Baseball Hall of Fame Vote

[mr2686]

Broadcasters aren't HOF'ers. If you look at the list of guys in the HOF'ers, there are no broadcasters on that list (as broadcasters). Broadcasters have a separate wing and are given the Ford Frick Award but they aren't HOF'ers.

You are technically correct, however, for the most part they are still called HOFers, and just because they are part of the broadcaster wing or the print media wing, does not diminish their accomplishments or status in the HOF museum. As a side note, many collectors that collect HOF autographs do not collect the broadcasters or sports writers, but some do and they do make for some interesting additions for the HOF collection especially when some of those members were also on some championship teams, like Jerry Coleman, Joe Garagiola, Tony Kubek, etc.

[howard38]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[packs]

We're still dealing with semantics which is what I acknowledged in my post. Rizzuto is a HOFer no matter how you slice it. He belongs in the HOF whether you personally decide it should be as a broadcaster or a player. Dave Concepcion does not belong in the HOF at all.

[Chris-Counts]

Personally, I would like to see more — and not less — players get inducted. But no matter how you slice it, if you go by stats alone, Rizzuto is a borderline candidate as a player. I put him slightly below Pee Wee Reese and slightly above Maury Wills and Dave Concepcion. People can talk all day long about intangibles, but that's how Rabbit Maranville and Bobby Wallace got in. A debate about intangibles will never be resolved. I'd take Alan Trammel or Cecil Travis over any of the previously mentioned shortstops. Travis — with his .314 lifetime average — gets short-changed because he didn't play long enough, but he also was never the same after the Battle of the Bulge. That should count for something ...

[spec]

Originally Posted by mr2686

You are technically correct, however, for the most part they are still called HOFers, and just because they are part of the broadcaster wing or the print media wing, does not diminish their accomplishments or status in the HOF museum. As a side note, many collectors that collect HOF autographs do not collect the broadcasters or sports writers, but some do and they do make for some interesting additions for the HOF collection especially when some of those members were also on some championship teams, like Jerry Coleman, Joe Garagiola, Tony Kubek, etc.

Clarifying further, there is no writers wing nor a broadcasters wing at the Baseball Hall of Fame. Though writers and broadcasters perpetuate the myth by referring to their honored colleagues as Hall of Fame writers or broadcasters, the annual winners of the Spink (writers) and Frick (broadcasters) awards for lifetime contributions to the game do not have plaques in the Hall; instead their names are engraved on a plaque at the Hall's library that is much more reminiscent of the Employee of the Month plaque at your local supermarket that the plaques in the Hall. These facts are not stated to diminish the accomplishments of these men, just to set the record straight.
Bob Richardson

[bbcard1]

I think, here's the scary part...without looking it up...I would put Harold Baines in far before Edgar Martinez. There was a time Baines was the most feared hitter in the game...I don't think Edgar ever achieved that.

[sycks22]

I know it more current, but ESPN just did a write up about determining the top players in every 5 year period starting in the '70's. It's crazy how many times Boggs is in there.

To the guy who wrote about wanting to see more players instead of less in the hall, doesn't that water down the HOF? Shouldn't only the top players make it instead of just average players? When I think of the hall I think Cobb / Wagner / Mays and when guys like Sutter and Rice make it the HOF loses its luster.

[glynparson]

I feel the hall of fame is there to tell the story of the sport and therefore believe in inducting more players, and for reasons other than just stats, but also in what they added to the story of the game.

[Chris-Counts]

"To the guy who wrote about wanting to see more players instead of less in the hall, doesn't that water down the HOF? Shouldn't only the top players make it instead of just average players?"

Pete, As far as I can tell, there are no "average" players in the Hall of Fame, unless they got there for something else. There are a couple dozen players, though, who were essentially excellent players, but not worthy of being in the Hall of Fame. Most of these guys played in the 1920s and 1930s, and many were friends or teammates of Frankie Frisch, who played a key role in their election. So adding post-WWII players who were as good or better than these borderline inductees does nothing to dilute the existing standards of the Hall of Fame.

More importantly, in my mind, is the need for baseball to engage future generations of fans. A huge part of baseball's charm and popularity is its rich and colorful history. Baseball fans love to compare their heroes with those of earlier eras.

How do you explain to the casual fan — who's already saturated with news of steroid scandals, ownership scandals and a bumbling troll of a commissioner — that his heroes or his dad's heroes, guys like Tony Oliva, Dick Allen, Minnie Minoso, Luis Tiant, Alan Trammell, are not worthy of being in the Hall of Fame, but Ross Youngs, Highpockets Kelly, Dave Bancroft, Travis Jackson, Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines are good enough? To the casual fan who looks at the numbers, it just looks like incompetence or cronyism (which it basically is). Hardly the stuff that makes new fans want to learn more about the game's history — or care about its future ...

Now how is it that Jim Rice isn't worthy of being in the Hall of Fame? His stats look a heck of lot more impressive when you take away the steroid-induced stats that followed his career. I watched a lot of baseball in the 1970s and I'm not convinced there was a hitter in that decade that pitchers feared more. His OPS, by the way, is slightly higher than Reggie Jackson's. Nobody questions Reggie's merits. Just the same way nobody would ever question Roberto Clemente's merits, even though Minoso — who people will argue against all day long — has a higher OPS AND was likely as good a fielder ...

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

I think, here's the scary part...without looking it up...I would put Harold Baines in far before Edgar Martinez. There was a time Baines was the most feared hitter in the game...I don't think Edgar ever achieved that.

There was never a time when Baines was the "most feared hitter in the game". Never. His best years - 1982 to 1985 - were FAR surpassed by Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly. And Wade Boggs. After that, you've got Canseco and McGwire. And then Frank Thomas.

My problem with Baines is that he was a DH who really never put up great numbers. Lots of very good numbers but nothing GREAT. I suppose you could make a case for his .304/29/94 in 1984 or his .309/22/113 in 1985. But does that in any way compare to Edgar Martinez winning 2 batting titles (hitting .327 or higher 5 times), 145 RBI in 2000 (6 seasons over 100 RBI), and career OPS+ of 147 (vs 120 for Baines)? I don't think so.

Baines wins in longevity but, in every other way, Edgar was the superior player.

Tabe

[Orioles1954]

What is wrong with having very good numbers over a very long period of time? In baseball history, how many players have played at least 20 years like Baines? Look at his comps on baseball reference. There are 5 Hall of Famers including Perez, Kaline and others. With Martinez....there are none.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

What is wrong with having very good numbers over a very long period of time? In baseball history, how many players have played at least 20 years like Baines? Look at his comps on baseball reference. There are 5 Hall of Famers including Perez, Kaline and others. With Martinez....there are none.

Nothing wrong with it. But I think the HOF should be for great players. And if you're a DH, simply putting up "good" numbers year after year doesn't make you great.

Looking at comps on baseball reference just shows you career totals. Does anybody really think Al Kaline and Harold Baines were similar players? I think not. One was an all-time great RF widely considered a top player for nearly his entire career. The other was so poor defensively that he was already DH'ing by age 26 despite having injuries and was never considered an elite player.

The original comment was that Baines was "the most feared hitter in baseball". I was showing that that statement is false. And that Edgar was better - which he was.

Tabe

[rdixon1208]

If a guy's HOF status is widely debated, he probably should not be in or didn't deserve to get in.