top 3

these are all choices I endorse as well.

[the 'stache]

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



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.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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



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.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by howard38

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".

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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 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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Gavvy Cravath - see - Cy Williams - see Chuck Klein

see Baker Bowl

Yes, the right field fence was only 280 feet away in the Baker Bowl. However, the dimensions at the Polo Grounds, where the Giants (and the Yankees for a while) played were even smaller in both right AND left field. It was only 279 feet to the left field foul pole and 258 feet to the right field foul pole but I don't hear anyone saying that any of the Giant or Yankee HOFers who played there -- including Mel Ott -- shouldn't have been elected because they got a bunch of cheap home runs at the Polo Grounds that really shouldn't count.

One sign of a good ballplayer is that he adapts to the quirks and characteristics of his home ball park. I don't have too much heartburn over Gavvy Cravath (a right handed hitter btw) figuring out how to take advantage of the Baker Bowl's dimensions and hit to right field anymore than I do the old Baltimore Orioles manicuring their infield to assist them in bunting or right handers taking advantage of the Green Monster's short dimensions.

Lots of people played in the Baker Bowl without leading the league in home runs on multiple occasions. Cravath's production, in particular, was prodigious in a pretty short span of time due to his late start in the majors. He was the Ralph Kiner of his time and if he were to be elected it wouldn't bother me at all.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Yes, the right field fence was only 280 feet away in the Baker Bowl. However, the dimensions at the Polo Grounds, where the Giants (and the Yankees for a while) played were even smaller in both right AND left field. It was only 279 feet to the left field foul pole and 258 feet to the right field foul pole but I don't hear anyone saying that any of the Giant or Yankee HOFers who played there -- including Mel Ott -- shouldn't have been elected because they got a bunch of cheap home runs at the Polo Grounds that really shouldn't count.

One sign of a good ballplayer is that he adapts to the quirks and characteristics of his home ball park. I don't have too much heartburn over Gavvy Cravath (a right handed hitter btw) figuring out how to take advantage of the Baker Bowl's dimensions and hit to right field anymore than I do the old Baltimore Orioles manicuring their infield to assist them in bunting or right handers taking advantage of the Green Monster's short dimensions.

Lots of people played in the Baker Bowl without leading the league in home runs on multiple occasions. Cravath's production, in particular, was prodigious in a pretty short span of time due to his late start in the majors. He was the Ralph Kiner of his time and if he were to be elected it wouldn't bother me at all.

The Baker Bowl had a much shorter right field power alley than both the left and right field power alleys of the Polo Grounds. There is no denying that the Polo Grounds inflated Mel Ott's HR totals (though he had a higher BA on the road) but the Baker Bowl inflated Chuck Klein's numbers far more. In 1931 Klein batted .401 at home w/22 HRs but on the road he hit just .269 w/9 HRs and that wasn't even the season he had his biggest disparity. Look at the home/road splits for any of the Phillies left-handed sluggers of the 20s and 30s, Cy Williams, Lefty O'Doul, Don Hurst, and you'll see significant disparities in both HRs and BA.

I agree that as a right handed hitter Cravath deserves credit for adapting his swing to take advantage of the Baker Bowl but it is worth noting that on the road he was just an ordinary HR hitter.

[Beatles Guy]

As for Ozzie Smith, I think what helps him is the era that he played in and the teams he played on. The NL was relatively thin on shortstops in his prime years. He also played on three pennant winning teams and a World Series winner. He was an All Star in 15 of his 19 seasons, which always put him on the national stage.

One stat that everyone seems to forget is his base stealing ability. He had nearly 600 steals for his career, averaging 37 a year. He struck out very little and had nearly two times as many walks as he did strikeouts.

Forgot to mention, he is #1 all time in Defensive WAR, four runs better than #2, Mark Belanger.

[Peter_Spaeth]

if Bill has seriously suggested Cecil Cooper should be in the HOF, he has lost all credibility.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

if Bill has seriously suggested Cecil Cooper should be in the HOF, he has lost all credibility.

I don't think he should be in the Hall, but I do think his career merits another look out of respect.

I'd basically stated that Cooper's chances at Cooperstown were basically wiped out because they didn't play him while he was in Boston. In his first three seasons, he played in 14, 12 and 30 games.

If he'd started playing earlier, I think he'd have had made for an interesting debate. But as great as he was, I don't think he's on that level.

[leaflover]

How could Bill Mazeroski be voted into the HOF and not Dick Groat??

[pbspelly]

I vote with the others for Keith Hernandez. Greatest defensive first baseman ever, and an excellent hitter. I think he gets a bit of a bad rap because of his drug problems mid-career, but he got his act back together and was a beautiful player. The Mets never would have been the powerhouse they were in '86 without him.

A fascinating book of his, by the way, is Pure Baseball, where he comments and dissects two baseball games pitch by pitch.