OT: Who should be in the Hall that isn't

[K-Nole]

After doing a little research on a player I bought a card of and not knowing much about it, I found that, Frederick "Cy" Williams, should be in the HOF IMO.

The Williams Shift, in which defensive players moved to the right side of the playing field, is often associated with Ted Williams, but it was actually first employed against Cy Williams during the 1920s.

He was a 4X NL Home Run Champion.
He was the first NL player to break the 200 HR mark.
He was one of only 3 players, born before 1900 to hit more than 200HRs, with the other two being Babe Ruth and Rogers Hornsby.

Just my opinion, but I think he should have been voted in years ago.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by K-Nole

After doing a little research on a player I bought a card of and not knowing much about it, I found that, Frederick "Cy" Williams, should be in the HOF IMO.

The Williams Shift, in which defensive players moved to the right side of the playing field, is often associated with Ted Williams, but it was actually first employed against Cy Williams during the 1920s.

He was a 4X NL Home Run Champion.
He was the first NL player to break the 200 HR mark.
He was one of only 3 players, born before 1900 to hit more than 200HRs, with the other two being Babe Ruth and Rogers Hornsby.

Just my opinion, but I think he should have been voted in years ago.

You should look up the Baker Bowl where he played - tiny - inflated stats

[Peter_Spaeth]

To me a HOFer is like the Supreme Court definition of obscenity -- you know one when you see one and they usually get elected on the first ballot. Jeter and Rivera, absolutely. Dick Allen? No. Al Oliver? No.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by K-Nole

After doing a little research on a player I bought a card of and not knowing much about it, I found that, Frederick "Cy" Williams, should be in the HOF IMO.

The Williams Shift, in which defensive players moved to the right side of the playing field, is often associated with Ted Williams, but it was actually first employed against Cy Williams during the 1920s.

He was a 4X NL Home Run Champion.
He was the first NL player to break the 200 HR mark.
He was one of only 3 players, born before 1900 to hit more than 200HRs, with the other two being Babe Ruth and Rogers Hornsby.

Just my opinion, but I think he should have been voted in years ago.

I just looked it up to satisfy my own curiosity:

Right Field Wall was 280 feet from home ; the 'power' alley in right-center was only 300 feet.

And, yes, Cy Williams was left-handed

So this was the 1920's version of a left-handed slugger in Yankee Stadium (310 feet- in right or 20 feet short of the norm)

[barrysloate]

I think the HOF already has too many members, with lots of marginal players that probably don't belong. Therefore, I'm against admitting any more borderline players into the Hall. It should be limited to the exceptional ballplayer who had a stellar career, and not the very good one who put up some decent numbers.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me a HOFer is like the Supreme Court definition of obscenity -- you know one when you see one and they usually get elected on the first ballot. Jeter and Rivera, absolutely. Dick Allen? No. Al Oliver? No.

What makes Derek Jeter so much better than Allen? Derek Jeter has been a great player, I don't deny that. But he's never been the best player in baseball. I would argue that he's never been the best shortstop in baseball, either.

You also have to look at what he's accomplished offensively in the context of the era in which he's played. Allen destroyed pitchers in an era where pitchers dominated the game. Jeter has racked up the hits in an era favoring hitters. How many expansion teams were added while Jeter was a player? The Rockies and Marlins came in two years before his career started. The Dbacks and Rays joined in 1998. That's a lot of pitchers that wouldn't have been in the Majors if not for the expansion teams. If you look at the offensive explosion that took place during Jeter's career, his numbers aren't nearly as impressive as the ones Allen put up.

Just my opinion, but I have to disagree with ya, Peter.

Originally Posted by clydepepper

You should look up the Baker Bowl where he played - tiny - inflated stats

Ah, the Baker Bowl. Also known as "the reason Chuck Klein is in the Hall of Fame".

In his first 5.5 years with the Phillies, Klein his .359 with 699 runs scored, 1,209 hits, 246 doubles, 191 home runs, 727 RBI, and a ridiculous slash line of .412/.632/1.044. In 1930, he hit .386 with 158 runs scored, 250 hits, 59 doubles, 9 triples, 40 home runs, 170 RBI and 445 total bases. He averaged 239 hits every 162 games.

[Peter_Spaeth]

3400 hits, for one thing. Meaningless in the context of the era he played in, right? I don't think so.

And let's compare some meaningless baseball reference HOF numbers which are, I believe, adjusted for era.

Jeter
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 334 (11), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 67 (19), Average HOFer ≈ 50

Allen
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 99 (163), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 39 (178), Average HOFer ≈ 50

[Peter_Spaeth]

Bill, I have a challenge for you. I bet you could come up with some stats to show that Willie Stargell (classic victim of 60s suppressed stats, no?) was better than Joe DiMaggio.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill, I have a challenge for you. I bet you could come up with some stats to show that Willie Stargell (classic victim of 60s suppressed stats, no?) was better than Joe DiMaggio.

Willie was better than Joe D...in 1979. But then again, Joe D was hawking Mr. Coffee coffee makers. Notice I didn't say he was 65? I bet Joe D still could have hit .275 at that age (and with the right corrective lenses).

