Best Player not in the Hall of Fame?

[tearforamariner]

Excluding active players and players with a lifetime ban from Cooperstown, who is the best player not in the Hall?

[Kroxquo]

No question in my mind - Ron Santo.

[TheSlaff]

Maybe you could include...

Tony Oliva
Maury Wills
Luis Tiant
Dick Allen
Ron Santo
Jim Kaat

...on your poll?

[BoSox Rule]

Jime Rice

[Hammerin Hank]

SANTO

[Freakshow]

Among eligible players not enshrined, the best is Ryne Sandberg, who should've been a first-ballot pick in the last BBWAA election.

He is followed by Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven.

[BoSox Rule]

No way is Ron Santo better than Jim Rice.

[Hammerin Hank]

Maybe not, but I'm bleeding Cubbie blue and if I don't say it's Santo then I'm going with Sandberg!

[cubbieinexile]

Originally posted by BoSox Rule
No way is Ron Santo better than Jim Rice.

Okay I understand it is opinion and all but how is it "no way"?

Jim Rice was an average fielding Left Fielder/Designated Hitter who played in a park designed to maximize the stats of power hitting right handed hitters.

Ron Santo was a great fielding third basemen playing in the greatest pitchers era in post-1920 baseball.

Santo played the harder position, heck he played a position, in a harder league (no DH, means less at bats, which means less runs, which means less gaudy stat lines), and in a harder era.

Again how is it no way?

[Captain Cold Nose]

I was a big Jim Rice fan when he was a player.

I would like to see him the Hall of Fame. He was a fine player.

But taking everything into consideration, Santo and Sandberg are the most deserving not currently in. It's not a landslide by any means, but those are my top two.

[Hammerin Hank]

The Cubbie curse goes beyond the World Series, eh?

[kdog]

other-peetie boy. i had to do it. gamble shmamble he should be in.

[Hammerin Hank]

The criteria of the poll excludes players with a lifetime ban.

[kdog]

so i guess i can't go with joe jackson (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=jacksjo01) as my next choice. then i guess i would have to say canseco. maybe the best all around player to wear a uniform. wait a minute, are steroid junkies out of the poll also? i'll say rickey. hold on, he is still playing, sort of. ok ok. Santo it is.

[Hammerin Hank]

Hey TFAM, how about including Santo and Sandberg? They'd obviously garner the majority of the votes.

[Baseball Guru]

Agreed about Santo as you also have to keep in mind the posistion and the quality of players that have played that position...
Santo is in the top 75 alltime in RBI's, walks and HR's..

Not many 3B that have as many RBI's and HR's as this man...

As for Rice, he has good career #'s but for an OF'er they are not Hall worthy at least IMO..

If you put him in, you open the door for guys like Ellis Burks and maybe even Dale Murphy to an extent...

If you have no problem with Burks or Murph being in then I guess it's ok to have Rice in there....

I have said it before and I'll say it again, I believe that Bob Caruthers should be in the Hall....

[MasonDixon]

Ron Santo definitely has my vote.

[Etheridge2]

This is coming from a Cards fan
I say
1. Sandberg (I do believe he'll be in in the next 3-4 years)
2. Santo
3. Morris
4. Sutter

[The Commissioner]

While others such as Snato and Sandberg that are way up there as well, I've still got to stick with Gil Hodges.

[Hammerin Hank]

Why is Hodges better than Santo and Sandberg in your opinion?

[The Commissioner]

Actually, if pressed, I would probably have to give in and rank Sandberg ahead of Hodges. I just feel like it was such an oversight that he wasn't elected that he is going to get in the next few years anyway. I guess I consider him to already BE a Hall of Famer and so not fair to count.

As for Santo, he's about equal to Hodges. Santo was a better player in comparison to other third basemen than Hodges may have been in comparison to other first basemen, but Hodges was the better player overall. That just gives him a slight edge in my mind.

[Kroxquo]

I'm just curious about something regarding this poll. Has anyone, anywhere EVER seriously put forward Willie Davis as a Hall of Famer?

[yellowdog]

My vote would be between Jim Rice and Dale Murphy.

[Baseball Guru]

Out of curiousity, what do you guys think about Andre Dawson??

Good alltime career #'s:

8 time allstar
Rookie of the Year
MVP
Gold Glove'er most of the 80's
78th alltime in runs
42nd alltime in hits
23rd alltime in total bases
38th alltime in doubles
29th alltime in homeruns
27th alltime in RBI's
21st alltime in extra base hits
81st alltime in times on base

His resume is pretty impressive...

[Baseball Guru]

Originally posted by Kroxquo
I'm just curious about something regarding this poll. Has anyone, anywhere EVER seriously put forward Willie Davis as a Hall of Famer?


Definitely NOT a HOF'er IMO...

[Brad Harris]

Best Pitcher who's eligible: Bert Blyleven

Best Hitter who's eligible: Dick Allen

Best Overall:....

I've gotta give it to Ron Santo, who had the fabulous defense (and no distracting "personality" issues nagging his candidacy). It's shameful he didn't receive greater support this year.

[Etheridge2]

Originally posted by Baseball Guru
Out of curiousity, what do you guys think about Andre Dawson??

Good alltime career #'s:

8 time allstar
Rookie of the Year
MVP
Gold Glove'er most of the 80's
78th alltime in runs
42nd alltime in hits
23rd alltime in total bases
38th alltime in doubles
29th alltime in homeruns
27th alltime in RBI's
21st alltime in extra base hits
81st alltime in times on base

His resume is pretty impressive...

Dawson would be on my list as well maybe #5 that would mean 4 of my top 5 most deserving but not in are former Cubs...maybe there is an anticub bias in Cooperstown???Odd they are so popular too??

[cubbieinexile]

This is a piece I wrote about Dawson over in the Cubs section a little time ago:

Personally I don't think he should go to the hall of fame but I don't have a vote. So my opinion really doesn't matter.

Since this is a Cubs section and most of us are Cub fans and a little bias to our Cubbies. I believe though that when you talk about national awards such as MVP, Cy Young, or HOF you should put your local favoritism aside and look at it with open eyes. Having said this and knowing what I am going to say next. Let me state that I loved watching Dawson play and was glad he was on our team.

Dawson was a good player not a great player. In fact I believe his best seasons were with the expos not with the Cubs. If you look at his 1987 MVP seasons it isn't all that great. In fact he had better season with the expos then that year. The reason he won the award is because he led the league in HR and RBI's two stats that voters love, even though those two stats might not be the best indicators of importance. That year he crushed 49 HR's (which is a mind-boggling number back then in the 80's) but only slugged .568 and had an on-base percentage of .329. He couldn't even get on-base a third of the time (also his career OBP is .327). In fact he isn't even in the top five in slugging that year.

Let’s look at the traditional stats that most people look at when evaluating players. He only top 100 RBI's 4 times in his 21 seasons. He only tops 100 runs twice. He only hits 30 or more HR's three times. In fact he only averaged 21 hrs a season. He only hits over .300 4 times. True he did bat .299 one year, but to credit that then you have to discount the years he batted .301 and .302. He never topped 200 hits, he topped 180 twice. Andre did have a stretch of seven seasons where he did top 20 SB's. Everybody likes to look at his low home run total and say "well he played in a different era. Players didn't hit as many HR's. You have to factor that in." And they are right in saying that. Unfortunately they don't factor his era in when looking at his SB's. Andre played in an era where it was common for the SB leaders to have 60, 70, 80, 90, or even over 100 SB's in a season. In fact Andre was never in the top 5 in SB's any of those 7 years. In fact he was only slightly above average in SB's those years. To me just looking at the traditional stats reveals nothing truly great about Dawson.

Looking at the non-traditional stats like OBP, Slugging, and BB/K ration reveals even further that Dawson doesn't deserve to go into the hall. From what I understand .500 Slugging is the benchmark for above average hitter. Dawson’s career avg is .482, he only tops .500 4 times. His career OBP is .327 he only has 2 seasons above .350. His career BB/K is close to 1/3. This means for every walk he takes, he strikes out three times.


To me Dawson’s numbers look good or I should say better than they really are because he played long after he should have retired. I personally think he should have retired after the 1990 season. Yeah the next season he hit 31 homers but that was basically all he did. He hung around for six more seasons basically as a spare part or being a name. You take away those six years of padding and he would lose 93 homers and something like 370 RBI's. Granted if you like we can subtract his 91 from that list and say he should of retire after 91 not 90 but still he would padding. Dawson in my view was an all or nothing guy. He would either hit one over the wall, off the wall, into a mitt, or strike out. He was not a complete hitter and it shows in his stats much more than in the retelling of his legend.


Basically this is what I believe to be true. Andre Dawson was a great Cub Player because of his leadership and his persona. He was not however a great Major League Ballplayer worthy of the HOF. A good ballplayer yes, a great one no.

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by Kroxquo
I'm just curious about something regarding this poll. Has anyone, anywhere EVER seriously put forward Willie Davis as a Hall of Famer?

No, but perhaps he should have garnered more consideration over the years. Don't get me wrong, I'm not seriously advocating him for the Hall, nor would he garner my vote. However, he does have some pretty impressive career totals.

[ADunn44]

I've gotta give it to Ron Santo, who had the fabulous defense (and no distracting "personality" issues nagging his candidacy). It's shameful he didn't receive greater support this year.


OTHER




Rose is better than any of the players not in the HOF

Pete's sentence is up, he should be in there before anyone else

[jared]

the ryno:laugh

[J W]

You know me and third baseman... I have to pick Ron Santo. I also think Ken Boyer is a Hall of Famer. Seems like such a mess at the hot corner.

Then, though, there is this new bias against second baseman. I thought Sandberg would be a second year electee and I was being cautious about it. Now it looks like it will take a few more years even for him.

Santo first, then Sandberg, atop my list.

If I felt inclined to include the previously discussed Rose, I'd likely put him first and Joe Jackson second, followed by Santo and Sandberg.

[The Commissioner]

I'm not saying that Santo would be a bad choice at #1, but I am curious as to why he seems to be garnering vastly more support than Hodges? Is it simply due to how he compares to other third basemen as opposed to how Hodges compares to other first basemen?

[Hooch]

Sandberg should be the next man! Ask anyone, ANYONE who the best 2nd Baseman is and you should expect to hear "Ryno" as the answer. Fix this injustice, vote Ryne Sandberg!

