HOF Results

campyfan39 · #1 12-05-2021, 06:07 PM

Mostly happy for Gil. Looooong overdue.

Peter_Spaeth · #2 12-05-2021, 06:10 PM

Was Kaat any better than Tommy John? I don't object to him but at the same time am surprised, I thought Minoso for sure, maybe Hodges, outside shot Oliva.

insidethewrapper · #3 12-05-2021, 06:16 PM

Does this mean guys like Bill Madlock with 4 batting titles etc will someday be in the HOF ?

G1911 · #4 12-05-2021, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Does this mean guys like Bill Madlock with 4 batting titles etc will someday be in the HOF ?

Madlock is very similar to Oliva. I'm not saying I would vote for him, but he has a legitimate argument and should merit genuine consideration.

Peter_Spaeth · #5 12-05-2021, 06:29 PM

Not the strike season one, but weren't Madlock's other titles considered somewhat cheap given how many games he missed?

Anyhow Oliva was very popular. Madlock, not.

He won't get in ever IMO.

Aquarian Sports Cards · #6 12-05-2021, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not the strike season one, but weren't Madlock's other titles considered somewhat cheap given how many games he missed?

Anyhow Oliva was very popular. Madlock, not.

He won't get in ever IMO.

130, 142 and 130. Sure that's missing some time but not crazy. 565, 588 and 530 PA's. 530 is pretty low to the 502 required, but nobody seems to devalue Brett's run at .400 and the batting title he won with only 515 PA's.

Who's to say he wouldn't have hit even higher if he'd been healthier?

cardsagain74 · #7 12-06-2021, 01:24 AM

Can't agree with all of the approval of Jim Kaat making it.

A 3.45 ERA during a low-scoring era of major league history. Pitched a ton for a Twins team that won a lot of games during the '60s, or else his win total wouldn't have even sniffed HOF consideration.

It's trademark hall of very good stuff, and represents how the hall's standards continue to slowly lower (and how important it is to have the right buddies influencing the voting)

tod41 · #8 12-05-2021, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Madlock is very similar to Oliva. I'm not saying I would vote for him, but he has a legitimate argument and should merit genuine consideration.

Oliva was a more impactful player.

G1911 · #9 12-05-2021, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tod41

Oliva was a more impactful player.

I�d nudge Oliva over him due to context and his excellence in a pitcher leaning era. But Madlock is very similar statistically. �Impactful� is a thing difficult to quantify if we�re referring to something out of statistics.

JollyElm · #10 12-05-2021, 06:16 PM

And now it is time for this:

230. Coming In from the Mold (also Grabbing the Raines)
When a long-retired player finally becomes a HOFer and you start digging through your old cardboard boxes in search of his cards.

See also: Vexaltation - being pissed that when you dig those cards out they are in awful shape because they�ve been rattling around in your commons/junk boxes all of these years.

See also: Mildewphoria - the delight in discovering you have a bunch of his rookie cards socked away.

See also: Epidemacclaim - the huge amount of overpriced cards suddenly appearing everywhere on eBay the moment the ballplayer is finally elected to The Hall.

See also: Prognostogainer - someone who speculated perfectly on the HOF vote and was able to cheaply load up on the player�s cards in advance.

See also: Windfault - spending a lot of money buying the rookie cards of a player you were sure was going to be enshrined this time, only to see him once again fall short.

G1911 · #11 12-05-2021, 06:19 PM

The Golden Era is not bad. Minoso is, I think, long overdue and a clear hall of famer. Kaat, Oliva and Hodges are not bad choices, not great ones. They can reasonably be hall of famers without lowering the standard, and could reasonably not make it. The kind of guys this vote, after missing admittance for like 50 years, is made for. I'd probably pick Boyer over Kaat, but none of these are a bad choice. No Harold Baines garbage, no Lee Smith, no Jack Morris type pick. All reasonable.

However, it looks like collusion. 11/16 ballots were exactly the same, with a choice among 10 players who are all in the same 'close but not quite' boat (except, I think, Minoso who is extremely deserving). Really looks like there was some vote trading or something to align everything so we have several players elected.

The Pre-War ballot, frankly, I think has much to do with narratives. It's purpose was obviously to elect Negro Leaguers, with the recent declaration that they are all major leagues. This isn't a problem necessarily, most of the best players from that time period not in are from the Negro Leagues. But O'Neil and Fowler? O'Neil is getting in for being a great interview subject, I like him and his stories like everyone else but I don't think that's an appropriate reason. Character by itself is not enough. Fowler, I don't claim to be an expert on, but he's seems chosen as a first-of-something, not a great. They had better choices on this ballot to honor black players from this period, like Donaldson.

