Let's talk about Hall of Fame candidates who have been "neglected"

[G1911]

Originally Posted by pitchernut

First off, I don't believe this player is a HOFer. What I find interesting is that the second article assures the player into the HOF. I have a couple pre-1936 articles that assure the "no-no" pitcher a place in the HOF. What baffles me is what "HOF" are they talking about in 1916? I was always under the impression the HOF was created around 1936... Was there a HOF back then? Also, is the T-200 of Boston AL the only publicly available ephemera of George "Rube" Foster?.
PS sorry for sideways pics, and Smokey Joe should be in.

The Hall of Fame was not a physical place or entity then; just a turn of phrase meaning a players greatness will be remembered, often in the context of a singular achievement like in this example. The term used in this sense predates baseball

[benge610]

Curve Ball.

With just 84 more hits in 2012 (of 2769 Career):
Johnny Damon would have joined Hank Aaron and Derek Jeter;
as the only players in MLB history to have at least 130 hits in 17 consecutive seasons. A true mark of a consistent and excellent hitter.

But alas, only 16 consecutive seasons; "17" truly was The Number. I am not introducing this for debate or analysis; just a statement of baseball stat fact.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who here of a certain age didn't think back in the day that Steve Garvey was a lock HOFer? The metrics really were not kind to him.

I completely agree with you, Peter. I don't think Garvey is a Hall of Famer, but if in 1979, you had to guess the current players who would make the Hall, Garvey would have solidly been on that list.

I think if Nap Rucker had the good fortune to come up with the Giants rather than the Dodgers, he would be in the Hall.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by abothebear

Lou Whitaker
Darrell Evans
Lance Parish
Chet Lemon
Kirk Gibson
Johnny Grubb

How in the world did Johnny Grubb his way into this list?

Brian

[ctownboy]

abothebear must have been hungry when he made that list....

David

[FrankWakefield]

During college days it sure seemed to me that Steve Garvey was a lock for the Hall. 1974 thru 1980.... then everything tapered off... and for a while. Maybe we were paying more attention to baseball and Garvey's production during those 7 years, and then not so much to either afterwards; leaving us with the idea that he must have been the same old 'batting 4th, Garvey' for those subsequent years.

I wonder if us seeing the Dodgers so competitive, making the playoffs, during the last half of the 70s, if that has us remembering him as better than he was.

I understand that I'm in a tiny minority about Ed Reulbach. Seems to me that there's considerable agreement about a few players getting in, and then a bunch of Hall of Very Good players. Minoso, Damon, and others fit better in the HofVG, in my mind.

[G1911]

Went through each name and sorted them by what I think their category is. Added some new ones, ignoring steroid guys as the argument against them has nothing to do with objective discussion of performance or ranking among pioneers, but is a purely ethical argument that seems a separate issue from the analytical arguments.

Players I would vote for as a no-brainer, whose exclusion from the Hall is a detriment to the Hall
Ross Barnes
James Creighton
Minnie Minoso
Curt Schilling


Players I would vote for and think clearly belong, but see a reasoned argument against:
Bill Dahlen
Gil Hodges
Jeff Kent
Kenny Lofton
Fred McGriff


Players I could go either way on, borderline yes or borderline no:
Dick Allen (not mentioned yet)
Albert Belle
Lance Berkman (not mentioned yet)
Ken Boyer
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Rocky Colavito
Pebbly Jack Glasscock (not mentioned yet)
Tommy John
Jim Kaat - Poor ERA compared to league, lots and lots of consistent innings
Don Mattingly (surprisingly not mentioned yet)
Jim McCormick (not mentioned yet)
Tony Mullane (not mentioned yet)
Tony Oliva
Dave Parker
Cannonball Redding - what I have seen of his surviving numbers seems to me to suggest he is not a HOFer, but the numbers from his leagues are incomplete and dubious.
Luis Tiant
George Van Haltren
Lou Whitaker


