HOF Results

[Roland 49]

I show a photo of Tony Oliva, a member of the Cooperstown Hall of Fame since yesterday, I edited that photo, but this one with the bat in both hands and his full signature, congratulations Tony.

[GeoPoto]

Minnie is no longer on deck!

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1638877065

[Mike D.]

One of the things I like about this class is that where some of the players may feel a little light statistically to a purist, those players have significant off-field contributions that add to their case. I know the Hall of Fame doesn't give "lifetime achievement" awards, but it's hard to look at any of these players and feel bad about their total contribution to the game being honored.

Although I've been writing a few articles on the hall of fame lately, and I can say that Kaat's induction does lower the "HOF Standard" based just on his pitching numbers. Last week, the average career WAR of a Hall of Fame starting pitcher was 73.1. Today, it's 73.0.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jingram058

For all the talk about Dick Allen quitting on various teams, hard to get along with, etc., I would be okay with him going in. He must have lost whatever chip he was carrying as time went by. He was known after hanging up the spikes as being quite fan friendly. I used to go to a forum back in the early 2000s that had numerous threads detailing how to contact ballplayers including old-timers. That was how I began a lengthy period of correspondence with Tommy Henrich. Well one of the threads listed info for Dick Allen. Many people commented that he happily signed photos, cards, what have you, and mailed them back. At no cost for signing. That says he must have been an okay guy to me.

He seems to be a complicated guy. He no-showed games in 1969 and walked away from his team in 1974 while feuding with Ron Santo but also clearly had some friends.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

One of the things I like about this class is that where some of the players may feel a little light statistically to a purist, those players have significant off-field contributions that add to their case. I know the Hall of Fame doesn't give "lifetime achievement" awards, but it's hard to look at any of these players and feel bad about their total contribution to the game being honored.

Although I've been writing a few articles on the hall of fame lately, and I can say that Kaat's induction does lower the "HOF Standard" based just on his pitching numbers. Last week, the average career WAR of a Hall of Fame starting pitcher was 73.1. Today, it's 73.0.

If we're going to dip that far into intangibles (which I'm ok with, as long as it's consistent) then Dale Murphy and Mattingly become a different situation too.

The '80s was a great time for baseball, and when people think back fondly about it, who comes to mind more than Murph and Donnie baseball?

If Minoso and Kaat are going to get the extra needed nudge because of their their positive impact on the game (and society) off the field, then why not those two guys as well?

Especially with Murphy, who would've been voted in 20 years ago if he'd hit just two more HRs

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

If we're going to dip that far into intangibles (which I'm ok with, as long as it's consistent) then Dale Murphy and Mattingly become a different situation too.

The '80s was a great time for baseball, and when people think back fondly about it, who comes to mind more than Murph and Donnie baseball?

If Minoso and Kaat are going to get the extra needed nudge because of their their positive impact on the game (and society) off the field, then why not those two guys as well?

Especially with Murphy, who would've been voted in 20 years ago if he'd hit just two more HRs

I’m not against such considerations for more recent players, but I’m not sure “was a really nice guy” (Murphy) of “managed for a while” (Mattingly) quite rise to the level of a Kaat, Minoso, or O’neil’s post-playing-days contributions.

That being said, I expect with more time, if the 80’s are under-represented, these are two guys on the short list of hitters for consideration. BTW, the list of pitchers is longer!

[Bridwell]

I agree that the loyal service to baseball as an announcer, manager, coach, public appearances, etc. seem to be one of the factors being using this year. They weren't looking just at stats that's for sure. These were good players whose stats were a little light but who elevated the public image of the game.

[clydepepper]

This Hall-of-Fame Class just got better:

Congratulations to someone who really loves the game:

TIM KURKJIAN!!





=

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

This Hall-of-Fame Class just got better:

Congratulations to someone who really loves the game:

TIM KURKJIAN!!

Well deserved. Tim is fantastic.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I’m not against such considerations for more recent players, but I’m not sure “was a really nice guy” (Murphy) of “managed for a while” (Mattingly) quite rise to the level of a Kaat, Minoso, or O’neil’s post-playing-days contributions.

That has nothing to do with what I said, nor was it what I meant (when referencing Murphy's or Mattingly's off-the-field contribution to the game).

As mentioned above, it's about their huge cultural impact on the game. Some may not weigh that as much as Kaat's broadcasting emmy awards, but I believe it's just as important for someone's place in baseball history.

[the 'stache]

I don’t believe Jim Kaat was deserving in the slightest. I have nothing against the guy, but I Cooperstown exists to pay tribute to the best players in the game’s history. That’s not Jim Kaat. He’s the living embodiment of the phrase “Hall of Very Good”.

I get that he won almost 300 games (283). But he pitched in 25 different seasons to get that many wins, and honestly, win total, and win-loss record, are terrible methods for evaluating a player’s performance because so many things beyond a pitcher’s control influences a decision (run support, defensive performance, bullpen strength, etc).

ERA+ is a standardized metric that shows how much better or worse a pitcher performed than league average (average being 100). Kaat’s 108 ERA+ was, for his career, only 8% better than league average. And his best individual was only a 131 ERA+.