If I'm reading it right, Bill Dahlen got 0 votes though. Reynolds and O'Doul, the other traditional major league options, both did get multiple votes. Each of whom is obviously inferior as a player, and Reynolds even being there is downright ridiculous (25 WAR, less than 200 wins, why not Lopat if you want a good-for-awhile Yankee from the 50's?). O'Doul has claims to significance in Japan, which does not seem relevant to an American Hall of Fame that does not and never has honored success in Japan. I know he has fans here, but 3,600 at bats for a player elected for his batting is a little absurd. Dahlen was close to getting in in a previous vote. He got completely screwed if the results I have are correct.

Mark17 · #12 12-05-2021, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

However, it looks like collusion. 11/16 ballots were exactly the same, with a choice among 10 players who are all in the same 'close but not quite' boat (except, I think, Minoso who is extremely deserving). Really looks like there was some vote trading or something to align everything so we have several players elected.

Rod Carew was one of the guys voting and I'm sure he was pushing hard for Oliva and Kaat. Mike Schmidt was also a Kaat teammate. I also think the fact Oliva and Kaat are both still alive (83 years old) played a factor. It's always a shame when players die before getting in, like Buck O'Neil.

Piratedogcardshows · #13 12-05-2021, 06:49 PM

No complaints here.

G1911 · #14 12-05-2021, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

Rod Carew was one of the guys voting and I'm sure he was pushing hard for Oliva and Kaat. Mike Schmidt was also a Kaat teammate. I also think the fact Oliva and Kaat are both still alive (83 years old) played a factor. It's always a shame when players die before getting in, like Buck O'Neil.

I�m just thankful the lobbying didn�t lead to another Harold Baines level stupid choice. Kaat and Olivia are right on the border, it doesn�t lower the Hall to include them, at least.

4k6 · #15 12-05-2021, 07:00 PM

Looks like for the Golden Days Era, all the voters got together and agreed to elect five players. Then one voter either miscast an extra vote for Minnie or just didn't get along with Dick Allen. Otherwise seems weird that ALL the votes would go to just five guys?

G1911 · #16 12-05-2021, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4k6

Looks like for the Golden Days Era, all the voters got together and agreed to elect five players. Then one voter either miscast an extra vote for Minnie or just didn't get along with Dick Allen. Otherwise seems weird that ALL the votes would go to just five guys?

This. Boyer is as good as those selected. Maris typically gets some votes even if I think he shouldn�t. This result does not appear to be �honest�.

CurtisFlood · #17 12-06-2021, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

This. Boyer is as good as those selected. Maris typically gets some votes even if I think he shouldn�t. This result does not appear to be �honest�.

Boyer got off to a late start due to military service which some of these guys never had to do. He could actually field, run, and hit which some of those elected could not really do. That being said, I'm very happy Buck finally got in, and have no bone to pick on any of them. But Boyer belongs in this crew.

GaryPassamonte · #18 12-05-2021, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

The Golden Era is not bad. Minoso is, I think, long overdue and a clear hall of famer. Kaat, Oliva and Hodges are not bad choices, not great ones. They can reasonably be hall of famers without lowering the standard, and could reasonably not make it. The kind of guys this vote, after missing admittance for like 50 years, is made for. I'd probably pick Boyer over Kaat, but none of these are a bad choice. No Harold Baines garbage, no Lee Smith, no Jack Morris type pick. All reasonable.

However, it looks like collusion. 11/16 ballots were exactly the same, with a choice among 10 players who are all in the same 'close but not quite' boat (except, I think, Minoso who is extremely deserving). Really looks like there was some vote trading or something to align everything so we have several players el

The Pre-War ballot, frankly, I think has much to do with narratives. It's purpose was obviously to elect Negro Leaguers, with the recent declaration that they are all major leagues. This isn't a problem necessarily, most of the best players from that time period not in are from the Negro Leagues. But O'Neil and Fowler? O'Neil is getting in for being a great interview subject, I like him and his stories like everyone else but I don't think that's an appropriate reason. Character by itself is not enough. Fowler, I don't claim to be an expert on, but he's seems chosen as a first-of-something, not a great. They had better choices on this ballot to honor black players from this period, like Donaldson.

If I'm reading it right, Bill Dahlen got 0 votes though. Reynolds and O'Doul, the other traditional major league options, both did get multiple votes. Each of whom is obviously inferior as a player, and Reynolds even being there is downright ridiculous (25 WAR, less than 200 wins, why not Lopat if you want a good-for-awhile Yankee from the 50's?). O'Doul has claims to significance in Japan, which does not seem relevant to an American Hall of Fame that does not and never has honored success in Japan. I know he has fans here, but 3,600 at bats for a player elected for his batting is a little absurd. Dahlen was close to getting in in a previous vote. He got completely screwed if the results I have are correct.