Players I think are below Hall standards but I see how a reasonable argument could be made:
Tommy Bridges
Dave Concepcion
Johnny Damon
Carlos Delgado
Larry Doyle
Jim Edmonds
Darrel Evans
Dwight Evans
George Foster
Steve Garvey
Kirk Gibson
Bob Grich
Dummy Hoy
Andruw Jones
Johnny Kling
Sherry Magee
Thurman Munson (not mentioned yet)
Dale Murphy
Lefty O’Doul - Japan & PCL has never before been a factor for consideration.
Buck O’Neil - Nostalgia in and of itself is not enough.
Billy Pierce
Vada Pinson
Ed Reulbach - short career and his peak is not high enough to compensate
Johann Santana
Dave Stieb - About equal to Morris, but let’s not make that mistake twice.
Joe Wood


Players for whom I do not see a reasoned argument, are not serious candidates:
Jack Coombs - 2,300 IP and an ERA worse than the league average. 1 excellent season is not a HOFer
Mike Donlin
Johnny Grubb - This must be a tongue in cheek joke
Chet Lemon- This must be a tongue in cheek joke
Firpo Marberry
Clyde Milan - No HOF milestones, 9% better bat than league, good player but there is no way he is HOF
Lance Parish
Dummy Taylor - Less than 2,000 IP, 116 wins, ERA 7% better than league. Over 100 pitchers belong ahead of him.
Cecil Travis - Would be first player elected to the Hall of Fame specifically for what he did not accomplish rather than for what he did.

[Mike D.]

Mention of Mattingly and Garvey make me think another thread - “Guys who felt like Hall of Famers during their careers, but now are unlikely to be inducted”.

Guess you’d need to specify “non-steroids addition” to keep the list of reasonable size.

Garvey, Mattingly, Murphy…maybe Joe Carter?

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Mention of Mattingly and Garvey make me think another thread - “Guys who felt like Hall of Famers during their careers, but now are unlikely to be inducted”.

Guess you’d need to specify “non-steroids addition” to keep the list of reasonable size.

Garvey, Mattingly, Murphy…maybe Joe Carter?

I would add Dave Parker, Al Oliver, Jim Edmonds, Darryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden and maybe David Cone to that list.

And if they fail to make it to Cooperstown in the future, definitely Joe Mauer and Buster Posey (looking ahead).

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I would add Dave Parker, Al Oliver, Jim Edmonds, Darryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden and maybe David Cone to that list.

And if they fail to make it to Cooperstown in the future, definitely Joe Mauer and Buster Posey (looking ahead).

I still think Edmonds and Cone have a shot via Vets committee.

I remember reading the term “Al Oliver Abyss” describing the gap between 2700 career hits and 3000.

[jingram058]

Okay, here we go:

Gil Hodges - Sorry, folks, this one's a no-brainer. No logic, facts, or stats other than cruelty can justify why he isn't already in.

Stan Hack - Another one that I just don't understand. Is it just because he played for the Cubs? Great third baseman.

Riggs Stephenson - Crazy batting average, and wildly popular Cub, but punished for his weak, football-injury throwing arm.

Charlie Grimm - The Cubs list could go on and on. This man was a baseball ambassador, beyond being a great player, and yes, also manager of some very competitive, because of him, but not so great teams.

Cecil Travis - Great, versatile ballplayer for a dreadful Senators team, then suffered the misfortune of not just being in the Army during WW2, but suffering frostbite in combat during the Battle of the Bulge, which effectively wrecked his baseball playing career. And he was never bitter about it.

Those fellows above I feel quite strongly about. The fellows below get an "Honorable Mention" from me on the strength of crazy accomplishments:

Frankie Crosetti - Waved more men home while coaching at third than anyone in history, and player and coach on 23 World Series teams.

Johnny Vander Meer - If he never did another thing, he gets mention just for throwing 2 consecutive no-hitters. Just imagine someone doing that. Pete Rose said it best, "Someone might tie that someday, maybe, but no one will ever break it. No one is ever going to throw 3 consecutive no-hitters." Pete's obviously not going in, but I love him anyway.

Bucky Walters - Just didn't truly dominate as a pitcher long enough, but what a great story of his conversion from average third baseman to, for a few years, overwhelming pitcher at the hands of another guy you hear nothing about, Jimmy Wilson.

