Thinking About Writing A Book

[ejharrington]

Ross Barnes, Curt Schilling and Keith Hernandez.

[Snapolit1]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/21/s...l-of-fame.html

[Jay Wolt]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Ross Barnes, Curt Schilling and Keith Hernandez.

Would rather see Don Mattingly in before Hernandez
Higher BA (.307 to .296)
More HR's (222 to 162)
More All Star Games (6 to 5)
Hernandez did have 11 gold gloves to Donnie's 9

[carlsonjok]

You can likely tell where my baseball life came of age, but in addition to Munson:

Willie Randolph
Sparky Lyle
Graig Nettles

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Jay Wolt

Would rather see Don Mattingly in before Hernandez
Higher BA (.307 to .296)
More HR's (222 to 162)
More All Star Games (6 to 5)
Hernandez did have 11 gold gloves to Donnie's 9

Also:

Hernandez's career WAR is 60.3 vs. Donnie's 42.4
Keith's career OBP is .384 vs. Mattingly's .358

[John1941]

How is Riggs Stephenson an "egregious oversight" if he wasn't good enough to be a regular? He had four years as a regular out 14 major league seasons. (I understand that was complicated a little by injuries, but people don't get elected on "might-have-beens.") To me he seems to be roughly equivalent to John Kruk.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by John1941

How is Riggs Stephenson an "egregious oversight" if he wasn't good enough to be a regular? He had four years as a regular out 14 major league seasons. (I understand that was complicated a little by injuries, but people don't get elected on "might-have-beens.") To me he seems to be roughly equivalent to John Kruk.

Surprisingly enough, I happen to be the founding member of the John Kruk Hall of Fame Egregious Oversight Society (JKHFEOS). Meetings are held 8pm third Tuesday of each month at select laundromats across the country. Thanks to this thread, how Riggs Stephenson stacks up to John Kruk will be the headlining topic at the next meeting.


Brian

[Snapolit1]

Most people will go to the mat for an overlooked player who, absolutely conincidentally, was their childhood hero at age 15.

[refz]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Most people will go to the mat for an overlooked player who, absolutely conincidentally, was their childhood hero at age 15.

My childhood hero was Mattingly. That being said, in my opinion he don’t belong in. He was good (great) for couple of years and that’s it. Unless his managerial credentials amount to anything, still a no. Players that fall in this category regardless, no!!!!

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Most people will go to the mat for an overlooked player who, absolutely conincidentally, was their childhood hero at age 15.

Yep, you are absolutely right, and mine was Steve Garvey, and he was great, but I'm sorry, he doesn't quite make it in on my ballot.

Doug "sadly" Goodman

[Huck]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Surprisingly enough, I happen to be the founding member of the John Kruk Hall of Fame Egregious Oversight Society (JKHFEOS). Meetings are held 8pm third Tuesday of each month at select laundromats across the country. Thanks to this thread, how Riggs Stephenson stacks up to John Kruk will be the headlining topic at the next meeting.


Brian

I would like to join the club.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Huck

I would like to join the club.

Unfortunately since the time I posted yesterday, the John Kruk Hall of Fame Egregious Oversight Society (JKHFEOS) has disbanded, due to outside agitators and provocateurs pushing a Manny Trillo for the Hall agenda, utilizing an anti-Kruk disinformation campaign to boost Manny's chances.

To keep Trillo and his malicious de-facto supporters from de-legitimizing the Hall of Fame and its induction standards, Kruk's Egregious Oversight status needs to be publicly diminished on various platforms and campaigns, including the JKHFEOS at this point of time, to minimize the Trillo faction from gaining traction in this Hall of Fame struggle for supremacy.


Brian

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by John1941

How is Riggs Stephenson an "egregious oversight" if he wasn't good enough to be a regular? He had four years as a regular out 14 major league seasons. (I understand that was complicated a little by injuries, but people don't get elected on "might-have-beens.") To me he seems to be roughly equivalent to John Kruk.