Now, as for Rose... Great hitter! Good coach and fielder! Hall of Famer? No. Hall of Fame Numbers? Yes. The man gambled on the game. He definately made an impact on his sport. Did he bet for his own team, or against it? It is still uncertain. The Hall is about the numbers, but it is also about the person.

You bet against the game you play, you're out! No bones about it! Thems the rules!

:gt

[cubbieinexile]

I seriously doubt that if you ask anyone the majority of the time the answer will be Ryne Sandberg.

Eddie Collins, Rogers Hornsby, and Joe Morgan would probably get more votes than Ryne.

In fact according to a poll done on this site Sandberg didn't even get a vote for greatest NL second basemen. Hornsby got 15 votes, Joe got two, and Jackie got two. Nobody else got a vote.

[Hooch]

Good argument. Hornsby is definately a great one. Sorry, I had forgotten about him. I am still young and really only remember the boys from the 80's on. But, I still feel Ryne should be in the Hall and it is a crime that he isn't (ok, a little over-dramatic). But he should be in. There have been a lot of great Cubbies and I feel that Ryne is in that crowd.

[serumgard]

Has anybody here noticed the bias against players from the '80s going into the Hall of Fame. Ryne Sandberg, Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy, even Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker, were at the top of the game in the 1980s, but because the voters today are looking at numbers players are putting up today, the players from the '80s' numbers aren't holding up. Quite frankly, just based on what they did in their time, all 5 of these guys should be in there.

[earlywynnfan]

SANTO, followed by minoso (check the guy out!) also, i would elect sandberg, trammell, and vern stephens. and i'd give bob grich another look! He may not be quite at HOF material, but he doesn't deserve to be ignored.

[tibber]

how about ted simmons? i believe he's got the 2nd most hits all time by a catcher, and has a better batting average than johnny bench, gary carter and carlton fisk. also, dave concepcion's numbers are right up there with ozzie smith's, offensively and defensively.

[tearforamariner]

Originally posted by tibber
how about ted simmons? i believe he's got the 2nd most hits all time by a catcher, and has a better batting average than johnny bench, gary carter and carlton fisk. also, dave concepcion's numbers are right up there with ozzie smith's, offensively and defensively.

Simmons has more career hits than any catcher in the Hall of Fame, save for possibly Josh Gibson.

[Brad Harris]

Hodges vs. Santo

Santo has better career numbers in almost every offensive category save home runs (net difference of 28) and slugging percentage (net difference of .023). And yet, Santo achieved his career totals in 15 seasons, compared to Hodges 18 seasons in the bigs.

So Santo's career batting totals are more impressive than Hodges for the following reasons:

(1) It took Santo less time to do it
(2) Santo played third (a less-offensive oriented position), not first
(3) Santo played primarily in the '60s, not the '50s (when offense was scarcer)

Making a park adjustment for their careers (ie. the advantages of Wrigley Field versus Ebbetts Field), Santo still looks better with a career OPS+ of 125 over Hodges' 120 OPS+ mark.

Runs Created points towards the same thing: Santo's 1358 was 253 RC better than the average hitter and 200 better than the average hitter at third base. Hodges, on the other hand, had 1250 RC and was 210 better than the average hitter and 105 better than the average hitter at first.

Take into account their defense - where Santo further outshines Hodges - and I don't see how you could rank Hodges ahead of Santo without some kind of extemporaneous factor.

Santo's teams never won a World Championship, but Hodges was only a member of one such team. Both players were among the best players on their respective teams. Santo was probably a little more valuable to the Cubs than Hodges was to the Dodgers.

Hodges was an 8-time all-star and finished in the top 10 in MVP voting 3 times. Santo, however, was a 9-time all-star with 4 top ten MVP finishes; furthermore, 2 of Santo's finishes were in the top 5 while Hodges never placed higher than 7th in the voting.

In the black ink, gray ink, hall of fame standards and hall of fame monitor "tests" Santo scores better than Hodges without exception.

Using "similarity scores", no hitter is truly similar to Santo (though Dale Murphy comes closest). Hodges, on the other hand is very, very similar to Norm Cash (his best comp) and George Foster right afterwards. Now...a lot of people think that Cash and Foster were fine players, but they don't garner near the support that Hodges does for the Hall...I'd say that has a lot to do with being from Detroit/Cincinnati where Hodges was a member of the oft-celebrated "Boys of Summer."

In measurements of overall value (using both James' win shares and Palmer's linear weights) Santo comes out on top.

Using a relativistic measurement (i.e. there being "only" 9 third basemen currently in the Hall, compared to practically double that number of first basemen), then Santo would seem "more deserving" on that basis.

Any way you slice it, Santo was a better hitter, a better fielder and played a more difficult position, achieving more in less time.

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that Hodges ought to seriously be considered the better candidate.

[earlywynnfan]

too bad ted simmons was a defensive liability! If you want to compare Concepcion to Ozzie, I am going to throw in Vizquel. I don't want to take anything away from Oz, he was a tremendous defensive player, but I really think his flashiness and personality got him elected so quickly.

[Appling]

Actually PETE ROSE is the best player not in the Hall of Fame.

But of those ELIGIBLE, I suggest the following:
1. Bert Blylevin
2. Ron Santo
3. Tony Oliva

[Mantle7]

I think 4 players who should get elected are:


4) Ron Guidry

Ron Guidry went 25-3 with a 1.74 in '78 and was the Yankees top ace through the '70s and '80s. Even though he played only 14 years, he started at the age of 25. If he started around the age of 20, he could have had over 200 wins and over 2,500 strikeouts. He has won 2 World Series championships, 1,778 strikeouts, and had a winning percentage .630 or more for seven straight seasons (1977-1983).

3) Jim Kaat

Played 25 years for 6 different teams, Jim Kaat has totaled 2,461 K's, 283 wins, and a 3.45 career ERA. Kaat, playing most of his career in Minnesota, won 16 Gold Glove Awards, the most by a pitcher. His only flaw was losing 237 games. He did make 2 World Series appearances, winning one with the Cardinals in '83.

2) Don Mattingly

The greatest Yankee in the dark years of the franchise, from 1983-1995. Donnie Baseball played for 14 years, striking out only 444 times, accumilating 2,153 hits, and 222 homers. Before his back pains took him into retirement, at 1st he has 9 Gold Gloves, 1 MVP award, and 6 All-Star appearances. Some of Don's numbers surpass of Hall-of-Famer Kirby Puckett, but there is one thing Don doesn't have:
!!!!!!!!!!A WORLD SERIES!!!!!!!!!!

1) PETE ROSE

Possibly the greatest player of all-time, Pete Rose revolutionized the way of playing the game. Charlie Hustle played for 24 years and has the most hits ever. I don't care what people say. The most hits is the most precious record in all of sports. His ban leaves a scar in his baseball career. But enough is enough. The man has payed his price, he is after all on the All-Century roster. The baseball chiefs should let him back in. Plus, he didn't bet as a player, he bet as a COACH. Its time for them to grow up.

[tearforamariner]

Originally posted by Mantle7
I think 4 players who should get elected are:


4) Ron Guidry

Ron Guidry went 25-3 with a 1.74 in '78 and was the Yankees top ace through the '70s and '80s. Even though he played only 14 years, he started at the age of 25. If he started around the age of 20, he could have had over 200 wins and over 2,500 strikeouts. He has won 2 World Series championships, 1,778 strikeouts, and had a winning percentage .630 or more for seven straight seasons (1977-1983).

3) Jim Kaat

Played 25 years for 6 different teams, Jim Kaat has totaled 2,461 K's, 283 wins, and a 3.45 career ERA. Kaat, playing most of his career in Minnesota, won 16 Gold Glove Awards, the most by a pitcher. His only flaw was losing 237 games. He did make 2 World Series appearances, winning one with the Cardinals in '83.

2) Don Mattingly

The greatest Yankee in the dark years of the franchise, from 1983-1995. Donnie Baseball played for 14 years, striking out only 444 times, accumilating 2,153 hits, and 222 homers. Before his back pains took him into retirement, at 1st he has 9 Gold Gloves, 1 MVP award, and 6 All-Star appearances. Some of Don's numbers surpass of Hall-of-Famer Kirby Puckett, but there is one thing Don doesn't have:
!!!!!!!!!!A WORLD SERIES!!!!!!!!!!

1) PETE ROSE

Possibly the greatest player of all-time, Pete Rose revolutionized the way of playing the game. Charlie Hustle played for 24 years and has the most hits ever. I don't care what people say. The most hits is the most precious record in all of sports. His ban leaves a scar in his baseball career. But enough is enough. The man has payed his price, he is after all on the All-Century roster. The baseball chiefs should let him back in. Plus, he didn't bet as a player, he bet as a COACH. Its time for them to grow up.

I don't disagree with all that you've said, however I was wondering what numbers eaxctly does Don surpass Puckett in? Doubles and Home runs? Besides, you're comparing players of two different positions. Now, if you were to compare him to say, George Kelly, you might have something there.

As for Rose, I wouldn't call the hits record "the most precious record in all of sports" or Rose "the greatest player of all-time". I would also like you to explain how he "revolutionized the way of playing the game". I agree that Rose should be in the Hall however.

[Etheridge2]

Another things with Mattingly and Puckett is this

Mattingly's career was 14 (12 full) years Puckett's was 12

If I were to rate each year of their careers 1-10

I would rank Mattingly on the 12 full years as follows
10-10-10-10-8-9-4-5-6-6-5-4-4=91
Puckett i would rank at basically the following
8-8-9-9-10-7-8-8-8-8-8-8=99

Pucket wasn't as good as Mattingly at their best but at their worst he was significantly better..

also Puckett was forced into retirement by a disease Mattingly retired because of a bad back and rigth or wrong people look at that as more a conditioning thing where as Puckett could have been the most well conditioned athlete ever and he still would have had to retire because of the Glaucoma

[Mantle7]

Originally posted by tearforamariner
I don't disagree with all that you've said, however I was wondering what numbers eaxctly does Don surpass Puckett in? Doubles and Home runs? Besides, you're comparing players of two different positions. Now, if you were to compare him to say, George Kelly, you might have something there.

As for Rose, I wouldn't call the hits record "the most precious record in all of sports" or Rose "the greatest player of all-time". I would also like you to explain how he "revolutionized the way of playing the game". I agree that Rose should be in the Hall however.