[blackandgold]

Originally Posted by moogpowell

Alone on offense you can make a strong argument for the HOF. Throw in his defense and the case becomes better. Granted, he was hardly likable or someone you'd want to split a croissant with. Moreover, cocaine always hung over his candidacy. But if HOF voters overlooked it for Tim Raines it why should that be an issue for Parker?

Moreover, the idiocy of 3,000 hits equaling automatic entry (Rose aside) rears its ugly head. If Parker had 288 more hits he would be a HOF lock, given historical precedent. That's silly because if he averaged 15 more hits per year to hit 3,000 that wouldn't have materially influenced his offensive profile.

As I was reading down through these posts, I thought I should mention The Cobra. Glad someone beat me to it.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I think Minnie Minoso is probably the most glaring omission. Hodges is likely in that conversation as well.

With everyone else, different people have their personal favorites. I'd like to see Tiant get in. And Steve Garvey - though I understand why he's not in - relatively weak for a 1B in career homers, not a great OBP - low WAR if you want to evaluate him on advanced stats - but there is a decent argument to be made he was the best 1B in the NL for about a decade. He has everything else - the ASG appearances, the awards...

Steve Garvey is the poster child for what is wrong with WAR. All Garvey did was get hits drive in runs and win games. From 1974-1984 Garvey led his team to 5 National League Championships and 1 World Championship. He committed no errors for a whole season and supposedly had a negative dWAR. 10x AS, 4 GG, MVP and 2 x NLCS MVP. He is absolutely a HOFer.

[Orioles1954]

For the first few years of his career Joe Mauer was considered a lock.

[bjerome]

I will still say that Mauer is getting in. It is strictly because of what he did behind the plate. In the history of the game there have been a total of 6 Batting titles won by a catcher. Bubbles Hargrave, Ernie Lombardi x2, and Buster Posey all have one. All were National League Catchers. Mauer has 3 himself and is the only American League Catcher to accomplish this feat. His MVP Award, Silver Slugger Awards, and Gold Gloves all add to him being the best all-around Catcher of his time. His induction will likely be later in his candidacy, but he's going to go in on the basis of what he did behind the plate as he did things no other catcher had ever accomplished.

[David W]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Mention of Mattingly and Garvey make me think another thread - “Guys who felt like Hall of Famers during their careers, but now are unlikely to be inducted”.

Guess you’d need to specify “non-steroids addition” to keep the list of reasonable size.

Garvey, Mattingly, Murphy…maybe Joe Carter?

It is the Hall of FAME, not great. As a child of the 1970's and 80's, no baseball players were more famous than Garvey, Mattingly, and Murphy. They also had borderline great careers, but they were FAMOUS. Dave Parker also fits this category. Joe Carter.... decent career but only famous for 1 game.

As a midwest Cardinal fan, Garvey was famous, but became infamous for stealing the MVP from Lou Brock in 1974. Murphy was a 2 time MVP, and benefitted from the boom in cable TV, led by Ted Turner, owner of the Braves.
Mattingly, MVP and Yankee legend, back injuries slowed him down. Parker was an MVP, and famous for 2 great throws in an all star game, plus on one of the legendary teams, We Are Family 1979 Pirates.

If the 1984 Tigers had been able to sustain that greatness, rather than just that 1 magical year, I think Lou Whitaker (who should be in anyway, and Lance Parrish (not sure on him) would also be in.

I'd put these guys pictured in the HOF.

[maniac_73]

By Coincidence this article just came out today after I mentioned Delgado yesterday. Us canucks think alike lol. Make sure to check out Kevins blog hes fantastic
https://cooperstownersincanada.com/2...-huminatarian/

[Mike D.]

It is the Hall of FAME, not great.

People always say that, and it IS the name…but it’s never been really true.

There are players who are “famous” who aren’t inducted, and players who aren’t famous are in.

“Fame” is subjective and changes - many players were famous in their time but are no longer.