Well said.

BobC · #19 12-05-2021, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

However, it looks like collusion. 11/16 ballots were exactly the same, with a choice among 10 players who are all in the same 'close but not quite' boat (except, I think, Minoso who is extremely deserving). Really looks like there was some vote trading or something to align everything so we have several players elected.

Exactly, I brought this up (twice) earlier in the thread already how this looked like voters got together to almost ensure they elected certain players, and Carew being one of the voters and teammate of two of the electees likely played a bigger part in all this than we'll ever truly know.

jayshum · #20 12-05-2021, 07:15 PM

Where did you see that so many ballots were identical? All I have been able to find online was the vote totals that were released, and other than the 4 elected and Allen, everyone else is just grouped into three or less votes.

Results of the Golden Days Era Ballot (12 votes needed for election): Minnie Mi�oso (14 votes, 87.5%); Gil Hodges (12 votes, 75%); Jim Kaat (12 votes, 75%); Tony Oliva (12 votes, 75%); Dick Allen (11 votes, 68.8%); Ken Boyer, Roger Maris, Danny Murtaugh, Billy Pierce and Maury Wills each received three-or-fewer votes.

cammb · #21 12-08-2021, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

The Golden Era is not bad. Minoso is, I think, long overdue and a clear hall of famer. Kaat, Oliva and Hodges are not bad choices, not great ones. They can reasonably be hall of famers without lowering the standard, and could reasonably not make it. The kind of guys this vote, after missing admittance for like 50 years, is made for. I'd probably pick Boyer over Kaat, but none of these are a bad choice. No Harold Baines garbage, no Lee Smith, no Jack Morris type pick. All reasonable.

However, it looks like collusion. 11/16 ballots were exactly the same, with a choice among 10 players who are all in the same 'close but not quite' boat (except, I think, Minoso who is extremely deserving). Really looks like there was some vote trading or something to align everything so we have several players elected.

The Pre-War ballot, frankly, I think has much to do with narratives. It's purpose was obviously to elect Negro Leaguers, with the recent declaration that they are all major leagues. This isn't a problem necessarily, most of the best players from that time period not in are from the Negro Leagues. But O'Neil and Fowler? O'Neil is getting in for being a great interview subject, I like him and his stories like everyone else but I don't think that's an appropriate reason. Character by itself is not enough. Fowler, I don't claim to be an expert on, but he's seems chosen as a first-of-something, not a great. They had better choices on this ballot to honor black players from this period, like Donaldson.

If I'm reading it right, Bill Dahlen got 0 votes though. Reynolds and O'Doul, the other traditional major league options, both did get multiple votes. Each of whom is obviously inferior as a player, and Reynolds even being there is downright ridiculous (25 WAR, less than 200 wins, why not Lopat if you want a good-for-awhile Yankee from the 50's?). O'Doul has claims to significance in Japan, which does not seem relevant to an American Hall of Fame that does not and never has honored success in Japan. I know he has fans here, but 3,600 at bats for a player elected for his batting is a little absurd. Dahlen was close to getting in in a previous vote. He got completely screwed if the results I have are correct.

Why is Minoso a clear HOFer and not Oliva?

G1911 · #22 12-08-2021, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cammb

Why is Minoso a clear HOFer and not Oliva?

Plate Appearances:
Minoso 8223
Oliva 6880.

Minoso simply played significantly more, which helps.

WAR
Minoso 53.8
Oliva 43.0

WAR values Minoso's overall production higher than Oliva's prodigious bat.

Speaking of which, they offensively come out about the same rate wise.

OPS+:
Minoso: 130
Oliva: 131

Both really came into the league at 25 (Oliva had played 16 games before his rookie year, Minoso 9) and came in hot. Oliva won ROY, Minoso deserved too but a Yankee got it. Performance above the average is done at 35 for both of them. Except Minoso played more during that time and didn't miss as many games.

Oliva dominated the minors, but he wasn't there for long. 64 Games in D, 127 games in A ball and 1963 in AAA. He was probably major league ready a year or two before he got into the lineup. Minoso had 2 excellent AAA years, and 2 excellent years in the Negro National League (one of which he played a few games of A ball too). Minoso was major league ready well before he got a real chance.

