Question for the group regarding Hall of Fame eligibility....

[Harliduck]

Edgar Martinez most likely won't cut it with the regular vote, I look for the veterans committee on his era to put him in. As a Seattle homer, I will celebrate. I don't care about stats, just listen to his peers.


I'm still in the Gil Hodges camp. Dominate player, historic Manager achievement (69 Miracle Mets). His exclusion surprises me...with such a Yankee and Dodger bias you would think he would have been a no brainer.

I grew up in the 80's and I'll be honest, when I think of superstars from that era I was not thinking Trammel, Whitaker, Morris...well, maybe Morris...and I loved the 84 Tigers. They were great players, but I don't get it...maybe because I didn't live in or near Detroit. I'm not trying to rile anyone up, and I am sure one could make the same comments to me about Edgar. Grich? Reading his name in this thread is the first time I have ever heard anyone talk of him and the hall. That name surprised me. Simmons? He played in an era of great catchers and was overshadowed, but his stats and how I remember him I do believe he has a shot. Imagine a Ted Simmons in today's market, he would be a superstar. I am not sure I could say that about Trammel and Whitaker. Whitaker led the league only 1 time in ANY stat on his baseball card, games played in the strike shortened 1981 season. Dominate? In 19 years? He batted over .300 once. Long above average career. Same for Trammel...he led the league twice in Sac's...twice. Nothing else. You can throw saber metrics at me all day long, if you can't lead the league during your era in ANYTHING, you were not dominate. I guess both were better than Barry Larkin, he never lead the league in anything, ever. I am sure he loves PED's more than anyone...

Great article on Minoso...his cultural additions I believe were enough. When I was a kid I actually thought he was already in. A shame he died without this honor.

I would not be upset for Tommy John as well...his above average (not enough) stats are more to do with longevity, but his addition to the game forever changed the game and many, many players after him. His name is synonymous with current baseball, how many players can say that?

[nat]

This hits both of the points that I made above: all-around players get ignored, and middle infielders are unfairly held to the offensive standards of corner players.

Trammell, Whitaker, and Grich weren't amazing at any one thing. But they were good at pretty much everything. You can be a great player by being one-dimensional (so long as you're very very good in that one dimension), or you can be a great player by being good everywhere (while being outstanding nowhere). All three of them hit for good, but not great, power, got on base well (but weren't the best), played good defense (but they weren't Ozzie), and so on. Yes, Ozzie was the better defensive player, but they were all better than him at the bat. Sure, Reggie Jackson was a better hitter, but it's a good thing that Jackson didn't try playing shortstop.

Relatedly, it's probably a mistake to ask middle infielders to lead the league in offensive categories. The class of players who can play 2B or SS is pretty small. The intersection of that class with the class of players who can lead the league in major offensive categories is tiny. Different positions have different offensive expectations, which is a fact that we should recognize when discussing the hall of fame.

[bravos4evr]

there tends to be 3 kinds of HOF players:

1- those who accumulate counting stats via shorter careers with more dominant numbers - like say Pedro, Koufax or Dimaggio

2- those who who accumulate stats via very long careers of solid production - like Eddie Murray or Pete Rose

3- those who do both (the inner circle) of Ruth, Aaron, Mays,Ted Williams


I think all deserve inclusion, as there is more than one way to have an elite career.