I think the key is that sometimes it’s hard to know if a career is a hall of fame one until it’s over or almost over. Look at a guy like Adrian Beltre…10 years into his career, few thought he’d be a hall of famer. Now he’s a likely first ballot lock.

[SD]

How about Schoolboy Rowe, Doc Cramer, Gary Sheffield, Todd Helton, Jim McCormick, Billy Pierce & Mickey Lolich?



Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[TUM301]

Roger Maris, strong argument could be made he still owns the single season`s (and possibly all sports) most historical number, 61.

[tiger8mush]

Clemens and Bonds?

Its my understanding that over half the league is thought to have been using PEDs at the time, which MLB knew about but did nothing to stop. Pitchers faced hitters on PEDs, hitters faced pitchers on PEDs. MLB started serving suspensions for PED usage in 2005; Bonds & Clemens finished their careers playing 2005 and 2006 and 2007 (in their 40s) w/o a suspension. Both were SOOO dominant, their stats are just crazy. And they faced opponents who were also on PEDs.

How many years have pitchers been doctoring the ball with spider tack and other substances, which is against MLB rules, but was never stopped until now? None of the Astros lost their stats nor rings for cheating and many of those same coaches and players are still playing today. Many old timers, including HOFers, have admitted to (or been accused of) cheating in one way or another.

I was on the fence in the past, but am leaning towards induction for them both. Thoughts?

[cammb]

Vada Pinson was every bit as good as Clemente

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Clemens and Bonds?

Its my understanding that over half the league is thought to have been using PEDs at the time, which MLB knew about but did nothing to stop. Pitchers faced hitters on PEDs, hitters faced pitchers on PEDs. MLB started serving suspensions for PED usage in 2005; Bonds & Clemens finished their careers playing 2005 and 2006 and 2007 (in their 40s) w/o a suspension. Both were SOOO dominant, their stats are just crazy. And they faced opponents who were also on PEDs.

How many years have pitchers been doctoring the ball with spider tack and other substances, which is against MLB rules, but was never stopped until now? None of the Astros lost their stats nor rings for cheating and many of those same coaches and players are still playing today. Many old timers, including HOFers, have admitted to (or been accused of) cheating in one way or another.

I was on the fence in the past, but am leaning towards induction for them both. Thoughts?

Im very pro those guys and steroid era guys getting in but figured that would take this thread in a way different direction lol

[Orioles1954]

Good article. I also wonder how Hodges would have performed in the pitcher's era of the 1960s.

https://halloffameindex.com/2019/09/...-vs-norm-cash/

[benge610]

Originally Posted by bjerome

I will still say that Mauer is getting in. It is strictly because of what he did behind the plate. In the history of the game there have been a total of 6 Batting titles won by a catcher. Bubbles Hargrave, Ernie Lombardi x2, and Buster Posey all have one. All were National League Catchers. Mauer has 3 himself and is the only American League Catcher to accomplish this feat. His MVP Award, Silver Slugger Awards, and Gold Gloves all add to him being the best all-around Catcher of his time. His induction will likely be later in his candidacy, but he's going to go in on the basis of what he did behind the plate as he did things no other catcher had ever accomplished.

Thank you Brad for presenting. In attempts to get my youngest boy into the stuff, Mauer was selected to go mining for; wax boxes of 2002 Topps, etc.
Opening packs with the ol' man! "Woo-Hoo!", whenever a Mauer was pulled.
Good Times; even bought him a Mauer jersey prior to our HOF Inductions at Cooperstown. Time passes and so does our focus; kinda lost track of Mauer's career. Thank you Brad.
Ben

[SD]

Real question is, is the hall of fame a history of the greatest performers during there era, regardless of character flaws or the writers way to only elect players they enjoyed being around.
Should Integrity and humility really have a place in the hall? Or should it only be based on numbers. Does the era played truly get taken into account? If so, the steroid era is no different then any other era of baseball. All had rule breakers trying to get an advantage. Was steroids really much different then players intentionally fixing games, doctoring balls or belittling another player based on ethnicity? All, knowingly cheated or showed lack of integrityans can be easily found in the hall. If so, Rose, Bonds, Clemens, Schilling and McGwire all are deserving.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by SD