I will:

Pete Rose revolutionized the way of playing the game by hustling on every ball he hit, and on every ball that was hit to him. Plus, he had more than 200 hits for 7 years I believe. I mean by "revolutionizing" changing the game. He made baseball even greater. Come on, Pete is probably the greatest ever. 4,000+ hits! You gotta be kidding me.
This guy would be your best friend off the field, but when he comes on the field, he not your friend anymore. He's the guy you'll do anything to beat. Remember that All-Star game where he barreled into Ray Fosse at home plate. That's only the All-Star game and he played as if it were the World Series. And it is the most precious record because how many players do you know have over 4,000 hits? 2, Ty Cobb and Pete Rose. The home run record is also precious, but it is more reachable than the hit record. I mean Barry Bonds is capable of breaking the home run record.

[Mantle7]

Originally posted by Etheridge2
Another things with Mattingly and Puckett is this

Mattingly's career was 14 (12 full) years Puckett's was 12

If I were to rate each year of their careers 1-10

I would rank Mattingly on the 12 full years as follows
10-10-10-10-8-9-4-5-6-6-5-4-4=91
Puckett i would rank at basically the following
8-8-9-9-10-7-8-8-8-8-8-8=99

Pucket wasn't as good as Mattingly at their best but at their worst he was significantly better..

also Puckett was forced into retirement by a disease Mattingly retired because of a bad back and rigth or wrong people look at that as more a conditioning thing where as Puckett could have been the most well conditioned athlete ever and he still would have had to retire because of the Glaucoma

You're forgetting something: Don played a hundred times harder than Kirby Puckett. Also Don had to do good otherwise the Yankees would have had gone into last place. They finished the way they did because of him. Mattingly would have done anything to even get into the World Series.

[The Commissioner]

Chancellor, I have to take several issues with your Hodges vs. Santo comparison.

First of all you say that Hodges played more time (18 years to 15 by Santo). While that's techinically true, it is highly misleading. Yes, Hodges had more years of ML service under his belt, but his stats were also accumulated with far fewer at bats. He had nearly 1300 less plate appearances over the course of his career to accumulate those totals in. That means that over the course of their careers Santo came up to the plate almost 16% more than Hodges did. Yet even with that advantage, Hodges still has more career HRs and trails Santo by only 23 runs scored, 333 hits, and 57 runs batted in.

Secondly, you point out that Santo's batting totals are more impressive becasue he played third base instead of first. While I have no argument that perhaps his totals are more impressive in comparison to other third basemen than Hodges' are in comparison to other first baseman, where he played on the field has no direct correlation to the numbers he acquired at the plate. You can weigh the overall value of his career totals due to his fielding position, but you can't weigh the individual offensive numbers in and of themselves due to that. (I'm not sure how well I am articulating the point I am trying to make here? )

As for the eras that they played in, yes perhaps Santo's era was not as as offensive an era as Hodges, but when you compare their dominance during their own eras, their totals are quite similar. Yes, during Santo's era slugging average was down 21 points from Hodges' era. Still, Hodges' slugging average was 23 points above Santo's. Santo has to get the nod for batting average and OBP, though, because he is 28 points higher than the league average in OBP as compared to only 14 points higher than Hodges. In BA, Santo is 9 points higher than the league average while Hodges is right at the league average. None of these figures mentioned, though, strike me as being that significant of a difference. While I agree that the '60s were definitely less of a hitter's era than the '50s were, it wasn't as much of a huge, gaping, cavernous schism as many people believe it to be. Certainly not enough to completely skew all the numbers and totals that significantly in favor of all '60s players. When you look at Santo's and Hodges' offensive totals overall they are quite similar.

While it is true that Hodges only helped his team to win two more World Championship than Santo did (you forgot about the '59 Dodgers) , you neglected to mention that he also helped them to secure seven more pennants than Santo did with the Cubs.

As for fielding, I'm not sure how you can say that Santo was the better fielder? Santo was certainly a great fielder. There are no arguments on that account. However, he was probably not even the best of his own era. Brooks Robinson and perhaps Ken Boyer would be considered ahead of him. Hodges was far and away the best fielding first baseman of his time, and is considered by many to be one of the best ever at his poistion.

Once again, I reiterate, I am not trying to say here that Hodges is head and shoulders above Santo in a "who's more worthy of the Hall debate". My persoanl preference would lie with Hodges, although I can definitely see the many cogent arguments favoring Santo. However, at the same time, I also still fail to see why Santo is so often times regarded as being so far above Hodges in this debate?

[YankeeMan]

I voted "other:"

Thurman Lee Munson, C -- New York Yankees

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally posted by Mantle7
You're forgetting something: Don played a hundred times harder than Kirby Puckett. Also Don had to do good otherwise the Yankees would have had gone into last place. They finished the way they did because of him. Mattingly would have done anything to even get into the World Series.

Etheridge couldn't have forgotten that because it is purely your opinion. I have always liked Mattingly but to say he played 100 times harder than Puckett, especially with Puckett playing a far more demanding defensive position, is ridiculous.

The Twins finished the way they did (two w.s.) because of Puckett as much as the Yankees (who has a good amount of talent around Mattingly. Probably as good as what Puckett had.) placed because of Mattingly. For a couple seasons there, he was a monster. I'd take his '85-'86 against anyone else's two-year best in the '80s. That doesn't include his batting title in 1984.

It's fine to root for your team's players and all, but an argument based on personal biases isn't a valid one in comparing hall of fame qualifications.

[J W]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
Secondly, you point out that Santo's batting totals are more impressive becasue he played third base instead of first. While I have no argument that perhaps his totals are more impressive in comparison to other third basemen than Hodges' are in comparison to other first baseman, where he played on the field has no direct correlation to the numbers he acquired at the plate. You can weigh the overall value of his career totals due to his fielding position, but you can't weigh the individual offensive numbers in and of themselves due to that. (I'm not sure how well I am articulating the point I am trying to make here?

I say you can correlate. On face value, no, your numbers at the plate are your numbers at the plate. But, then, why aren't there more even numbers across the board, regardless of position? Because third base is the "hot corner"--it needs to be manned by a player with an infielder's intuition/athleticism and an outfielder's arm. Eric Chavez and Scott Rolen may look pedestrian as first basemen but they can help their team in ways most first basemen cannot; therefore they are not first basemen.

This isn't to say Hodges was a liability to his team because he played first--of course not--there are functions a good fielding first baseman serve as well that are important to team defense. But there isn't as much required.

So I think the numbers are skewed for a good reason. I suppose there's just a difference of opinion.

I'm not entirely certain, but third basemen may also get more wear and tear over the years as well because they're generally more active than first basemen. This wouldn't be anything like the problems catchers face, but, I think it's still there. This all factors into potential offensive output, IMO, if it's true.

[TXRangerFan]

Man 10 years ago if we were having this discussion Ryne Sandberg would probably be the unanimous choice.

He was a freak 2nd baseman. And yes his name was thrown around often and seriously as being the greatest 2bagger of all time circa 1989.

40 homers one year 50 steals another? Leading the league in 3b one year and homers the next? Who does that? Willie Mays? Now it's more common but in the 80's? A second baseman doing that?

Sandberg is the best positional player not in the HOF..He handled the end of his career awkwardly and hurt his HOF case..IMO he was his own worst enemy. He never should have retired when he did and he never should have come back after retiring.


Just to chime in on the Rice Santo debate...Gotta go with Rice..he should have been in long ago..every guy that had put up numbers similar to his, at the time of his retirement, was in the HOF.

Best pitcher not in is Blyleven..for some reason the Hall is without arguably the greatest curveball in history...I have never been able to figure out why..280+ wins...4000 K's...60 shut outs...Small market playing killed Blyleven.

I'd say a good case could be made for Maris as well..yeah he doesn't have the career stats but he was at the center of one of baseballs greatest contoversies for nearly 40 years..he held baseball's most hallowed single seasons record for nearly 40 years..

I believe he is the only 2 time MVP not in the HOF.

To me if you are putting McGwire in for 500 homers and the 98 homer race then you need to put Maris in as well...

A quick look at stats shows that Canseco actually has better career numbers than McGwire in every category other than homers..and Canseco made his case for immortality with the 40 40 season.

I'm not saying Jose should be in but that I think Maris should be given more consideration and McGwire is overrated.

In closing..Sandberg and Blyleven need to be in the Hall..the others? Tthey all have a case that with luck could get them in the HOF..I don't think it's bad if those guys get in, but I won't feel a grave injustice has been done if they don't.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Dale Murphy is another two-time MVP not in. If you endorse Rice, TxRangerFan, what about him? He was better defensively, as well as being one of baseball's good guys (doesn't get hurt by sportwriters who take personal offense for jerkdom.)

McGwire did hit over 300 more HR than Maris. There is the rule that a single accomplishment isn't enough to get a guy voted in. Maris had 1961, another MVP year, was a fine defensive player, and a better clubhouse guy than perceived (as told by his Cardinal teammates.) Is it enough? I think there might be a greater outcry among "experts" if he does go in because the perception is for the HR record, as one-dimensioanl as it unfairly portrays him.

If the Canseco argument gets out, that could hurt McGwire's chances. Because I think the latter half or so of Canseco's career turned him into a Dave Kingman-type player. And we all know what Kingman's chances are (were).

If only Sandberg played three more years . . .

[TXRangerFan]

Capn C Nose..I've got no problem with Murphy being in the HOF..I've also got no problem with him not either.

What happened with Rice is that he was a borderline HOF'er with a bad attitude, in a bad town to have a bad attitude..he eventually would have made it in if offensive totals had stayed close to their 70's 80's levels, but the offensive explosion of the mid 90's has pretty much killed any 70's 80's borderliner's chances of getting in that aren't already there. Murphy and Dawson fall into that category as well. Their numbers just don't look that great to this generation of voters it seems.

Like I said earlier..the only travesties IMO are Sandberg and Blyleven..and of course Pete Rose.

I can't believe Sandberg didn't make it in personally..I remember when he was the bookend to Cal Ripken and was actually the more highly regarded of the two.

Gary Carter was a better catcher than Ryno was a second baseman? I think not. Not even close.