Well, he was injured playing college football, which ruined his throwing arm (people find that interesting). He has a greater than .300 lifetime MLB batting average (people find that interesting, too). He's going into the book. If that offends you, sorry, there's no debate. Don't buy or read the book, if it gets published if it bothers you. It bothers me, a lot, given that he was a household name when he played for the Cubs, that he's not in the HOF. I know this because of all the old scrapbooks I have. Him and guys like him are the whole point of the book idea. If you're going to put McGriff, Rolen and Baines in, while overlooking household names from the past, well, that's why I intend to publish this book.

[JollyElm]

Make sure you do a deep dive with each of your subjects, namely how they were perceived and respected by their teammates and opponents. That inside insight is invaluable as to what their worth truly was on the field. For instance, Keith Hernandez was brought up. That guy was a frickin' leader and a huge driver of those successful Mets teams. The theoretical WAR that everyone always seems to immediately turn to tells us nothing about that aspect of a player's impact on the game.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

The theoretical WAR that everyone always seems to immediately turn to tells us nothing about that aspect of a player's impact on the game.

For gameplay, that's exactly what WAR does. It does not capture things like leadership in the clubhouse, however

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Make sure you do a deep dive with each of your subjects, namely how they were perceived and respected by their teammates and opponents. That inside insight is invaluable as to what their worth truly was on the field. For instance, Keith Hernandez was brought up. That guy was a frickin' leader and a huge driver of those successful Mets teams. The theoretical WAR that everyone always seems to immediately turn to tells us nothing about that aspect of a player's impact on the game.

You are exactly right, sir. +1 agree totally. By all means, Keith Hernandez goes in. Mattingly goes in, too.

I know there will be folks upset about some of these guys going in. Likewise, there will be someone who doesn't go in, that I somehow overlook. I will do my best with it.

What I envision at this point is to go chronologically, 1800s to now. In the end, I will come up with a list, and go with it.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Well, he was injured playing college football, which ruined his throwing arm (people find that interesting). He has a greater than .300 lifetime MLB batting average (people find that interesting, too). He's going into the book. If that offends you, sorry, there's no debate. Don't buy or read the book, if it gets published if it bothers you. It bothers me, a lot, given that he was a household name when he played for the Cubs, that he's not in the HOF. I know this because of all the old scrapbooks I have. Him and guys like him are the whole point of the book idea. If you're going to put McGriff, Rolen and Baines in, while overlooking household names from the past, well, that's why I intend to publish this book.

It sounds like he has a very interesting story and I'd love reading about him - but I'm very argumentative about baseball so I was just responding to that specific HOF claim. I guess this is not the appropriate thread to be arguing against selections.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by John1941

It sounds like he has a very interesting story and I'd love reading about him - but I'm very argumentative about baseball so I was just responding to that specific HOF claim. I guess this is not the appropriate thread to be arguing against selections.

Well, heck, argue away, sir! It's more than appropriate. These discussions are how I learn!

[insidethewrapper]

Lou Whitaker
Mickey Lolich

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Also:

Hernandez's career WAR is 60.3 vs. Donnie's 42.4
Keith's career OBP is .384 vs. Mattingly's .358

Hernandez got a ring…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[conor912]

I’m all for anything that calls the HOF out on their ridiculousness.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

Hernandez got a ring…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With two different teams, and and he is in both of their Hall of Fames.

Going way back, I'd choose Jim McCormick.

And for a more recent guy--Kenny Lofton.

[HercDriver]

Originally Posted by Jay Wolt

Would rather see Don Mattingly in before Hernandez
Higher BA (.307 to .296)
More HR's (222 to 162)
More All Star Games (6 to 5)
Hernandez did have 11 gold gloves to Donnie's 9

Seinfeld episodes:
Hernandez: 2
Mattingly: 0

[Mark17]

No way the Dodgers win those 4 pennants and 3 World Series from 1959-1966 without Maury Wills. His 104 stolen bases in '62 was epic, and his 2134 career hits are impressive when you consider he broke in as a 26-year-old rookie.

