Current HOF election results

[molenick]

I agree with Frank that Rolen deserves to be in, but I would respectfully disagree with Mike Schmidt not being a great HOFer and George Kell being one. I will take Schmidt and his 548 HRs, 3 MVPS, 8 HR titles, .908 OPS, ten gold gloves, and 106.8 WAR (first among third basemen) over George Kell and his...well, anything except his .306 batting average and ability not to strike out (WAR ranks him around 50th at third, which at least puts him ahead of Traynor). I would also take Mickey Mantle over Lloyd Waner and Johnny Bench over Ernie Lombardi. There is more to being a great HOFer than batting average and low strikeout totals.

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Mike Schmidt could crush a baseball. He walked a lot, not from a good eye, but from pitchers getting to the next batter. Schmidt struck out often. And he was a good fielder. But his batting average wasn't stellar. I don't deem him a great HOF third baseman. (I'm thinking of Joe Torre's batting title as a Cardinal third baseman at the moment, smiling.) George Kell was a great HOF third baseman. So was Brooks Robinson, and Pie Traynor. As was Boggs, Brett, and Santo. And I'll add Eddie Mathews, Chipper Jones, and even John McGraw.

.

[abothebear]

Originally Posted by molenick

There is more to being a great HOFer than batting average and low strikeout totals.

I don't think anyone would argue that there is more to being a great HOFer than batting average and low strikeout totals. But some might argue the implication that these two items were the sum of Kell's case. Being 6th all-time in fielding percentage among 3b with over 10000 innings isn't nothing. Six top 20 MVP seasons (three top 10) and ten-time all-star is pretty good.

But I have to say, I sure would enjoy today's game a lot more if more players only struck out in 4% of their at-bats. Maybe batting average and low-strikeout totals should be enough to be a great HOFer.

I didn't see Kell play, so I am not going to argue if he is a great HOFer or not. But he is one of my favorites and a player whose cards I try to collect because I grew up listening to him do the TV broadcasts for the Tigers along with Al Kaline. Those guys were great.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by abothebear

I don't think anyone would argue that there is more to being a great HOFer than batting average and low strikeout totals. But some might argue the implication that these two items were the sum of Kell's case. Being 6th all-time in fielding percentage among 3b with over 10000 innings isn't nothing. Six top 20 MVP seasons (three top 10) and ten-time all-star is pretty good.

But I have to say, I sure would enjoy today's game a lot more if more players only struck out in 4% of their at-bats. Maybe batting average and low-strikeout totals should be enough to be a great HOFer.

I didn't see Kell play, so I am not going to argue if he is a great HOFer or not. But he is one of my favorites and a player whose cards I try to collect because I grew up listening to him do the TV broadcasts for the Tigers along with Al Kaline. Those guys were great.

Well, the HOF argument is all opinion colored by fandom colored by what stats should be most important colored by likability colored by personal memories, so everyone views it differently. In some sense it is a silly discussion for that reason. And yet, we love to argue about the HOF!

I did not mean to diminish George Kell and it's unfortunate that these arguments always come down to comparisons. I was just taking issue with the opinion that Mike Schmidt was not a "great HOF third baseman" (whatever that means) because of his low batting average and high strikeouts while George Kell was given as an example of one using that criteria.

I was basing my argument on stats I thought were more relevant but others may value higher BA and a lower strikeout rate more. I think I will stay out of these arguments from now on because if it is controversial to say that Mike Schmidt was a great HOFer in comparison to George Kell then I guess there's nothing we all can agree on.

[darwinbulldog]

Claiming that Mike Schmidt was not a great Hall of Fame 3rd baseman is tantamount to claiming that Willie Mays was not a great Hall of Fame centerfielder.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Claiming that Mike Schmidt was not a great Hall of Fame 3rd baseman is tantamount to claiming that Willie Mays was not a great Hall of Fame centerfielder.

I don’t know, he’s no George Kell!

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by molenick

I agree with Frank that Rolen deserves to be in, but I would respectfully disagree with Mike Schmidt not being a great HOFer and George Kell being one. I will take Schmidt and his 548 HRs, 3 MVPS, 8 HR titles, .908 OPS, ten gold gloves, and 106.8 WAR (first among third basemen) over George Kell and his...well, anything except his .306 batting average and ability not to strike out (WAR ranks him around 50th at third, which at least puts him ahead of Traynor). I would also take Mickey Mantle over Lloyd Waner and Johnny Bench over Ernie Lombardi. There is more to being a great HOFer than batting average and low strikeout totals.

I agree with you. I'm not sure how Mike Schmidt could be considered anything other than a great third baseman and HoFer. Kell may have had a higher batting average, but Schmidt still had a higher OBP thanks to walking close to 100 times a year. In his later years, Schmidt also learned to become a better hitter and saw his strikeout totals go down in his last few seasons. He also was an MVP at age 36 while Kell was retired at age 34.