His numbers still seem pretty impressive to me as does his statistical versatility for a 2bagger...

but the thing is...Sandberg is a HOF'er based on his defense alone...9 consecutive GG's is a ML record for secondbasemen..and he didn't get those on reputation alone...

Yeah I cannot figure out what the voters were thinking..I mean I haven't seen any second basemen busting out with 40 homers since he did it...

As for McGwire V Canseco..yeah..Jose played in 13 more games total than McGwire did...he has about 200 more hits, 20 more runs, a higher BA, about 100 more doubles, more triples, nearly 190 more SB's and they have virtually identical RBI and total base numbers.

Basically McGwire has 500 homers and a memorable record setting HR race with Sosa..Jose founded the 40 40 club, won an MVP, and is one of a very few players with 400 homers and 200 SB's. I really don't get how BigMac is a lock and Jose won't ever see the Hall..Yeah Jose's kind of a headcase but most of that happened off the field..McGwire's benchmarks aren't really more impressive than Jose's....McGwire is one of 19 players with 500 homers..Jose is one of 8 with 400 Homers and 200 SB's.

Both of those guys couldn't hit in the post season to save their lives, but at least Jose had a good first run in the post season setting all kinds of MLB records with memorable shots and he hit the big Grand Slam in his first WS game.


So basically it looks to me like BigMac is getting in for the HR record...so why isn't Maris? His record stood for 37 years, he's got two MVPs.., BigMac's stood for 3, and there isn't any uncertainty on if Maris took performance enhancing substances like there is with McGwire(or Bonds and Sosa for that matter). I don't see the difference...not only is Maris the only 2 time MVP not in the Hall, I believe he's also the only guy to hold the single season HR record not in the Hall..he is definitely going to be the only 60 homer guy not in the Hall..I just don't see Mac's totals as being impressive enough to make him a first ballot lock for the Hall while guys like Canseco and Maris have no shot... Mac is getting in for some what will soon be average benchmarks and hitting 70 homers..If he is a lock, Jose and Roger Maris deserve more consideration for their single season achievements and average career benchmarks.

[pesky6]

I have never been able to figure out why..280+ wins...4000 K's...60 shut outs...Small market playing killed Blyleven.
Well, Blyleven never had 4000 Ks. . . only Clemens, Carlton, and Ryan do.

[TXRangerFan]

Stve Carlton has 4k K's as well..that's whose total I was thinking of. At the time of Blyleven's retirement he was 3rd place all time with 3700..behind only Ryan and Carlton, and which is still the 5th best total of all time.

[Appling]

Originally posted by TXRangerFan
Basically McGwire has 500 homers and a memorable record setting HR race with Sosa..

So basically it looks to me like BigMac is getting in for the HR record...so why isn't Maris? His record stood for 37 years, he's got two MVPs.., BigMac's stood for 3, and there isn't any uncertainty on if Maris took performance enhancing substances like there is with McGwire(or Bonds and Sosa for that matter). I don't see the difference...not only is Maris the only 2 time MVP not in the Hall, I believe he's also the only guy to hold the single season HR record not in the Hall..he is definitely going to be the only 60 homer guy not in the Hall..I just don't see Mac's totals as being impressive enough to make him a first ballot lock for the Hall while guys like Canseco and Maris have no shot... Mac is getting in for some what will soon be average benchmarks and hitting 70 homers..If he is a lock, Jose and Roger Maris deserve more consideration for their single season achievements and average career benchmarks.

I share your disappointment that Maris won't be elected to the Hall of Fame. Roger was a shy but decent guy who had several MVP seasons and who broke the Babe's renowned record of 60 HR. However, 1961 was Maris' only season with 40 or more homeruns. His lifetime Batting Average is just .260, with a career-best season BA of .283. Maris is best known as a HR hitter, but had just 275 career homeruns in more than 5000 at-bats.

McGwire had established his credentials as a HOF homerun hitter when he hit 52 in 1996 and then 58 (total) in 1997, just before the epic 1998 HR race. (And then Mac hit 65 HR in 1999, becoming the first player to break 50 HR in four consecutive seasons.) LIfetime BA is only .263 but he did hit .299 in his epic 1998 season.

The only knock I have on McGwire is his lack of durabilty. His recurring injuries kept him from having very many full seasons throughout his career. (Fewer than 140 games in five straight years, 1992 thru 1996.)

[hudsonharden]

It's Charlie Hustle.

If you want proof, it's here (http://baseballreference.com/r/rosepe01.shtml).

[Hammerin Hank]

Originally posted by tearforamariner
Excluding active players and players with a lifetime ban from Cooperstown

[hudsonharden]

My bad.

Dale Murphy.

[kennyd]

Jack Morris. 10th all time in AL wins. Proven winner - pitched for World Series Champs (three different teams). Fierce competitor. Winningest pitcher of the decade of the 80s.

[Brad Harris]

Jack Morris....Winningest pitcher of the decade of the 80s.


Jack Morris was not the "winningest" pitcher of the 1980s. Dwight Gooden was. Here are the top ten winning percentages for pitchers in the 1980s (minimum of 100 starts.)

.719 Dwight Gooden (100-39)
.679 Roger Clemens (95-45)
.639 Teddy Higuera (78-44)
.613 Ron Darling (87-55)
.612 John Tudor (104-66)
.607 Ron Guidry (111-72)
.605 Sid Fernandez (69-45)
.605 Dennis Rasmussen (69-45)
.605 Sid Fernandez (69-45)
.605 Orel Hershiser (98-64)

If you want a higher minimum number of starts, we'll triple it (to 300 GS). Know what? By that standard, Bob Welch was the winningest pitcher of the 1980s.

.596 Bob Welch (137-93)

Morris' .577 winning percentage, while good, isn't the best of the decade.

What was probably meant - and is actually true - is that Jack Morris compiled more wins than anyone else in the 1980s. That is true. His 162 wins outpaced the runner-up, Dave Stieb, by 22 (despite the fact that Morris played for one of the powerhouses in the league that decade while Stieb's team was an expansion franchise for the first half of the 1980s.)

[J W]

And don't forget Mark Grace was the hittingest batter in the 90's, Chance :laugh

[baseballwise]

Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose.

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by J W
And don't forget Mark Grace was the hittingest batter in the 90's, Chance :laugh

LOL

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by kennyd
Jack Morris. 10th all time in AL wins. Proven winner - pitched for World Series Champs (three different teams). Fierce competitor. Winningest pitcher of the decade of the 80s.

That might very well make the basis for an argument in Morris's favor for being elected to the Hall, but is that enough to make him the best player not in the Hall?

[Brad Harris]

Personally, I don't see how any pitcher is going to be a better candidate than a hitter, given how much less playing time he'd have.

[Appling]

Originally posted by Chancellor
Jack Morris was not the "winningest" pitcher of the 1980s. [
What was probably meant - and is actually true - is that Jack Morris compiled more wins than anyone else in the 1980s. That is true.
Silly me! I somehow thought that "winningest" MEANT "most wins".
When the Twins picked up Morris for the 1991 season he was advertised as the "winningest" pitcher of the 1980's.
And he worked out pretty good for them, even though just one season:
1. 18-12 regular season record;
2. Two WS wins, with 1.17 ERA; and
3. First WS extra-innings complete game shutout.

[supnov]

Why is it so difficult for us to remember the recent past. Ryne Sandberg did everything on the field possible to win. It is players like him that were the prototype of the great middle infielders that now abound in the game. Second baseman used to be the smallest players on most major league rosters, and won their positions for their fielding expertise. If you were a major league team who had a second baseman who batted .250, that was a bonus. Sandberg came along and redefined the position with his fielding skills and wow, what a bat. It saddens me to see that one of the true gentleman of the game is not supported enough to get in-oh well maybe next year.

[ElHalo]

A catcher who was a 9 time All Star, league MVP, gold glove winner, hit a shade under .300 for his career, five 100 RBI seasons, .987 career FP, .817 career OPS....

Oh, and probably the greatest manager of the last decade, too. Torre.

[serumgard]

Originally posted by Chancellor
Personally, I don't see how any pitcher is going to be a better candidate than a hitter, given how much less playing time he'd have.

A pitcher has more input into how a single game turns out than any position player. And the fact is when it comes to whether or not you're deserving of the Hall, the question is not how a pitcher's stats matches up with an outfielder, but how he matches up with a pitcher.

The argument you make could be seen as saying that no pitcher belongs in the Hall of Fame because they only pitch once a week. So I guess we should just take guys like Cy Young, Christy Matthewson, Sandy Koufax and Walter Johnson out in favor of Dale Murphy and Ryne Sandberg.

[tearforamariner]

Originally posted by ElHalo
Oh, and probably the greatest manager of the last decade, too. Torre.

Doubtful. :rolleyes:

[serumgard]

Originally posted by supnov
Why is it so difficult for us to remember the recent past. Ryne Sandberg did everything on the field possible to win. It is players like him that were the prototype of the great middle infielders that now abound in the game. Second baseman used to be the smallest players on most major league rosters, and won their positions for their fielding expertise. If you were a major league team who had a second baseman who batted .250, that was a bonus. Sandberg came along and redefined the position with his fielding skills and wow, what a bat. It saddens me to see that one of the true gentleman of the game is not supported enough to get in-oh well maybe next year.

Ryne Sandberg was a great player in his day, but he is like a lot of players from the late-'70's to early-'80's who will never make the Hall. Sandberg's defensive skills were phenomenal, but he didn't have the flair or "wow" factor that got Ozzie Smith into the Hall.

Sandberg suffers the same fate as guys put in here earlier - Dale Murphy, Alan Trammell, Jim Rice, etc. Their numbers were phenomenal in their day, but the numbers players are putting up today are just miles above what they were doing. You can look back pretty much up until the mid-1970's and realize it was a different game, but when the voters are looking to put Ryne Sandberg into the hall, they'll look at the numbers of today's second basemen (Alfonso Soriano, Bret Boone, etc.), and say, "the numbers just aren't that great."

Believe me, I sympathize - I'm an Alan Trammell fan, and while he was, at worst, one of the top 4 shortstops of his era (behind Cal Ripken, Ozzie Smith and Robin Yount) he'll always be compared with A-Rod and Nomar (among others).

[Atlanta Braves Freak]

PETE ROSE! I don't care about gambling allegations. Ty Cobb beat up women and he still got into the hall! How much worse is gambling?

