Golden Era Hall of Fame Ballot announced

[Batter67up]

I don't believe you win 324 games have 58 shutouts, and 3574 strikeouts and are opening day pitcher for the Dodgers for 7 years if you are just a decent pitcher. Sutton was a 4x all star and 1977 All-Star game MVP. He was 324-256 with a lifetime 3.26 era. He was a 20 game winner only once (21-10) but won 17,15,17,19,18,19,16,14,15,17 games a year. Double digits for 19 of his 23 years in the big leagues. There is another pitcher that was 324-292 with an era of 3.19 over 20 plus years and won 20 games in his career only 2 times.I don't think Nolan Ryan is just a decent player based on those numbers. The Hall of Fame is going to have superstars among its own but we should appreciate the accomplishments of all of its members. It would be nice if they decide to put Gil Hodges in as he deserves to be a member.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Batter67up

I don't believe you win 324 games have 58 shutouts, and 3574 strikeouts and are opening day pitcher for the Dodgers for 7 years if you are just a decent pitcher. Sutton was a 4x all star and 1977 All-Star game MVP. He was 324-256 with a lifetime 3.26 era. He was a 20 game winner only once (21-10) but won 17,15,17,19,18,19,16,14,15,17 games a year. Double digits for 19 of his 23 years in the big leagues. There is another pitcher that was 324-292 with an era of 3.19 over 20 plus years and won 20 games in his career only 2 times.I don't think Nolan Ryan is just a decent player based on those numbers. The Hall of Fame is going to have superstars among its own but we should appreciate the accomplishments of all of its members. It would be nice if they decide to put Gil Hodges in as he deserves to be a member.

Listen, you can love Don Sutton all you want (God bless ya!), but the basic fact is he was never a dominant pitcher. He won double digit games many times as you said, yet all that points to (to me) is him remaining healthy enough to continue pitching year after year (and some would say the fact he was able to continue pitching for so long is a good reason to vote him into the Hall). I have nothing whatsoever against the guy and I'm glad you're a big fan of his, but a simple look at his basic stats does not point to an all time great. You obviously disagree, but I don't know what to tell you. You mentioned his strikeouts, but the most he ever had in a season was 217 and his totals during the second half of his career were middling. He was definitely a pretty good player, but I gotta be honest. I have no interest in maintaining a continuing argument about Mr. Sutton's merits. You'll state a statistic and then I'll respond with a counter-statistic and neither of us will change our minds, so what's the point? Since he is already in the Hall, it really doesn't matter.

…....…W...L…SO
1966 12 12 209
1967 11 15 169
1968 11 15 162
1969 17 18 217
1970 15 13 201
1971 17 12 194
1972 19 9 207
1973 18 10 200
1974 19 9 179
1975 16 13 175
1976 21 10 161
1977 14 8 150
1978 15 11 154
1979 12 15 146
1980 13 5 128
1981 11 9 104
1982 17 9 175
1983 8 13 134
1984 14 12 143
1985 15 10 107
1986 15 11 116
1987 11 11 99
1988 3 6 44

[alaskapaul3]

211 wins for not-so-great teams. 193 CG 38 shutouts and 32 saves. Career pitching WAR of 53 which puts him way ahead of Kaat despite many less years in the league. 7 All Star games. Just sayin'?

[tonyo]

Someone in this thread wrote "The Hall of Fame is for the elite of the elite players" Which made me wonder about the real criteria dictated by the HOF to the voters.

I didn't look very long but did find this criteria on the HOF website: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Seems like 5 out of 6 criteria are intangible and only one (record), maybe two (playing ability) possibly a third (contributions) Can be even partially measured by numbers.


Makes me think that the players peers should be allowed a large portion of the input. Also, once a player passes the 10 or 15 year period (whatever it is now) after their retirement, maybe they shouldn't be considered at all. As memories and first hand interaction fade, the weight of those intangibles fade as well.

I suppose this will never happen, but it seems if the HOF removes the current voting pool and replaces it with any player who played in the majors for a certain period of time overlapping the careers of those on the ballot, it would result in a more accurate representation of those players who deserve enshrinement based on the criteria set forth by the hall.

If a player doesn't make it in within the decade and a half after their careers end, there must be some decent reason (assuming voters are honest in their assessment).

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://theweek.com/article/index/254...r-sabermetrics

[brewing]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

http://theweek.com/article/index/254...r-sabermetrics

I'm good with removing all of them except Fingers.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by tonyo

Someone in this thread wrote "The Hall of Fame is for the elite of the elite players" Which made me wonder about the real criteria dictated by the HOF to the voters.

I didn't look very long but did find this criteria on the HOF website: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Seems like 5 out of 6 criteria are intangible and only one (record), maybe two (playing ability) possibly a third (contributions) Can be even partially measured by numbers.


Makes me think that the players peers should be allowed a large portion of the input. Also, once a player passes the 10 or 15 year period (whatever it is now) after their retirement, maybe they shouldn't be considered at all. As memories and first hand interaction fade, the weight of those intangibles fade as well.

I suppose this will never happen, but it seems if the HOF removes the current voting pool and replaces it with any player who played in the majors for a certain period of time overlapping the careers of those on the ballot, it would result in a more accurate representation of those players who deserve enshrinement based on the criteria set forth by the hall.

If a player doesn't make it in within the decade and a half after their careers end, there must be some decent reason (assuming voters are honest in their assessment).

I really like your line of thinking, but there is a big problem that would need to be ferreted out. And that's personality and ego. Say a player had stats that clearly put him into the conversation for enshrinement, but to put it plainly, he was a douchebag and the players on other teams despised him or thought of him as an obnoxious, self-centered prick. (I'm pretty sure most of us who just play softball every week run into these types of players on other teams.) The fact they were good or great on the field could get lost in the human frailty of hard feelings and cause them to be kept out of the Hall. Just a thought.