He'd also be an interesting story, with the angle of Topps not signing him to their standard contract because they thought he had little chance to even make the big leagues.

He came very close to making the Hall a few years ago, but last time was mostly forgotten, as Oliva, Minoso, Kaat and Hodges got in.

[G1911]

All the names mentioned:

Dick Allen - Great rate stats, I would vote for him.

Ross Barnes - Truly egregious he is not in.

Vida Blue - Borderline that could go either way. Probably gets in eventually as he's near the top of the waterdown list.

Ken Boyer - Good candidate, near the top of his position not in. Not sure that's enough though.

Dave Concepcion - Good glove, below average bat. If he was not part of a famous franchise he would not be considered.

Gavvy Cravath - Great rate states, barely played. 1,221 games. Not a real candidate, but played like one for a few years. Homer totals heavily inflated by a ridiculously short fence. Short career + context have correctly kept him out.

Bill Dahlen - I would vote for him.

Steve Garvey - Possibly the most overrated 1B in baseball history. .294/.329/.446 as a 1B is not a HOFer. Relies heavily on people liking him when why we're young, which is always a clue a candidate is not a real candidate. If they are a good choice, people who like them will still use the math instead of sentiment when making the case. When the argument is about sentiment, red flag.

Jack Glasscock - I would vote for him.

Keith Hernandez - No slouch at the plate, but his batting line is not competitive with a 1B HOFer. One must place a heavy value on 1B defense to make a logical argument for him, which I don't think is really supportable. Hall of Very Good.

Tommy John - Borderline, probably going in as few starters since 1900 are better than him and not in, his fame from the surgery endures, and they just elected Kaat.

Kenny Lofton - Embarrassing he fell off the ballot his first year. He is on the border and deserves a serious look instead of an instant dismissal.

Mickey Lolich - 217-191 with an ERA 4% over the league. This is not a serious candidate, we would need to elect ~50 other starters first.

Sparky Lyle - Hard to take him as a serious candidate using math.

Don Mattingly - 80's rookie card fans and Yankees fans are not a reason to induct people. His state line is again not competitive with HOF 1B. He may get in on sentiment, but not merit.

Jim McCormick - Clearly meritous.

Thurman Munson - One of, maybe the, best at his position not in, reasonable electee but not overlooked, right on the edge. I would vote against.

Graig Nettles - One of the best at his position not in. A candidate, I would vote no, but not an unreasonable expansion.

Lefty O'Doul - One would have to amend the criteria to include Japan. He is, like Stephenson, not a real candidate on the basis of his MLB playing performance but did a lot of other things.

Al Oliver - I don't think hitting .300 alone is enough.

Willie Randolph - Closer than some would think, but still not there. A good example of the excess of WAR, which loves his league average bat.

Curt Schilling - He is not in for being a loudmouth for the political party the media hates. He is obviously meritous when one restricts it to the math. If his comments and jokes were to the detriment of the groups the voter base hates, he would have been in ballot 1.

Gary Sheffield - Notorious steroid user, he is out for that reason (as only Ortiz is exempted from responsibility because reasons and corruption). Not a serious contender.

Riggs Stephenson - Great rate stats, barely played. Hit 100 games 5 times. Not a real HOF candidate, but a great player who could have been.

Cecil Travis - One of the most overrated players in baseball history. He had 1 great season, and 3 more between 110-120 OPS+. His candidacy is based on sentiment and a fantasy fiction what if. Not a real candidate if one accepts a mathematical basis.

Lou Whitaker - Real borderline, edge case who could reasonably not go in or reasonably go in. Trammell's election pretty much guarantees he's going in on a committee ballot at some point here.

Smoky Joe Wood - 1,400 IP. Not a serious candidate for anything other than people like his story.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by G1911

All the names mentioned:

Dick Allen - Great rate stats, I would vote for him.

Ross Barnes - Truly egregious he is not in.

Vida Blue - Borderline that could go either way. Probably gets in eventually as he's near the top of the waterdown list.