[Imapotato]

This man

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mageesh01.shtml

is the most deserving man not in the HOF

Don't only look at his stats but at his range factor, F% and his place on the leaderboards as well.

All around player, probably comparable to Albert Pujos, with 3bs instead of HRs

[supnov]

Hello Imapotato,
You are definitely a more observant baseball historian than I am-thank you for the heads up. This is why I love the game-so much history-and more is made each day-thanks again friend-JIM

[Imapotato]

Thanks for the compliment supnov, but 1870-1930 is really my forte...I am weak when it comes to 1930 on...I know the big names but that's about it...

1970's forget about it...have no clue...and modern day baseball I pretty adapt but I really can't stand the softball that has happened the last few years.

As for Sandberg, Dale Murphy, Ozzie Smit, they were very good players but I don't really think they are HOF material. They were never the best players during their time, statiscally speaking. Ozzie got in with his charisma and defense, and maybe that's a good thing, but I don't vote on it...I think I would have been torn over him getting in

[supnov]

That is great that you have the knowledge of the early history of the game. I just finished the Cobb book-amazing player-but kind of an ass. I believe that the players of that era had a lot rougher time of it-poor equipment and spitballs. Sorry that I am not up to your caliber of history-motivates me to learn more. I am biased when it comes to Sandberg-grew up 3 houses from him, played baseball all through school with him. He was an amazing all around athlete, Parade Magazine All American High School Quarterback, All City basketball, and a 5 handicapper in Golf while in high school. It was nice to see a guy from the neighborhood do well. He is the big reason that I love the game so much. Well, friend take care. I hope to hear from you again. Your "baseball history rookie" friend-JIM

[J W]

Yikes, look at Magee's Black and Gray Ink scores... very reflective of the dead-ball era he played in, compared with his Standards/Monitor scores.

That said, it looks like the most of the similar players to him are far from the Hall. I'm seeing a lot of Ben Chapman here.

His best argument, and a good one, is that he was among the best outfielders of his generation. One particular "similar" player to him who happens to have overlapped his career, and made the Hall, is Edd Roush. But Roush played more in the 20's, and has lower Ink scores but a bit higher HOF scores.

Magee is an interesting proposition... is it allright if I ask about his sabermetrics? I'd like to know.

[Freakshow]

Magee has an excellent case as one of the best the Hall has ignored. Due to gross historical ignorance, he failed to make the cut for the 200 player candidates in the last veterans committee election!

He has 354 Win Shares, well above the Hall of fame line. His career OPS+ (park and era adjusted) is 137. That's the same as Chuck Klein and one better than Bill Terry, to name two. Magee played in the deadball era, so his stats are superficially worse than those two--but Sherry's career was also much longer than theirs.

OPS+ doesn't deal with baserunning, at which Magee excelled. From 1905-14 his 376 steals were topped only by Ty Cobb in that span.

Those lists of "most similar" players must be taken with great skepticism. Most of Magee's comps played most or all of their careers in much friendlier offensive eras, so in their time they were not nearly as impressive as Magee.

[Imapotato]

thanks for the info freakshow.

Also he is only contemporary when it came to defense was Tris Speaker, but I didn't look at Win Shares although they are impressive. Looking at the Leaderboards during his career, you will see Magee at the top or very close to the top of EVERY category.

That is a HOFer.

And that i sone reason Sandy Koufax is in the HOF, because he was one of the best when he played, not becaue of longevity like Gaylord Perry and Nolan Ryan

[tearforamariner]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
The original question did not exclude banned players. So . .


It didn't?

Excluding active players and players with a lifetime ban from Cooperstown...

[TXRangerFan]

I'm neither a Cubby Fan nor a Chowd but...

Sandberg is far and away the best player not in the HOF..I am still stunned he wasn't a first ballot HOF'er.

If this was 1990 you'd be hard pressed to find many people that would take Ripken ahead of Sandberg, ask anyone now at it's just the opposite..amazing what a lost decade can do. Man Sandberg was an awesome player prior to his first retirement.

Still something seems wrong that Ripken is probably going to break the mark for being elected on the highest PCT of ballots while Sandberg may not even make it into the Hall.


After Sandberg it's a tossup between Blyleven and Rice. If I was a picking a pitching staff I'd take Blyleven over Eckersley 10 times out of 10.

Edit: Forgot about Maris I'd put him maybe after Rice and Blyleven....in my mind I've always felt certain Maris belonged in the HOF..and then I look at his career stats and I start having second thoughts..

[Zeth]

There was a very good pitcher in the mid-20th century named Tommy Bridges who threw one of the best curveballs ever, and like Blyleven, threw it almost exclusively.

There is one important thing everyone's missing about Sherry Magee: His home park. Take a look at his home/road splits sometime. That said, he was a much better player than he's received credit/recognition for.

My top 5 who are not in would be this:

(1) Ryne Sandberg
(2) Ron Santo
(3) Dick Allen (*GASP!*)
(4) Jim Kaat (I rate him just a tiny little edge over Blyleven)
(5) Bill Freehan (really should be in.)

I like Bill James' assessment of Joe Jackson's policy (yeah, I'm a big fan of James, so I'll be quoting him a lot:)

"My own opinion is that the people who want to put Joe Jackson in the Hall of Fame are baseball's answer to those women who show up at murder trials wanting to marry the cute murderer."

And how about the George Kelly/Rube Marquard Memorial List of the five players we can pull out of the Hall of Fame to make room?

[Cougar]

Originally posted by Zeth

(4) Jim Kaat (I rate him just a tiny little edge over Blyleven)


Wow. I think both Kaat and Blyleven should be in the Hall and they'd both be near the very top of my list. I'd infer that you think so too.

But I've never seen anyone rate Kaat ahead of Blyleven before. What makes you think so -- the GG?

[Zeth]

Kaat's defensive advantage matters, but not so much. Gold gloves are overrated, and there's a tendency to anoint one king of the pitchers like there is with shortstops when it comes to Gg voting.

No, really, I prefer Kaat basically because I like him more. (Am I allowed to do that here? Heh heh) If I had a HoF ballot, Kaat and Blyleven would both be on it.

One other extra honorable mention on this list would be Joe Gordon, who was by far the best second baseman not in the Hall until Sandberg came eligible. And also Lou Whitaker, just a hair behind Gordon.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by Zeth
Kaat's defensive advantage matters, but not so much. Gold gloves are overrated, and there's a tendency to anoint one king of the pitchers like there is with shortstops when it comes to Gg voting.

No, really, I prefer Kaat basically because I like him more. (Am I allowed to do that here? Heh heh) If I had a HoF ballot, Kaat and Blyleven would both be on it.

It's OK with me. :)

While we're in the 280's, what do you think of Tommy John? I think he should be in too.

Originally posted by Zeth One other extra honorable mention on this list would be Joe Gordon, who was by far the best second baseman not in the Hall until Sandberg came eligible. And also Lou Whitaker, just a hair behind Gordon.

I completely agree! Although on any given day, I might rate Sweet Lou ahead of Gordon -- they're basically tied in my mind.

[Zeth]

I agree that Tommy John should be in (and Dr. Andrews maybe should go in under the meritorious service category, heh), but he'll have to wait until Kaat and Blyleven are in to get onto my ballot.

And as for James and Jackson... Bill James wrote that he was unsure of the degree of Joe Jackson's guilt. But he is, was and always has been certain (in his own mind at least) of the fact of Jackson's guilt. In any case, it takes a pretty massive conspiracy theory to assert that Jackson is innocent, in the face of evidence and his own confession. The confession was extorted, etc. I've read that stuff, too. I think he was guilty as charged. And so even if he wasn't banned, I couldn't in good conscience vote for him.

Now, Pete Rose, that's another thing. Bill James does seem to have a compulsive need to insist that Rose is not guilty of what the Dowd Report accuses him of. I agree with him that the Dowd report was a terrible presentation of evidence, but it's pretty apparent now that Pete Rose is also guilty as charged.

I've read most of James's books, and I'm not sure where you get the compulsive over-rating of Babe Ruth or under-rating of Ty Cobb ideas from. He rates Ruth #1 in history, where he deserves to rank, and Cobb #5, behind Ruth, Wagner, Mays and Oscar Charleston. You can argue Cobb vs. Wagner or Cobb vs. Mays if you want. Bill James doesn't like Ty Cobb, but I don't see where he under-rates him. Unless you're in disagreement with James' opinion that the quality of play has improved steadily over time.

[ElHalo]

This man

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mageesh01.shtml

is the most deserving man not in the HOF

I find it interesting that you'd bring him up. When I was working on a trivia question the other day, I found that he is one of only three Hall Eligible players ever to have led their league in BA, SLG, and OBP in the same season, without being in the hall of fame.

The others are George Stone, who played from 1903-1910, and Fred Llynn.

Of course, my personal opinion is that Joe Torre is the most deserving player not in the hall, but this supports your statement.

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by Zeth
My top 5 who are not in would be this:

(1) Ryne Sandberg
(2) Ron Santo
(3) Dick Allen (*GASP!*)
(4) Jim Kaat (I rate him just a tiny little edge over Blyleven)
(5) Bill Freehan (really should be in.)

Nice list (though I'm not as high on Kaat, myself.)

Recently I have come to the conclusion that Bill Freehan is, in fact, worthy of election to the Hall of Fame. His numbers are simply too comparable to those already in and there's little reason to exclude him considering the standards of previous elections. Freehan would certainly rate among the (now) 5 catchers I believe ought to be elected. In no particular order, those catchers were:

Joe Torre
Ted Simmons
Bill Freehan
Wally Schang
Charlie Bennett

[Cougar]

I'm with you on the 1st four, but Bennett ahead of Munson? Huh??

I know Bennett has some notes of distinction in his bio, but I can't remember them offhand, and his stats don't exactly scream Cooperstown. Munson's career stats are substantially better. Make all the period & ballpark adjustments you want -- that's a tough gap to close.

I mean, Bennett had a few nice years around 1880, but was he as big a dog in the game as Munson?

Never mind the whole quality-improving-over-time Stephen Jay Gould business that's got to come into play when there's a 100 year gap, integration, Latin players, etc.

I can probably think of a few other catchers to go in ahead of Bennett. Lance Parrish comes to mind. Maybe Elston Howard. Maybe Bob Boone. Maybe Sherm Lollar or Del Crandall or Gene Tenace.

