Top 25 Worst MLB HOFER’S

[michael3322]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Harold Baines, that was easy.

Could not agree more. Baines lowered the bar more than any other player

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/12/10/ha...-fame-election

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by michael3322

Could not agree more. Baines lowered the bar more than any other player

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/12/10/ha...-fame-election

There are a lot worse choices than Baines, which is not to say he is a good pick.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

There are a lot worse choices than Baines, which is not to say he is a good pick.

I agree 100%. Absent the strikes baines most likely gets 3000 hits and easily gets in before needing a committee.as is though he is one of the 25 worst. Just not the overall worst.

[nat]

"Even if there were an anti-reliever bias in the WAR calcs (and I'm not saying there is)"

Far from being an anti-reliever bias in WAR, there's a pro reliever bias. WAR has a leverage component, which means that it rates pitcher performance in late-and-close situations more than it does in other situations. Which is to say that relievers get more credit than their raw stats would deserve.

[Mike D.]

My brother posted this tidbit on Twitter recently, and I thought it was at least tangential to this conversation.

There are 268 Hall of Famers inducted as players.

Only 101 of them debuted after Jackie Robinson’s debut with the Kansas City Monarchs in 1945.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nat

"Even if there were an anti-reliever bias in the WAR calcs (and I'm not saying there is)"

Far from being an anti-reliever bias in WAR, there's a pro reliever bias. WAR has a leverage component, which means that it rates pitcher performance in late-and-close situations more than it does in other situations. Which is to say that relievers get more credit than their raw stats would deserve.

This. WAR is written to dictate the general outcome. It is very specifically designed to heavily puinish nineteenth century pitchers and heavily reward modern relievers. There are numerous era biases and judgements in it that one has to implicitly consider accurate and right to use WAR as an effective measurement.

[packs]

Wilhelm really was an underrated guy. What a beast of a career. Obviously lights out from the pen but given the chance start almost full-time at 36 years old he wins 15 games and leads the league in ERA and ERA+.

Guy pitched in over a 1,000 games and didn't even start his career until he was 29.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Wilhelm really was an underrated guy. What a beast of a career. Obviously lights out from the pen but given the start at 36 years old he wins 15 games and leads the league in ERA and ERA+.

Guy pitched in over a 1,000 games and didn't even start his career until he was 29.

Wilhelm is the reliever who really screams "why didn't they let him start?" to me. He got to be a starter for only one full season, a season in which he led the league in ERA. Back to the bullpen after that.

[bbsports]

How about Bill Mazeroski. Do you think he was inducted into the Hall of Fame because of a game winning home run to win the 1960 World Series?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bbsports

How about Bill Mazeroski. Do you think he was inducted into the Hall of Fame because of a game winning home run to win the 1960 World Series?

I think it was his reputation as the GOAT 2B that did it. Big bomb doesn’t hurt.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by bbsports

How about Bill Mazeroski. Do you think he was inducted into the Hall of Fame because of a game winning home run to win the 1960 World Series?

I would say without that HR, he's not in.

[lowpopper]

Fred McGriff is reading this and grinding his teeth

[Jersey City Giants]

Baines is the ugly girl who got into the club because she was with her hot friend.

Was he a very good baseball player? Of course. But in over 20 years he only led the league in any "major" category once (slugging percentage).

Can't comment on the others as I did not watch them play. But I saw Baines throughout his entire career. He is NOT a HOFer in my book.

[D. Bergin]

Harold Baines never hurt nobody. Jeez, leave the guy alone.

You take the 25 worst guys out of the HOF, then you still have the 25 worst guys in there.

People take this sh*t way too personally. It's just a neat way to honor the old-timers of the past. No more, no less.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Harold Baines never hurt nobody. Jeez, leave the guy alone.

You take the 25 worst guys out of the HOF, then you still have the 25 worst guys in there.

People take this sh*t way too personally. It's just a neat way to honor the old-timers of the past. No more, no less.

I thought the HOF was just a pump and dump for the city/hotel that somehow stuck like the silly pump and dump on the centering on cards has.

[rhettyeakley]

Morgan Bulkeley is the single worst selection ever made.

His association with the game of baseball was really short and uneventful. He just happened to be the 1st NL President (he was also only President for 1 season) He got in based on him being 1st… that is it.

He was also part of the Mills Commission that gave life to the Doubleday myth.

[Exhibitman]

I don't like the WAR average stat as the sole benchmark either. It definitely has its uses: Milt Pappas always complained that he had basically the same record as Don Drysdale, but his WAR is only 2/3 of Drysdale's. It does matter how you get to a record, not just getting there. That said, the methodology hammers defensive players and players who did not meet the mould of what the position 'should' be. How do you say Maz was the Babe Ruth of 2nd basemen, yet label him a bad choice? Or Pie Traynor, whose sin appears to be light hitting? Or Aparicio, who was both a pioneering Latin American player (1st Venezuelan in the HOF) and a tremendous shortstop? My favorite example of this position bias is Mark Grace. His WAR is 46.7 (better than quite a few HOFers), four Gold Gloves, lifetime batting average .303. His sin is that he was a singles hitter at a position where players are 'supposed to be' boppers.

Maybe we need a tiered system like Japanese HOF? Achieving specific statistical milestones gets a player into the HOF automatically, but the inner circle takes an actual vote and is reserved for the players who pass that layer of screening.

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I don't like the WAR average stat as the sole benchmark either.

I agree. I usually say...if he's got a 50 WAR, he would have a closer look. If he has a 60, he really needs a better look. If he has a 70, the voters probably messed up.

The list of eligible players who do not have steroid or gambling issues and have a WAR over 70 is short: Schilling, Jim McCormick (1800s pitcher), Bill Dahlen, Lou Whitaker, Bobby Grich, and Scott Rolen. Carlos Beltran become eligible next year and will be a difficult case. I may have missed somebody. BTW, Rick Reuschel I pretty close at 69.5.

I also think there is a flukey thing with WAR and the 1970s era...some of the players seem really light.

[campyfan39]

i had forgotten he was in. Shocking

Originally Posted by michael3322

Could not agree more. Baines lowered the bar more than any other player

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/12/10/ha...-fame-election

[packs]

I think the Manager section of the Hall of Fame is the weakest and hardly anyone in should actually be in.

Tony La Russa won 3 titles, that's nice. But over 37 years. He's lost over 2500 games.

Tommy Lasorda won 2 titles in 22 years. Ok, I guess, but what about his nearly .500 record as a manager?

Earl Weaver won exactly one title in 18 seasons. Why is he in? Aren't managers with one title a dime a dozen? Someone wins one every year.