The man earned Cy Young votes-any votes, at all, in exactly one season, and the award began getting handed out in both leagues in 1967, Kaat’s age 28 season. From the beginning of that 1967 season, Kaat pitched 3,015 more innings, winning 185 more games. He started 406 games, and appeared in 654 in total. And yet the men that covered the game every day, who saw him pitch up close, thought he was worthy of receiving a Cy Young vote exactly one time. That’s not a ringing endorsement, and it’s certainly not indicative of greatness.

Typically, great players will create value at a rate greater than the amount of time they played. What I mean by that is, if you look at a player’s WAR ranking (either among position players or pitchers), and compared that ranking to where they appear on the all time innings pitched, or plate appearances list, the good ones will rank higher in WAR than those other two metrics; at worst, they will be about the same, or very slightly below.

In the 146 year history of Major League Baseball, 24 men have thrown more than Jim Kaat’s 4,530 innings pitched. And yet his 45.2 WAR from pitching ranks only 126th, all-time. For the amount of time he spent on the field, he didn’t generate anywhere near the amount of value for his team that he should have.

By JAWS, which averages career WAR and WAR7 (7 peak seasons), Jim Kaat, again, 25th all-time in innings pitched, ranks 109th in JAWS. He’s the 109th best pitcher in Major League Baseball history. There are now 65 pitchers in Cooperstown, meaning that there are 43 pitchers with a more compelling resume than Jim Kaat, not in the Hall of Fame.

And the whole “he won 16 Gold Gloves” narrative is not as impactful as many would have us believe. Yes, he was a good fielder. But fielding is such a small part of a pitcher’s responsibilities. Kaat threw 4,530 and 1/3 innings in 25 seasons. He handled 1,062 chances in his career. He made 262 putouts, and had 744 assists. He made a putout once every 17.3 innings pitched, and an assist every 6.1 innings. Again, not really statistically significant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the 'stache]

I think Tony Oliva was a much more deserving player than Kaat. He didn’t have the counting numbers a lot of voters look for, as injuries derailed his career, but Oliva, unlike Kaat, was an elite player. Tony Oliva was MVP runner up twice, finished 4th another time, 6th yet another, and had a 10th place finish. He had three other top 20 finishes. Oliva win three batting titles, led his league in runs once, in hits five times, doubles four times, SLG, total bases, sac flies and intentional base on balls once each.

And he wax a strong defensive outfielder, with +56 Rtot in his career, and an average of +6 per 1,200 defensive innings. He won only one Gold Glove, but I think that’s more the product of his playing right field in the American League at the same time Al Kaline did. There were only three Gold Gloves handed out in each league for the outfield, and Oliva was up against Kaline, Carl Yastrzemski and Paul Blair. Those guys were going to be awfully tough to beat out.

As a rule of thumb, I’d much rather honor great players who had shorter careers than those who played for a really long time, but never really achieving greatness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

Like you, my father was a big Brooklyn Dodgers fan. He grew up in Brooklyn. I remember him talking about Gil Hodges. I have recollections that Gil lived in the neighbourhood.

Between his playing days and managing the Miracle Mets, his membership was long overdue. I'm glad he's been recognised by the Committee.

Way overdue on Hodges - Over the years - I can remember having conversations many times as to why he hadn't been inducted a long time ago.

Being originally from KC - Buck has had a tremendous career and vary large fan base for a long time.

BTW - If you ever get a chance - The Negro League Baseball Hall of Fame at 18th and Vine is an incredible way to spend a day.

[Mike D.]

BTW - If you ever get a chance - The Negro League Baseball Hall of Fame at 18th and Vine is an incredible way to spend a day.

Just wanted to second this recommendation! I’ve been there a couple times over the years and it really is a great museum.

[cammb]

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]

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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

And the whole “he won 16 Gold Gloves” narrative is not as impactful as many would have us believe. Yes, he was a good fielder.

He wasn't even that good of a fielder. Career .947 fielding percentage. I randomly looked at Greg Maddux, Steve Carlton, Bob Gibson, and Robin Roberts - literally just four guys who pitched a long time - and all of them had a higher fielding % than Kaat. Yeah, fielding % is not a great indicator for defensive prowess but it's better than nothing.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

That has nothing to do with what I said, nor was it what I meant (when referencing Murphy's or Mattingly's off-the-field contribution to the game).

As mentioned above, it's about their huge cultural impact on the game. Some may not weigh that as much as Kaat's broadcasting emmy awards, but I believe it's just as important for someone's place in baseball history.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I think you’re basically referencing the “fame” part of hall of fame.

And I think that does help a case, if they are famous for being one of the best players of “some period of time”, an MVP, big playoff performer, etc.

I think you need to have numbers at or near the HOF standard, but fame can put a borderline candidate over the top.

[Mike D.]

I just had an article on the Golden Days Era ballot get published at Cardlines.com if anyone is interested: https://www.cardlines.com/golden-day...f-famer-cards/

[cammb]

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]

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]

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