[Brad Harris]

Munson had a 116 OPS+ in 5,900 plate appearances. Bennett had a slightly higher OPS+ in roughly 1,500 fewer PAs. The difference, however, in playing time has everything to do with the eras in which they played.

Munson played regularly from 1970-78 and was the "starting" catcher in 1979, when injuries made him miss 65 games. For Munson, he was a starter at the age of 23 and died (in the second-half of his career) at the age of 32.

Bennett was the starting catcher on his teams from 1881-91, through eleven seasons (as opposed to Munson's 10). Quite simply, if the season had been 162 games in the 1880s, Bennett would very likely have at least as many PAs as did Munson.

So I think, in the context of their times, it is reasonable to say that their offense is a wash. Munson was a horrible baserunner. He stole 48 bases in 11 seasons, but was caught stealing 50 times! Bennett, on the other hand, stole 42 bases from the age of 31 on; there's no verifiable data on CS for those years or for SB totals prior to 1886. It isn't difficult to imagine that Bennett's career steals would look a little bit better if all the data were available. For now, let's call that a wash too.

So how about their defense? Well...Munson won 3 gold gloves. Bennett, playing many generations before the award was invented, won none of course.

According to defensive win shares, however, Bennett should have won 4 - in 1881-82, 1886 and 1890. And Munson? Defensive win shares point to a pair of undeserved awards; Munson shouldn't have received the prize in 1974-75. For their careers? Bennett receives an "A" while Munson is graded at a "B minus".

Of course, Munson received important hardware in 1976 when he was part of the first Yankee team to win a pennant in twelve years. The AL MVP that year, however, should have gone to someone else. Graig Nettles, Mickey Rivers and Roy White all had better seasons than Munson in 1976 -- and those were just his teammates. The best player in the AL in 1976 was among George Brett, Rod Carew and Bobby Grich. Brett led the league with 33 win shares - 9 more than Munson and there were a total of 21 players who had as much or more value than Munson did to their respective teams.

This isn't meant so much as a disaccreditation of hardware in modern baseball so much as it is to point out that the absence of hardware in an era before those awards were given regularly is no more/less telling than a few awards in modern baseball because, after all, even voters miss the mark from time to time.

Munson has a point in his column for his excellent post-season play. Bennett also won 2 post-season championships (and with two different teams) and had 13 hits and 10 RBIs in the 13 post-season games he appeared in.

So it looks like Munson and Bennett are basically a tie. And here's where we leave Munson behind.

Bennett was regarded as the best catcher (i.e. not player as Buck Ewing or Roger Bresnahan were, but catcher) of the 19th century (and on into the deadball era.)

Bennett meets 26.3 of the Hall of Fame's standards (where an "average" Hall of Famer meets 50.0), but Munson - playing in an era with over 50% more games per season - met only 29.5.

Of course, just as Munson's career was ended prematurely by the plane crash, so Bennett's career was abruptly interrupted by his losing both legs in an accident when he slipped crossing train tracks in 1894. Bennett was, in fact, so highly thought-of at the time that his former team, the Detroit Wolverines (later Tigers), named their ballpark after him; to this day Bennett remains the only player ever to receive that honor.

[Brad Harris]

Ewing played more games at catcher than at other positions in the following seasons: 1881, 1883-86, 1888-90. In total, Ewing was behind the plate for only 636 out of 1,345 games. Bennett, on the other hand, played 954 of 1,084 career games at catcher.

Ewing, interestingly enough, is also credited with 4 "gold gloves" (as determined by defensive win shares), the same number as Bennett.

I poured over Win Shares for a few minutes, gathering the following:

From 1881-83, Charlie Bennett was the best catcher in the National League each of those three seasons. (Buck Ewing was usually second-best.)

From 1884-86 and from 1888-89 Buck Ewing was the best catcher in the National League each of those five seasons. (Charlie Bennett was usually second-best.) Also, in 1890, Buck Ewing was the best catcher in the Players League.

From 1881-89 either Bennett or Ewing was the best catcher in the NL with the sole exception of 1887, when Jim O'Rourke played 40 games at catcher, more than at any other position. (O'Rourke also played 38 games at third and 28 games in the outfield.) If you wanted a minimum percent of games played to qualify, then, you could technically crown Ewing the best catcher in the NL that year, too.

In their declining years in the 1890s, both Bennett and Ewing were eclipsed by Chief Zimmer, Jack Clements and Duke Farrell as the best catchers in baseball.

For a little over a decade, however, Bennett and Ewing were neck-and-neck as the best catchers in the game.

Editors Note: After Bill's comments made me look I must concede that Ewing's value as a catcher is diminished somewhat less by his 636 games than I had first thought.

[J W]

I know what you're getting at, Chancellor, but I just can't help myself:

For Munson, he was a starter at the age of 23 and died (in the second-half of his career) at the age of 32.

I wonder if a guy ever died in the first half of his career?

:D

Thanx fer the info

[ElHalo]

Wow. Thanks a million. Pre-1990 is not one of my better areas. But it looks like you're on top of it. Masterful. Just beautiful.

Limiting yourself to post 1990 players takes most of the best players ever out of contention...

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Who would you say between Bennet, Ewing and Mike Kelly, was the greater offensive force? Overall, were these 3 the top for pre-1900, or were there names that are long-forgotten to us today?

Of the three names you mentioned - Bennett, Ewing and Kelly - I would have to rate them as offensive players in the following order:

Mike "King" Kelly
Buck Ewing
Charlie Bennett

However, Kelly played more games in the outfield than at catcher and, in fact, is categorized in the Hall of Fame as a rightfielder, not as a catcher. Only 5 of Kelly's 16 seasons saw him play at catcher more games than at any other position. And those were 5 of his final 6 years. Kelly barely amassed 1,600 plate appearences in those seasons so it really would be fair to include him in this discussion of great hitting catchers of the nineteenth century.

Ewing, who is closer to Kelly than to Bennett offensively, played many more seasons primarily as a catcher and finished his career with more games at catcher than anywhere else (though he, too, was used at a number of other positions on a regular basis.)

Bennett was a full-time catcher, but his OPS+ of 118, while much better than most players, wasn't as good as Ewing - even if you just include Ewing's "catcher seasons".

So, I'd rate Ewing an edge over Bennett where I would tend to keep Kelly out of the ratings at all (though he was a better hitter than Ewing, if you're just talking about offensive ability.

Also...I would rate Deacon White in between Ewing and Bennett. White was the best catcher of the early years of professional baseball and was one of the game's first stars.

I also happen to think White belongs in the Hall of Fame.

[Bill Burgess]

Chancellor,

Great job. Beautiful, just beautiful. Thanks.

Bill Burgess

[Brad Harris]

I'd like to remind everyone that any player can be researched through the following books/websites:


For statistical information:
Baseball Reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com) or Baseball Almanac (http://www.baseball-almanac.com).


For biographical information:
Baseball Library (http://www.baseball-library.com).


Some excellent resources on negro leaguers:
Black Baseball (http://www.blackbaseball.com), Negro League Baseball Dot Com (http://www.negroleaguebaseball.com) and The Negro League Baseball Players Association (http://www.nlbpa.com).


For anyone interested in hard copy reference sources, PM me and I'll be happy to send you a list of recommended books.

[Cubbie Blue]

I'm very biased but my vote has to go to #10 Ron Santo.

[J W]

WB.net; I have Santo #1 but believe me I've been talking up Boyer for a while now. He's a gold glove third baseman with 3443 total bases. That puts him somewhere in Santo's and Pie Traynor's ballpark, right?

[Cougar]

The above list is actually a (perhaps unintended) defense of Ray Schalk's being in the Hall. By this one measure, a fairly reasonable one (though far from the only reasonable one), Schalk is the best defensive catcher of all time. Being the best defender ever at the most important everyday defensive position is a solid Hall argument.

[Brad Harris]

Then it should also put to rest any arguments that presuppose Carter's election to the Hall of Fame somehow lowered the standards for great catchers.

[Cougar]

Well, yeah, those who said that were just nutso.

[MURPH8283]

Answering the original question, on today March 12, my bias slips out. I vote for Dale Murphy as the best player not enshrined among those eligible.

I have nothing to solidly define his claim, so I will not venture down that path.

He was my favorite player as I grew up watching him on the Superstation battling in the face of impossible odds. The lineups he anchored offered very little in the way of an incentive to pitchers to pitch to him. Statistically he diminished himself by often playing into the hands of the opposition and chasing pitches that he had no business chasing.

Others may have done more with less, but most of those that accomplished more, did so with more surrounding them.

Watching Murphy perform his feats as a young man taught me to never rely fully on statistics as a measure of one's greatness. History will never recapture the greatness of my hero, and if he is never deemed worthy of enshrinement in Cooperstown, he will forever be held in the highest regard by the legion of fans who appreciated his efforts-even if the end results were not usually what we wanted.

PS If not the best player not enshrined, he may very well have been the greatest player who was also a terrible defensive catcher.

[RuthMayBond]

Bill Dahlen and
Tony Mullane or Bert Blyleven

[Dizzy]

He dosn't get my vote but who thinks Willie McGee belongs in the hall? He retired in 1999 so he is on the ballot soon. Do you think he should even be considered.
4-Time All-Star (83,85,87,88)
MVP
4-World Series
1-World Championship (1982)
2,254 Hits
1,010 Runs
.396 SLG
.295 AVG
No 100 K Seasons

[MURPH8283]

Blyleven's case baffles me...and I am on the fence regarding his enshrinement...

On the one hand, he won a lot of games...tossed a nice number of shutouts...retired #3 on the all time K list...had one of the best curveballs of all time.

On the other hand, he moved about from team to team throughout his career. I may be the only person alive who feels this way, but if none of the teams for which you play sees fit to retire your jersey number, why should you be enshrined in Cooperstown?

But..how can Fergie Jenkins be inducted and not Rik Aalbert?

Seems to me, Fergie doesn't belong, but if he's in so s/b Blyleven. Heck, how do you keep out Tommy John and Jim Kaat?

I say all or none of the above.

RIP Gene Bearden, you will never be forgotten by Tribe fans.

[Appling]

Originally posted by MURPH8283
Blyleven's case baffles me...and I am on the fence regarding his enshrinement...