[clydepepper]

Luis Tiant & Minnie Minoso
- let's honor these guys while they are still alive.

Don't treat them like Santo.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Willie was better than Joe D...in 1979. But then again, Joe D was hawking Mr. Coffee coffee makers. Notice I didn't say he was 65? I bet Joe D still could have hit .275 at that age (and with the right corrective lenses).

LOL. By the way I think your post about Braun was too condensed -- could you please spell out your arguments in a little more detail? I thought your post about Mattingly was also somewhat truncated.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Willie was better than Joe D...in 1979. But then again, Joe D was hawking Mr. Coffee coffee makers. Notice I didn't say he was 65? I bet Joe D still could have hit .275 at that age (and with the right corrective lenses).

That's like an anecdote attributed to Cobb. Someone in the 1950's allegedly asked him what he thought he would hit if he were playing today. He said around .270. The questioner expressed surprise, and asked him to explain. He said, well I am 70 years old.

[packs]

How can you say Dick Allen is more deserving than Derek Jeter? Jeter plays a premium position and has outlasted everyone who would have claimed a spot ahead of him as best shortstop in the league. A-rod was a cheater and Nomar flamed out. Jeter is above and beyond the premier shortstop of his time and I don't even like him.

[Kenny Cole]

IMO Allen's biggest problem as a HOF candidate is that he was viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a clubhouse cancer throughout a large part of his career. His offensive numbers in the context of his time are pretty solid but he doesn't seem to be able to shake the reputation thing.

[sycks22]

Jack Morris
Tony Oliva
Pete Rose

We'll keep it simple

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

IMO Allen's biggest problem as a HOF candidate is that he was viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a clubhouse cancer throughout a large part of his career. His offensive numbers in the context of his time are pretty solid but he doesn't seem to be able to shake the reputation thing.

I compare Dick Allen with Albert Belle - very, very similar

Great Hitters but poor Teammates.

[VoodooChild]

My personal opinion is that there are not enough players in the HOF. I know I'm in the minority, but my own test is that if a player dominated for 5 or so years and was considered one of he best handful of baseball players on the planet, then he deserves to be enshrined. It shouldn't just be for players that were "lucky" enough to play for 20 years and reached some random statistical milestones.

Eddie Murray was a great player and deserves to be in based on his total career. But, his most dominant 4 or 5 year stretch was on par with the likes of Maris, Dick Allen, Dale Murphy, and Mattingly. All of them even won MVP's unlike Murray. Murray played 21 years ('77 - '97) and compiled the numbers, but his last "dominant" season was 1985 after which he never led the league in any major stat.

To me, it's the "Hall of FAME", not the "Hall of lucky enough to stay healthy and play 20 years". I equate fame with dominance, and in my opinion players who dominated the game for half a decade are considered famous which includes the likes Dave Parker and Greg Luzinski as well.

The HOF is really just a baseball museum. Maybe it should be split into Tiers. For those of you who believe only guys with long, great, careers that amassed the magical numbers should be in, well then you can just visit the "Top Tier" part of the museum. But for guys like me who don't want to forget the players who dominated the game for a shorter time, well then we can spend our time in the lesser Tiers.

For the PED guys: They should be part of the museum. Sticking with my "Tier" idea, I guess they'd be considered the bottom tier. Maybe they can have the basement.

[packs]

Haha that's a novel idea. This way to the Mark McGwire bathroom. Please exit the museum through the Barry Bonds side door.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by VoodooChild

My personal opinion is that there are not enough players in the HOF. I know I'm in the minority, but my own test is that if a player dominated for 5 or so years and was considered one of he best handful of baseball players on the planet, then he deserves to be enshrined. It shouldn't just be for players that were "lucky" enough to play for 20 years and reached some random statistical milestones.

Eddie Murray was a great player and deserves to be in based on his total career. But, his most dominant 4 or 5 year stretch was on par with the likes of Maris, Dick Allen, Dale Murphy, and Mattingly. All of them even won MVP's unlike Murray. Murray played 21 years ('77 - '97) and compiled the numbers, but his last "dominant" season was 1985 after which he never led the league in any major stat.

To me, it's the "Hall of FAME", not the "Hall of lucky enough to stay healthy and play 20 years". I equate fame with dominance, and in my opinion players who dominated the game for half a decade are considered famous which includes the likes Dave Parker and Greg Luzinski as well.

Using your logic, Johan Santana is a HOFer. Being great is a combination of talent and consistency. Santana was great, but not deserving of Cooperstown.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Galarraga for the Hall! He had a great 5 year stretch, after all. And 399 HR.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

I just looked it up to satisfy my own curiosity:

Right Field Wall was 280 feet from home ; the 'power' alley in right-center was only 300 feet.

And, yes, Cy Williams was left-handed

So this was the 1920's version of a left-handed slugger in Yankee Stadium (310 feet- in right or 20 feet short of the norm)

More like Coors Field. Yankee Stadium doesn't have near the effect on stats as the Baker Bowl did and Coors Field has now. The Baker Bowl made poor hitters seem good and good hitters seem great. I don't know if Chuck Klein was a great hitter or not but he batted over .400 at home three straight years in the 1930s while batting under .300 on the road each season and with considerably less power.