Real question is, is the hall of fame a history of the greatest performers during there era, regardless of character flaws or the writers way to only elect players they enjoyed being around.
Should Integrity and humility really have a place in the hall? Or should it only be based on numbers. Does the era played truly get taken into account? If so, the steroid era is no different then any other era of baseball. All had rule breakers trying to get an advantage. Was steroids really much different then players intentionally fixing games, doctoring balls or belittling another player based on ethnicity? All, knowingly cheated or showed lack of integrityans can be easily found in the hall. If so, Rose, Bonds, Clemens, Schilling and McGwire all are deserving.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

...

[SD]

Originally Posted by Mark17

...

What I was meaning to say above is there is a lot of players in the hall that have been accused of cheating and still got in.
So do all those players now get an asterisk?
Clemens and Bonds have denied their use. So if they get in, asterisk?
Or do we embrace the steroid era and accept that it was sort of baseballs fault for not dealing with it in the 90s. MLB teams will always push their players to push the boundaries of whats legal. Technology has just help expose the cheating in the game after it helped those players get an advantage.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by SD

What I was meaning to say above is there is a lot of players in the hall that have been accused of cheating and still got in.
So do all those players now get an asterisk?
Clemens and Bonds have denied their use. So if they get in, asterisk?
Or do we embrace the steroid era and accept that it was sort of baseballs fault for not dealing with it in the 90s. MLB teams will always push their players to push the boundaries of whats legal. Technology has just help expose the cheating in the game after it helped those players get an advantage.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

Of course. I don't know why I bother posting this every couple of years, but the best players of the 50s/60s/70s were using the best substances available to them at the time to enhance their performance, and so were the best players of the 80s/90s/2000s. There's no good reason to think that Bonds and Clemens wouldn't have used greenies if they had been born a generation earlier and no good reason to think that Aaron and Mays wouldn't have used "PEDs" (TM) if they had played a generation later. Being pleased that two of those guys are in the Hall and that the other two are not then is tantamount to endorsing discrimination on the basis of birth year, which is silly.

[jingram058]

At the end of the day, the one guy not in that seems totally idiotic that he isn't is Gil Hodges. Go ahead and ignore this, and yack ad-nauseum or write a PhD dissertation about this guy, that guy, the other guy, whatever. The Hall of Fame has lost credibility big-time over the past few years over some really bad decisions, and you can't explain, ignore or deny it away. Perception is reality. I used to think I really wanted to visit Cooperstown, but as Dylan said, things have changed.

[SD]

Originally Posted by jingram058

At the end of the day, the one guy not in that seems totally idiotic that he isn't is Gil Hodges. Go ahead and ignore this, and yack ad-nauseum or write a PhD dissertation about this guy, that guy, the other guy, whatever. The Hall of Fame has lost credibility big-time over the past few years over some really bad decisions, and you can't explain, ignore or deny it away. Perception is reality. I used to think I really wanted to visit Cooperstown, but as Dylan said, things have changed.

Exactly, the election process for the hall is flawed. If Ortiz gets in 22, then the flood gates will open.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[G1911]

Originally Posted by SD

Exactly, the election process for the hall is flawed. If Ortiz gets in 22, then the flood gates will open.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

I'm fine with steroid guys getting in, or being kept out, but the standard should be the same for all of them. Ortiz has thus far seemed to get a complete and total pass in the public eye while no other popped user has. If he gets in first ballot, and I think his odds are fair, while Bonds and Clemens at best languish, it will be an even bigger joke than electing Harold Baines.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Fred McGriff and his 493 HRs is in if not for the 1994 strike, which robbed him of at least 7 HR. He was having his best season, with 34 home runs in his 113 games, before the player strike wiped out the rest of the season.

I have no sympathy for the players regarding that strike but it's too bad most of them (Molitor, Morris, etc.) didn't pay a price like McGriff.

+1. Crime Dog was robbed!

.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Clemens and Bonds?