On the one hand, he won a lot of games...tossed a nice number of shutouts...retired #3 on the all time K list...had one of the best curveballs of all time.

On the other hand, he moved about from team to team throughout his career. I may be the only person alive who feels this way, but if none of the teams for which you play sees fit to retire your jersey number, why should you be enshrined in Cooperstown?



IMO Blyleven should be the #1 "carryover" voted into the HOF.
300 career wins has been an almost "automatic" ticket to the Hall.
Bert falls just slightly short there (287 career wins) but he has 339 pitching win shares, which puts him at #19 on the all-time list. I believe no other eligible pitcher ranks higher in Win Shares.

Fans of Sabermetrics should respect pitching win shares, since they estimate the number of wins a pitcher "should have earned" if he had normal run support, etc. IMO pitching Win Shares is to actual wins, asRuns Created is to actual Runs Produced.

As far as not having his uniform number retired, I suspect that is true of most Hall of Fame players -- especially for a HOF player who did not play his entire career for one team.
(This looks like a great topic for another thread: WHAT HOF PLAYERS DID NOT HAVE THEIR UNIFORM NUMBERS RETIRED?

[The Commissioner]

I don't buy into win shares in the least bit. Yet, frankly I don't think Blyleven even needs the support of that added stat to merit induction. It truly boggles my mind that he isn't there yet.

[Seattlem'sfan13]

Let's see,

Jim Rice
Bob Johnson
Dick Allen
Bert Bleyleven
Pete Rose
Joe Jackson
Tommy John
Ryno
Ron Santo

[J W]

Blyleven is one of those cats that people from various angles can agree on, Commish. Blyleven's in my personal top five. I'm pleasantly surprised that he gained around 9% in the BBWAA voting this year.

Rik Aalbert?

On another note, nice mention of Indian Bob, M's fan. He might not be in my top ten, but I think he's one of the better short-career candidates out there. He was a great Philly Athletic.

[Seattlem'sfan13]

Bob Johnson not only is one of the best not in, but he should be in. I somehow forgot Jim Kaat..... him too.

[Ravenlord]

Blyleven, Santo, Rose.

[ADunn44]

Sandberg should be the next man! Ask anyone, ANYONE who the best 2nd Baseman is and you should expect to hear "Ryno" as the answer. Fix this injustice, vote Ryne Sandberg!

Now, as for Rose... Great hitter! Good coach and fielder! Hall of Famer? No. Hall of Fame Numbers? Yes. The man gambled on the game. He definately made an impact on his sport. Did he bet for his own team, or against it? It is still uncertain. The Hall is about the numbers, but it is also about the person.

You bet against the game you play, you're out! No bones about it! Thems the rules!

:gt


Pete Rose Should Be in the Hall of Fame


I wish everyone would get off of Pete Roses’ case, about gambling. It’s the stats and the way he played the game that is important, that is how he earned the moniker or nickname “Charlie Hustle.” I did not need to use sources, except for all the videos I watched and the articles I read about him. Pete Rose should be in Baseballs Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Shame.
I never really got to enjoy watching Pete Rose play, so I had to learn about him, so that I could defend him whenever I would be asked “does Pete Rose belong in the Hall of Fame”, and almost immediately I came up with numerous stats, and facts about him. I mean the stats and facts would literally roll off my tongue.
I would start out by saying; “It’s the way you play the game and how good you are on the field, not by what you do on your own time.” I would roll off that he is the all-time hits king, with 4,256 hits, the numerous awards he won, such as Rookie of the year in 1963, the 1973 NL MVP, two consecutive gold glove awards 1969-70, led the majors in batting average in 1968-69, 1973, led the majors in On Base Percentage in 1968 and 1979, he also has played the most games of all-time with 3,562, the most career at-bats with 14053, second all time in doubles, and also the most times on base at 5,929. Needless to say, I think this is good enough to get Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame.
I still feel that there is still more to prove that Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame, and that’s the numerous World Series titles that he won, and the fact that he was the captain all 24 seasons, and that he managed the Reds from 1984-1986.
Pete Rose was also selected to the All-Star game, 17 times in his 24-year career, which also included a stretch of ten years from 1973-1982. Pete is most remembered for the 1970 World Series when he rounded third base in the bottom of the eleventh inning, and bowled over Ray Fosse. That’s the way he played, hard, 110% all the time, whether it was a season game or the exhibition all-star games, he played hard nosed all year round.
As I near the end of my defense of why Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame, I would like to say, although he betted on baseball, there are players in the Hall of Fame that did dumber things. For example, Ty Cobb, supposedly the greatest player to play the game killed a man, and played dirty all the time. Babe Ruth, the former home run king, was a compulsive gambler and also a womanizer, and slept with numerous women. Mickey Mantel was a heavy drinker, was always drunk, and screwed anything that walked on two legs, maybe even four legs.
Then we come to the most current shameful things done by either a Hall of Fame member or a future Hall of Fame member, Barry Bonds. All I can say is, “which takes away the integrity of baseball more, using steroids to break storied records, such as season leader in home runs with 73, or chasing a record that is perhaps the most storied, most career home runs, which currently sits at 755.
The worst part in my opinion is that the writers that select the Hall of Fame classes, feel that betting on baseball is worse than killing a man or using steroids to break a few records. I mean come on, all Pete Rose did was bet on baseball, which at first he denied all claims until after mid-2003, then you got guys that were complete drunks or a man-hoe, a cheater, or even a murderer, yet everyone would rather have these type of “Icons” in their and not Pete Rose. I think it just goes to show you how pathetic and feeble-minded some people can be, when it comes to choosing people to be a proud fan of an athlete.
It’ll be a great day once people realize that Pete Rose finally deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, but until that day, I will not approve of any records that are broken, until steroids are banned completely from the game, even though there is a new policy, its like a slap on the wrist for first-time offenders.

Any and all record broken by Bonds should have the * by it, like Roger Maris did, until it was lifted after his death, but with bonds never remove the * at all

[Captain Cold Nose]

Guess the rule book only applies where we want it to.

[ADunn44]

I will:

Pete Rose revolutionized the way of playing the game by hustling on every ball he hit, and on every ball that was hit to him. Plus, he had more than 200 hits for 7 years I believe. I mean by "revolutionizing" changing the game. He made baseball even greater. Come on, Pete is probably the greatest ever. 4,000+ hits! You gotta be kidding me.
This guy would be your best friend off the field, but when he comes on the field, he not your friend anymore. He's the guy you'll do anything to beat. Remember that All-Star game where he barreled into Ray Fosse at home plate. That's only the All-Star game and he played as if it were the World Series. And it is the most precious record because how many players do you know have over 4,000 hits? 2, Ty Cobb and Pete Rose. The home run record is also precious, but it is more reachable than the hit record. I mean Barry Bonds is capable of breaking the home run record.


the exact number of hits Rose has is 4256, and Bonds should have an * put by all the records he broke


other players that should be in:

Barry Larkin, if Ozzie can get in with his .250 average and stellar defense, then Larkin can get in with .285 and stellar defense

Dave Concepcion, had better D than ozzie, from what my dad told me


and then:

Shoeless Joe Jackson, the dead ball era Pete Rose

[RuthMayBond]

Pete Rose Should Be in the Hall of Fame


I wish everyone would get off of Pete Roses’ case, about gambling.

I still feel that there is still more to prove that Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame, and the fact that he was the captain all 24 seasons

Pete is most remembered for the 1970 World Series when he rounded third base in the bottom of the eleventh inning, and bowled over Ray Fosse.

As I near the end of my defense of why Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame, I would like to say, although he betted on baseball, there are players in the Hall of Fame that did dumber things. For example, Ty Cobb, supposedly the greatest player to play the game killed a man,

Mickey Mantel was a heavy drinker, was always drunk, and screwed anything that walked on two legs, maybe even four legs.

Then we come to the most current shameful things done by either a Hall of Fame member or a future Hall of Fame member, Barry Bonds. All I can say is, “which takes away the integrity of baseball more, using steroids to break storied records,

Any and all record broken by Bonds should have the * by it, like Roger Maris did, until it was lifted after his death, but with bonds never remove the * at allWow, I have, uh, "learned" so much today :laugh :laugh :laugh

[RuthMayBond]

Dave Concepcion, had better D than ozzie, from what my dad told meYour dad might be a little, uh, unobjective

[714 on beer and dogs]

I hope this fits the criteria but in my eyes Richie Allen,Jim Rice and Ron Santo are 3 that should have plaques

[Captain Cold Nose]

I hope this fits the criteria but in my eyes Richie Allen,Jim Rice and Ron Santo are 3 that should have plaques
Fits quite nicely, 714. Welcome to Baseball Fever.

[RuthMayBond]

I hope this fits the criteria but in my eyes Richie Allen,Jim Rice and Ron Santo are 3 that should have plaquesyou got two of my top three :clapping :clapping :clapping :clapping

[moviegeekjan]

As far as not having his uniform number retired, I suspect that is true of most Hall of Fame players -- especially for a HOF player who did not play his entire career for one team.
(This looks like a great topic for another thread: WHAT HOF PLAYERS DID NOT HAVE THEIR UNIFORM NUMBERS RETIRED?
Variety of factors for this ...

Some teams simply don't retire many numbers
Some players divide career among multiple teams
Early 20th century players didn't have numbers
Some franchises have been in multiple locations and don't identify as closely with earlier location (Athletics, for example)

[64Cards]

Pete Rose Should Be in the Hall of Fame

Mickey Mantel was a heavy drinker, was always drunk, and screwed anything that walked on two legs, maybe even four legs.

Adam..ManTLE certainly had his faults and numerous vices, but beastiality wasn't one of them.

[skeletor]

It's always easier to dump on players, or people..especially when
they are no longer with us, and can't defend themselves..

As for Mantle, he had great stats, and would have been much greater
if he wasn't hurt so much, and drank himself silly..but all in all,
Mantle paid the ultimate prices..shorten his career, and shorten his
life..dying far too young..he made his bed, and had to lie in it..

As for Rose; good stats..a bit of a blowhard..but as for gambling..

it's a dark shadow..especially when the finger pointed on him betting
on both baseball and his team..if that is the case, no way will he ever
live to see going into the hall...it's one thing to bet on football, golf,
and so on....another to bet on baseball...even his team..MLB must have
a solid reason, for keeping Pete Rose out...do the math.

a good player that should be in the hall..Alan Trammel...