Ken Boyer - Good candidate, near the top of his position not in. Not sure that's enough though.

Dave Concepcion - Good glove, below average bat. If he was not part of a famous franchise he would not be considered.

Gavvy Cravath - Great rate states, barely played. 1,221 games. Not a real candidate, but played like one for a few years. Homer totals heavily inflated by a ridiculously short fence. Short career + context have correctly kept him out.

Bill Dahlen - I would vote for him.

Steve Garvey - Possibly the most overrated 1B in baseball history. .294/.329/.446 as a 1B is not a HOFer. Relies heavily on people liking him when why we're young, which is always a clue a candidate is not a real candidate. If they are a good choice, people who like them will still use the math instead of sentiment when making the case. When the argument is about sentiment, red flag.

Jack Glasscock - I would vote for him.

Keith Hernandez - No slouch at the plate, but his batting line is not competitive with a 1B HOFer. One must place a heavy value on 1B defense to make a logical argument for him, which I don't think is really supportable. Hall of Very Good.

Tommy John - Borderline, probably going in as few starters since 1900 are better than him and not in, his fame from the surgery endures, and they just elected Kaat.

Kenny Lofton - Embarrassing he fell off the ballot his first year. He is on the border and deserves a serious look instead of an instant dismissal.

Mickey Lolich - 217-191 with an ERA 4% over the league. This is not a serious candidate, we would need to elect ~50 other starters first.

Sparky Lyle - Hard to take him as a serious candidate using math.

Don Mattingly - 80's rookie card fans and Yankees fans are not a reason to induct people. His state line is again not competitive with HOF 1B. He may get in on sentiment, but not merit.

Jim McCormick - Clearly meritous.

Thurman Munson - One of, maybe the, best at his position not in, reasonable electee but not overlooked, right on the edge. I would vote against.

Graig Nettles - One of the best at his position not in. A candidate, I would vote no, but not an unreasonable expansion.

Lefty O'Doul - One would have to amend the criteria to include Japan. He is, like Stephenson, not a real candidate on the basis of his MLB playing performance but did a lot of other things.

Al Oliver - I don't think hitting .300 alone is enough.

Willie Randolph - Closer than some would think, but still not there. A good example of the excess of WAR, which loves his league average bat.

Curt Schilling - He is not in for being a loudmouth for the political party the media hates. He is obviously meritous when one restricts it to the math. If his comments and jokes were to the detriment of the groups the voter base hates, he would have been in ballot 1.

Gary Sheffield - Notorious steroid user, he is out for that reason (as only Ortiz is exempted from responsibility because reasons and corruption). Not a serious contender.

Riggs Stephenson - Great rate stats, barely played. Hit 100 games 5 times. Not a real HOF candidate, but a great player who could have been.

Cecil Travis - One of the most overrated players in baseball history. He had 1 great season, and 3 more between 110-120 OPS+. His candidacy is based on sentiment and a fantasy fiction what if. Not a real candidate if one accepts a mathematical basis.

Lou Whitaker - Real borderline, edge case who could reasonably not go in or reasonably go in. Trammell's election pretty much guarantees he's going in on a committee ballot at some point here.

Smoky Joe Wood - 1,400 IP. Not a serious candidate for anything other than people like his story.

Every single one of these guys gets my vote over Harold Baines.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by G1911

All the names mentioned:



Dick Allen - Great rate stats, I would vote for him.



Ross Barnes - Truly egregious he is not in.



Vida Blue - Borderline that could go either way. Probably gets in eventually as he's near the top of the waterdown list.



Ken Boyer - Good candidate, near the top of his position not in. Not sure that's enough though.



Dave Concepcion - Good glove, below average bat. If he was not part of a famous franchise he would not be considered.



Gavvy Cravath - Great rate states, barely played. 1,221 games. Not a real candidate, but played like one for a few years. Homer totals heavily inflated by a ridiculously short fence. Short career + context have correctly kept him out.



Bill Dahlen - I would vote for him.