Its my understanding that over half the league is thought to have been using PEDs at the time, which MLB knew about but did nothing to stop. Pitchers faced hitters on PEDs, hitters faced pitchers on PEDs. MLB started serving suspensions for PED usage in 2005; Bonds & Clemens finished their careers playing 2005 and 2006 and 2007 (in their 40s) w/o a suspension. Both were SOOO dominant, their stats are just crazy. And they faced opponents who were also on PEDs.

How many years have pitchers been doctoring the ball with spider tack and other substances, which is against MLB rules, but was never stopped until now? None of the Astros lost their stats nor rings for cheating and many of those same coaches and players are still playing today. Many old timers, including HOFers, have admitted to (or been accused of) cheating in one way or another.

I was on the fence in the past, but am leaning towards induction for them both. Thoughts?

I agree with you. And even though it shouldn't be, I would imagine that the steroid era is treated a lot differently because most other cheating in baseball (past and present) is a lot more subtle.

If a pitcher doctors the ball or a hitter is gulping greenies by the handful to really sharpen their edge in various ways, you usually don't see a thing. But on the flipside, what's more noticeable than Bonds and McGwire turning into highly bulked up action figures at the plate (and then hitting 70+ homers in a season to smash a decades-long record)?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

I agree with you. And even though it shouldn't be, I would imagine that the steroid era is treated a lot differently because most other cheating in baseball (past and present) is a lot more subtle.

If a pitcher doctors the ball or a hitter is gulping greenies by the handful to really sharpen their edge in various ways, you usually don't see a thing. But on the flipside, what's more noticeable than Bonds and McGwire turning into highly bulked up action figures at the plate (and then hitting 70+ homers in a season to smash a decades-long record)?

I agree with this. I think it's a combination of how visible it is, the absurd statistics it produced (Gaylord Perry chucking spitters pithed very well, but he didn't obliterate records like a video game character), and the sense that the cheating is somehow unnatural. A 'boys will be boys' cheating of scuffing a ball or throwing a spitter sometimes feels different to many, than using the latest lab drugs to fundamentally change the field of play every single at-bat where they appear like the Hulk. Perhaps it should not feel different, but I think that it does to many.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Of course. I don't know why I bother posting this every couple of years, but the best players of the 50s/60s/70s were using the best substances available to them at the time to enhance their performance, and so were the best players of the 80s/90s/2000s. There's no good reason to think that Bonds and Clemens wouldn't have used greenies if they had been born a generation earlier and no good reason to think that Aaron and Mays wouldn't have used "PEDs" (TM) if they had played a generation later. Being pleased that two of those guys are in the Hall and that the other two are not then is tantamount to endorsing discrimination on the basis of birth year, which is silly.

Aaron didn’t use greenies. In his autobiography he said he tried them once and the way they made him feel scared him so never again.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by cammb

Vada Pinson was every bit as good as Clemente

This is a hot take!

[bbcard1]

Any love for Bobby Mathews and his 297 wins? Three more and it would not have been a discussion. He was done by 1900 and has a terribly forgettable name. He probably didn't stack up against the best of his era, but he sure racked up a lot of stats, though the teams he played on were wonky. Once netted 625 innings in a single season.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by G1911

I agree with this. I think it's a combination of how visible it is, the absurd statistics it produced (Gaylord Perry chucking spitters pithed very well, but he didn't obliterate records like a video game character), and the sense that the cheating is somehow unnatural. A 'boys will be boys' cheating of scuffing a ball or throwing a spitter sometimes feels different to many, than using the latest lab drugs to fundamentally change the field of play every single at-bat where they appear like the Hulk. Perhaps it should not feel different, but I think that it does to many.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q_KQ5f8PAY

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

Any love for Bobby Mathews and his 297 wins? many eras of baseball. Three more and it would not have been a discussion. He was done by 1900 and has a terribly forgettable name. He probably didn't stack up against the best of his era, but he sure racked up a lot of stats, though the teams he played on were wonky. Once netted 625 innings in a single season.

