Golden Era Hall of Fame Ballot announced

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

I also think Hodges should be strongly considered for the Hall of Fame. Anyone who dominates his position (perennial all-star) for a 10 to 12 year span should be given serious consideration. This is why I agreed with putting Jim Rice in the Hall of Fame. It is also why I think that Steve Garvey is a borderline HOFer also. His stats (besides home runs) from 1974-83 are very similar to Hodges' 10 year stats that were posted above.

Games 1,499 - 1,477
Home Runs 200 - 310
At Bats 5,967 - 5,313
Runs 820 - 890
Hits 1820 - 1,491
RBI 939 - 1,001
Total Bases 2,785 - 2,733
Extra-Base Hits 536 - 585
All-Star Teams 8 - 8
Gold Gloves 4 - 3 (Hodges was a superior fielder)

Plus, Garvey won an MVP while he finished in the top 6 in MVP voting 5 times in a 7 year span. That is pretty impressive.

This is my thinking exactly, including the comments about Garvey and Hodges. If a player dominates his era he deserves induction to the HOF because comparing stats over decades is simply unfair. Rice deserved to be in as probably does Garvey and certainly Hodges. Was Don Sutton a more dominant player of his era or did he just play longer than many others? If Tommy John won a few more games he would have had 300 -- and easily been inducted. It's silly to have bright line cutoffs on stats and not simply determine if the player dominated when he played.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

This is my thinking exactly, including the comments about Garvey and Hodges. If a player dominates his era he deserves induction to the HOF because comparing stats over decades is simply unfair. Rice deserved to be in as probably does Garvey and certainly Hodges. Was Don Sutton a more dominant player of his era or did he just play longer than many others? If Tommy John won a few more games he would have had 300 -- and easily been inducted. It's silly to have bright line cutoffs on stats and not simply determine if the player dominated when he played.

How did Steve Garvey "dominate" his era? He won no batting titles, no HR or RBI titles, never led the league in doubles. Not to say he was not a great player, but dominant seems overstating it.

[nolemmings]

Oliva was dominant. Only played 11 full seasons and led the league in hits 5 of those, with three batting crowns and 4 LL in doubles. One slg. pct title , a ROY and two runner-up MVPs, one to his teammate. Not bad.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How did Steve Garvey "dominate" his era? He won no batting titles, no HR or RBI titles, never led the league in doubles. Not to say he was not a great player, but dominant seems overstating it.

Garvey had 10 AS game appearances and 6 top 11 MVP finishes including 5 years in a row. How does that not indicate dominance in his era?

Plus his consecutive games played streak and multiple Gold Gloves.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Garvey had 10 AS game appearances and 6 top 11 MVP finishes including 5 years in a row. How does that not indicate dominance in his era?

Plus his consecutive games played streak and multiple Gold Gloves.

Bill Freehan was an eleven time all star with a 2 and a 3 MVP finish. I bet I could find many other examples you wouldn't consider to be dominant players with lots of "top 11" MVP finishes.

Different definitions of dominance I guess.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill Freehan was an eleven time all star with a 2 and a 3 MVP finish. I bet I could find many other examples you wouldn't consider to be dominant players with lots of "top 11" MVP finishes.

Different definitions of dominance I guess.

Bill Freehan played a position in which he could routinely bat .230 and make an AS game. Garvey was a much superior hitter and finished with 1000 more hits. Not only did Garvey win an MVP but as I said, he was judged to be one of the top 11 players in the league 6 times and an AS 10 times. He was also the best player on a team that appeared in 4 World Series. His overall numbers may not bear it out but he was certainly one of the top players in his era as anyone who grew up in the 70s would recall.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Well now you have changed your tune. Yes he was one of the top players of his era. I absolutely agree. That, to me, does not equate to being a dominant player. Semantics perhaps.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well now you have changed your tune. Yes he was one of the top players of his era. I absolutely agree. That, to me, does not equate to being a dominant player. Semantics perhaps.

Too many players got into the HOF simply because they kept on playing, amassing stats. Garvey had a long period of years in which he was one of the top players in baseball -- that made him a dominant player of his era.

[Orioles1954]

Well, at least we had the obligatory "the Hall of Fame is way too watered down and a ton of people should be kicked out" talking point. By the way, what is a "stat compiler" other than someone who was consistently productive over a long stretch of time? If it's so easy for a "stat compiler" to get 300 wins or 3,000 hits then why aren't there hundreds more of them? Wait, could it be because they were actually really great?