Steve Garvey - Possibly the most overrated 1B in baseball history. .294/.329/.446 as a 1B is not a HOFer. Relies heavily on people liking him when why we're young, which is always a clue a candidate is not a real candidate. If they are a good choice, people who like them will still use the math instead of sentiment when making the case. When the argument is about sentiment, red flag.



Jack Glasscock - I would vote for him.



Keith Hernandez - No slouch at the plate, but his batting line is not competitive with a 1B HOFer. One must place a heavy value on 1B defense to make a logical argument for him, which I don't think is really supportable. Hall of Very Good.



Tommy John - Borderline, probably going in as few starters since 1900 are better than him and not in, his fame from the surgery endures, and they just elected Kaat.



Kenny Lofton - Embarrassing he fell off the ballot his first year. He is on the border and deserves a serious look instead of an instant dismissal.



Mickey Lolich - 217-191 with an ERA 4% over the league. This is not a serious candidate, we would need to elect ~50 other starters first.



Sparky Lyle - Hard to take him as a serious candidate using math.



Don Mattingly - 80's rookie card fans and Yankees fans are not a reason to induct people. His state line is again not competitive with HOF 1B. He may get in on sentiment, but not merit.



Jim McCormick - Clearly meritous.



Thurman Munson - One of, maybe the, best at his position not in, reasonable electee but not overlooked, right on the edge. I would vote against.



Graig Nettles - One of the best at his position not in. A candidate, I would vote no, but not an unreasonable expansion.



Lefty O'Doul - One would have to amend the criteria to include Japan. He is, like Stephenson, not a real candidate on the basis of his MLB playing performance but did a lot of other things.



Al Oliver - I don't think hitting .300 alone is enough.



Willie Randolph - Closer than some would think, but still not there. A good example of the excess of WAR, which loves his league average bat.



Curt Schilling - He is not in for being a loudmouth for the political party the media hates. He is obviously meritous when one restricts it to the math. If his comments and jokes were to the detriment of the groups the voter base hates, he would have been in ballot 1.



Gary Sheffield - Notorious steroid user, he is out for that reason (as only Ortiz is exempted from responsibility because reasons and corruption). Not a serious contender.



Riggs Stephenson - Great rate stats, barely played. Hit 100 games 5 times. Not a real HOF candidate, but a great player who could have been.



Cecil Travis - One of the most overrated players in baseball history. He had 1 great season, and 3 more between 110-120 OPS+. His candidacy is based on sentiment and a fantasy fiction what if. Not a real candidate if one accepts a mathematical basis.



Lou Whitaker - Real borderline, edge case who could reasonably not go in or reasonably go in. Trammell's election pretty much guarantees he's going in on a committee ballot at some point here.



Smoky Joe Wood - 1,400 IP. Not a serious candidate for anything other than people like his story.

Actually had no clue Gary was a Roider. Guess it was barely reported compared to bonds and mark.

I think Joe should get a little extra consideration because his time as a hitter was quite good. And that was very impressive making the switch a decade into his career.
Also the fact the best players of the time, Wajo, Cobb, the list goes on and on have quotes listing Joe as one of the top pitchers of the day. You can’t overlook that.

I remember a quote somebody said about Joe to me. “There are players in the hall who pitched double the amount of games as Smokey Joe Wood. But they were only half as good as him”

Strange to think about. If that’s true or not.

[jingram058]

This is excellent. Just excellent. The list is starting to come together, becoming chapters.

Love the comment "I would take every one of them over Baines".

Question - do you think I should stop before the modern era, avoiding controversy? A few of the names listed might actually get in at some point. Or just go with it?

[Casey2296]

As a member of the pre-war committee, Ross Barnes, Bill Dahlen, Joe Wood, & Lefty O'Doul all get my vote, if Buck O'Neil gets in for being an ambassador of the game so does O'Doul. I'd also induct Joe Jackson.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Or just go with it?

If your book gains any traction, that’s a risk you run no matter what era. Roll with it 😀