Mathews was an excellent pitcher for a number of years. His career totals helps illustrate the folly of comparing players across the many eras of baseball. Although seasons were shorter in the 19th century, starting pitchers simply pitched more games than they would into the 20th century and beyond. Getting 300 wins, like hitting .400, was easier in the 19th century than later years. On the other hand, hitting home runs was infinitely more difficult and not really a part of the style of baseball played back then. My point is that when evaluating players, using benchmarks is folly. The best way to evaluate any player is by viewing his record compared to his peers.
This assures an apples to apples comparison. This is not to say Mathews is not a hofer. I have no problem with his worthiness.

[YazFenway08]

It is possible than cammb and I are now friends....

[Mozzie22]

Don Mattingly and Kirby Puckett have nearly identical numbers and at no time ever did anyone say Puckett was the best player in the game. Mattingly was the best player in the game for a period in the 80's.

Mattingly should be in.

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Mathews was an excellent pitcher for a number of years. His career totals helps illustrate the folly of comparing players across the many eras of baseball. Although seasons were shorter in the 19th century, starting pitchers simply pitched more games than they would into the 20th century and beyond. Getting 300 wins, like hitting .400, was easier in the 19th century than later years. On the other hand, hitting home runs was infinitely more difficult and not really a part of the style of baseball played back then. My point is that when evaluating players, using benchmarks is folly. The best way to evaluate any player is by viewing his record compared to his peers.
This assures an apples to apples comparison. This is not to say Mathews is not a hofer. I have no problem with his worthiness.

An issue he has, generic name aside, is that he died before the turn of the century and was probably largely forgotten by the time of the first HOF class.

[Phil Arem]

How about Keith Hernandez? 11 Gold gloves, close to 300BA, mvp, batting title, clutch hitter and 2 rings. Not to mention a hilarious announcer!

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

An issue he has, generic name aside, is that he died before the turn of the century and was probably largely forgotten by the time of the first HOF class.

I agree and this issue pertains to many 19th century players. As I said in my original post on this thread, 19th century players, more specifically pioneer players are underrepresented in the HOF. This will never be changed unless baseball historians/SABRites have a majority voice on the Historical Overview Committee and the final Election Committee. SABR's 19th Century Committee has chosen the Most Overlooked 19th Century Legend for the past 13 years. Only Deacon White has been elected to the HOF from this group. This shows you how well the current HOF process works and how much they consider the input of the people that know 19th century baseball better than anybody.
As an aside, I believe Mathews finished either second or third in this year's voting, which was won by Charlie Bennett. Mathews was included on my ballot.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Mozzie22

Don Mattingly and Kirby Puckett have nearly identical numbers and at no time ever did anyone say Puckett was the best player in the game. Mattingly was the best player in the game for a period in the 80's.

Mattingly should be in.

Puckett finished top 3 in the MVP voting, top 10 4 other times. That’s 7 top 10 finishes in a 12 year career.

Mattingly had 2 top 3 finishes, 4 total top 10.

[Mike D.]

Wow…talk about different time. Mattingly had over 7,700 plate appearances…and struck out fewer than 450 times!

[Exhibitman]

Glasscock should be elected just so we can say the HOF has Glasscock and Dickey

I have been a big "Lefty" proponent for years, so all I can add to this thread about him are some of his Japanese cards from the 1949 Tour:




1949 O'Doul Bromide with "Big Lebowski" Betto and Wakabayashi


O'Doul and HOF Japanese Manager Shinji Hamazaki

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cammb

Vada Pinson was every bit as good as Clemente

15xAS....... 4xAS
12xGG....... 1xGG
1 MVP....... 0 MVP
1 WS MVP....... 0 WS MVP
2 WS Champ....... 0 WS Champ
4 BA Champ....... 0 BA Champ

Those two are not remotely close.

[sdimag]

Originally Posted by rats60

15xAS....... 4xAS
12xGG....... 1xGG
1 MVP....... 0 MVP
1 WS MVP....... 0 WS MVP
2 WS Champ....... 0 WS Champ
4 BA Champ....... 0 BA Champ

Those two are not remotely close.

Thank you!