Minoso was excellent at most things, Oliva was an excellent hitter who missed more time. Oliva has 3 batting titles

Black Ink:
Minoso 19
Oliva 41

But, Grey ink gives the reverse
Minoso 229
Oliva 146

Oliva's batting titles are significant, more than most modern-metric fans think so. But Minoso was close to the top in lots of things lots of years, moreso than Oliva.

Jaws has Minoso as the 18th LF, Oliva the 34th RF. The similarity scores for both are not good. Minoso though, is a difficult to compare player. There is only 1 900 score for his.

Oliva was a fine player, and I am not against his election. He and Minoso both have very, very similar total value from their bats (OPS+, which has faults but it's faults favor Oliva because it effectively weights slugging higher), but Minoso was good at the small things and played significantly more while putting out the same value. I think it pushes him over the line, while Oliva is right at the line and could go either way. Minoso's career in the majors is a bit short for HOF, Oliva's even moreso.

Finally, I think Minoso is the best player of his time who is not in the HOF (before this week). Oliva is not. The best player of his time not in the HOF makes them a reasonable selection for the HOF, when that era is revisited.

cammb · #23 12-09-2021, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Plate Appearances:
Minoso 8223
Oliva 6880.

Minoso simply played significantly more, which helps.

WAR
Minoso 53.8
Oliva 43.0

WAR values Minoso's overall production higher than Oliva's prodigious bat.

Speaking of which, they offensively come out about the same rate wise.

OPS+:
Minoso: 130
Oliva: 131

Both really came into the league at 25 (Oliva had played 16 games before his rookie year, Minoso 9) and came in hot. Oliva won ROY, Minoso deserved too but a Yankee got it. Performance above the average is done at 35 for both of them. Except Minoso played more during that time and didn't miss as many games.

Oliva dominated the minors, but he wasn't there for long. 64 Games in D, 127 games in A ball and 1963 in AAA. He was probably major league ready a year or two before he got into the lineup. Minoso had 2 excellent AAA years, and 2 excellent years in the Negro National League (one of which he played a few games of A ball too). Minoso was major league ready well before he got a real chance.

Minoso was excellent at most things, Oliva was an excellent hitter who missed more time. Oliva has 3 batting titles

Black Ink:
Minoso 19
Oliva 41

But, Grey ink gives the reverse
Minoso 229
Oliva 146

Oliva's batting titles are significant, more than most modern-metric fans think so. But Minoso was close to the top in lots of things lots of years, moreso than Oliva.

Jaws has Minoso as the 18th LF, Oliva the 34th RF. The similarity scores for both are not good. Minoso though, is a difficult to compare player. There is only 1 900 score for his.

Oliva was a fine player, and I am not against his election. He and Minoso both have very, very similar total value from their bats (OPS+, which has faults but it's faults favor Oliva because it effectively weights slugging higher), but Minoso was good at the small things and played significantly more while putting out the same value. I think it pushes him over the line, while Oliva is right at the line and could go either way. Minoso's career in the majors is a bit short for HOF, Oliva's even moreso.

Finally, I think Minoso is the best player of his time who is not in the HOF (before this week). Oliva is not. The best player of his time not in the HOF makes them a reasonable selection for the HOF, when that era is revisited.

Minos o the best player of his time not in the hall? How about Richie Allen or Vada pins on who I believe should be in the hall instead of Minoso

G1911 · #24 12-09-2021, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cammb

Minos o the best player of his time not in the hall? How about Richie Allen or Vada pins on who I believe should be in the hall instead of Minoso

Minoso 1951-1964

Allen 1963-1977

Pinson 1958-1975

Allen is not really the same time as Minoso. Pinson overlaps some, his 111 OPS+ is far below their offensive level.

cardsagain74 · #25 12-10-2021, 03:42 PM

Dick Allen's exclusion is worse than any of the new inductees was.

A 156+ OPS over 7300 plate appearances during the lowest scoring time period in the live ball era. Including leading the league three times (and in OPS four times). At this stage of HOF induction, that should be practically a layup.

And yep, his reputation. But obviously there are plenty of people in the Hall who are considered selfish jerks.

Unless he gave noogies for a dozen years to all little kids near him, he should still have been in long ago

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
High Grade T218 Results on eBay; Some Pretty Strong Results	Exhibitman	Boxing / Wrestling Cards & Memorabilia Forum	4	08-28-2017 05:00 PM
HOF results	paul	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	226	01-09-2016 03:44 PM
REA results	Tomman1961	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	06-04-2013 09:56 AM
New results from PSA	Brianruns10	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	2	07-27-2012 04:57 PM
results - SGC to PSA	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	15	11-15-2007 07:27 PM