[speanroc]

bosox's jim rice

[ElHalo]

Not sure if I've said my piece in here, but my thoughts have changed on the matter. There's two guys that really stick out to me, and I can't pick between them...

Sherry Magee and Joe Gordon.

It's an absolute travesty that Joe Gordon isn't in the Hall of Fame, but it might be a bigger one that Magee isn't.

[RuthMayBond]

Not sure if I've said my piece in here, but my thoughts have changed on the matter. There's two guys that really stick out to me, and I can't pick between them...

Sherry Magee and Joe Gordon.

It's an absolute travesty that Joe Gordon isn't in the Hall of FameHe might have tried more than 5700 AB

[Honus Wagner Rules]

He might have tried more than 5700 AB

Well, WW II has something to do with that...plus I think a back injury ended his career early...

[714 on beer and dogs]

Didn't sandberg get elected this year?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Didn't sandberg get elected this year?
He did, indeed. But this thread was started last year, with an almost one-year-span between the "last" post in March of 2004 and the renewing of the thread yesterday.

[Freakshow]

He might have tried more than 5700 AB
Well, WW II has something to do with that

Exactly right. Looking at plate appearances, which gives a more accurate view of playing time than at bats, Gordon tops 7600 PA when given proper credit for his two years missed. Looking at middle infielders in the Hall, that's a bit behind Vaughan and Doerr and a bit ahead of Lazzeri and Boudreau. Those four are not commonly found in lists of HOF dregs.

[Bleacherbee]

Mickey Lolich, Alan Trammell

Not biased or anything :)

[Imapotato]

I find it interesting that you'd bring him up. When I was working on a trivia question the other day, I found that he is one of only three Hall Eligible players ever to have led their league in BA, SLG, and OBP in the same season, without being in the hall of fame.

The others are George Stone, who played from 1903-1910, and Fred Llynn.

Of course, my personal opinion is that Joe Torre is the most deserving player not in the hall, but this supports your statement.

Ahhh George Stone, a player I know all too well....

He was talented for a short period of time...but he was involved in the first of a very rare transaction? Can anyone name it...and the player it involved?

Thing with Stone, although his RF and other fielding statistics look above average, he was a notorious horrible fielder...and thus like many other offensive powerhouses who declined slightly in those days was out of baseball quickly...his Batting title BTW was at expense of Cobb and slightly beating the greatest 2b ever Nap Lajoie :) (IMHO of course)

The thing with Sherry Magee, was he was forever tainted with knocking out an umpire...and even after becoming an umpire later to redeem himself, everyone knew him for that one instance.

From what I read, Magee had epilepsy and went through an attack when he beat the umpire senseless.

As for Joe Gordon, he suffers from WWII syndrome...he missed time, and when he came back it was an inferior league for a period of time, with scabs playing MLB

I think he should go in, basically because he had all 5 tools, but then again I always stick up for Chick Hafey and Rube Marquand...and think Byleven is a very good not great Pitcher...I mean most HRs in a season...and this cannot even be topped by today's starters!!! His curve wasn't THAT great if it hung that much

[RuthMayBond]

He was talented for a short period of time...but he was involved in the first of a very rare transaction? Can anyone name it...and the player it involved?

Thing with Stone, although his RF and other fielding statistics look above average, he was a notorious horrible fielder...Stone was in two trades on the same day with the same guy? (Frank Huelsman).
Then how do we know Stone was really a horrible fielder? Reggie Jackson was "notoriously horrible" but not necessarily so (at least not until the end)

[Captain Cold Nose]

Stone was in two trades on the same day with the same guy? (Frank Huelsman).
Then how do we know Stone was really a horrible fielder? Reggie Jackson was "notoriously horrible" but not necessarily so (at least not until the end)
Jackson did have some notorious miscues, like dropping Davey Lopes' routine fly in the 1981 World Series.

No one is perfect, of course, (not even YOU. And you know who you are.) but timing is everything toward reputation.

[RuthMayBond]

Jackson did have some notorious miscues, like dropping Davey Lopes' routine fly in the 1981 World Series.

No one is perfect, of course, (not even YOU. And you know who you are.) but timing is everything toward reputation.Willie Mays had one ill-timed World Series error, but so what?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Willie Mays had one ill-timed World Series error, but so what?
Mays had a few brilliant plays on the main stage to make up for the miscue. Just like Babe Ruth made up for being caught stealing . . .

I'm not going to win this one, so I'm stepping out now. :waving

[Imapotato]

Stone was in two trades on the same day with the same guy? (Frank Huelsman).
Then how do we know Stone was really a horrible fielder? Reggie Jackson was "notoriously horrible" but not necessarily so (at least not until the end)

Everything I have read about Stone is the fact that he had 'stone hands' (pardon the pun) and that is by multiple students and players of the game...plus his offensive decline didn't help. Back in those days, great defense kept you in the game (Cutshaw, McBride, Paskert) but bad D forced you out

Maybe you can help me out on another guy I am thinking of that fits the mold RMB....another player was an OPS godsend in the early to mid 20's IIRC, yet his career was short because of horrible defense...I just can't think of his name at the moment, but he is the one guy that brought about McGraw trying to implement the DH in the 20's

PS---got the guy (Frank Huelsman) but the rare transaction was that Huelsman was the first player traded 3x in a season....and in fact he was traded 4x in 8 months!!!

[RuthMayBond]

Maybe you can help me out on another guy I am thinking of that fits the mold RMB....another player was an OPS godsend in the early to mid 20's IIRC, yet his career was short because of horrible defense...I just can't think of his name at the moment, but he is the one guy that brought about McGraw trying to implement the DH in the 20's

PS---got the guy (Frank Huelsman) but the rare transaction was that Huelsman was the first player traded 3x in a season....and in fact he was traded 4x in 8 months!!!Heilmann/Babe Herman?

[Imapotato]

No...earlier...I will browse BBREF, I know it will come to me when I see his name...he was a wretched OFer, but he had a 5 yr stat lne to drool over

[abacab]

Gavy Cravath?

[Toy Boat]

Not neccessarily the 3 best, but 3 I'd put in: Gil Hodges, Ron Santo, and Keith Hernandez.

[Freakshow]

No...earlier...I will browse BBREF, I know it will come to me when I see his name...he was a wretched OFer, but he had a 5 yr stat lne to drool over
Jack Fournier?

[Appling]

Among eligible players not enshrined, the best is Ryne Sandberg, who should've been a first-ballot pick in the last BBWAA election.

He is followed by Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven.
I agree. Most deserving is Sandberg, followed by Santo and Blyleven (or perhaps Blyleven next, then Santo).

[Imapotato]

Jack Fournier?


Nope I got it

Riggs "Old Hoss" Stephenson is who I was thinking of...who hurt his shoulder in football at college and could hardly throw

Fred Nicholson is also a player that might be named as good hitter, terrible fielder and soon was gone...I think Nicholson still holds the OF error record at 4 in a game

[RuthMayBond]

Nope I got it

Riggs "Old Hoss" Stephenson is who I was thinking of...who hurt his shoulder in football at college and could hardly throw

Fred Nicholson is also a player that might be named as good hitter, terrible fielder and soon was gone...I think Nicholson still holds the OF error record at 4 in a gameWhen was Stephenson a monster hitter? And his Range Factor was well below average

[64Cards]

Cubbie Blue,

I can never think of Ron Santo, without also thinking of his "twin" Kenny Boyer. I was wondering if you felt that there was any essential difference between the two, offensively or defensively. Is it only me?

Bill Burgess
Boyer was my favorite player when I was a kid. I agree, not too much of a difference, just from memory and reputation at the time, I think Boyer had a better glove. Ken had an excellent decade from mid-50's to 65, but after his MVP season in 64, went from being one of the best players in NL to very average. Maybe it was the smokes, was supposed to have been a 4 pack a day man. Santo didn't have a real long career either, undoubtably the diabetes shortened it. Don't you think the 69 el foldo by the Cubs cost Ron his spot in HOF?

One thing that's baffeled me, Santo and Boyer still out, but Brooks Robinson made it FIRST time. Nothing against Brooks, he belongs, the greatest glove at 3B and his career lasted much longer than Boyer's or Santo's. But during the 60's I don't remember anyone saying Brooks was head over heels an all-round better 3B than Ken or Ron. I think after Brooks' magnificent performance in the 70 WS, he became elevated way above the other 3B of his era. Compare the numbers of the 3 of the them.

[RuthMayBond]

Boyer was my favorite player when I was a kid. I agree, not too much of a difference, just from memory and reputation at the time, I think Boyer had a better glove. Ken had an excellent decade from mid-50's to 65, but after his MVP season in 64, went from being one of the best players in NL to very average. Maybe it was the smokes, was supposed to have been a 4 pack a day man. Santo didn't have a real long career either, undoubtably the diabetes shortened it.Santo has Boyer beat in OPS+ . . .
. . . and plate apps . . .
. . . and Adjusted Range Factor . . .
. . . and times Putout leader . . .
. . . and times Assist leader :eek:

[ElHalo]

Then how do we know Stone was really a horrible fielder? Reggie Jackson was "notoriously horrible" but not necessarily so (at least not until the end)

I've never thought of Reggie as a horrible fielder, just a mediocre one. Stone's defense, though his stats say otherwise, was bad enough to the witnesses of the time to get him thrown out of the game at a fairly early age. I trust their eyes more than his stats.

[RuthMayBond]

I've never thought of Reggie as a horrible fielder, just a mediocre one. Stone's defense, though his stats say otherwise, was bad enough to the witnesses of the time to get him thrown out of the game at a fairly early age. I trust their eyes more than his stats.Do you think Stone's hitting after 1908 had anything to do with it?

[Bill Burgess]

64Cards,

I do agree that WS gave Brooksie a huge boost towards Cooperstown. Done the same for lots of others too. I see Santo's case for Hall much stronger than Kenny's, based on heavier bat. Kenny's case is borderline.

After listening carefully to the Brooklyn guys, I am persuaded that Billy Cox was the greatest glove ever at the hot corner, with Brooksie a close 2nd.

BB

[ElHalo]

Do you think Stone's hitting after 1908 had anything to do with it?

He was still a much better than league average hitter after 1908. Not as good as before, certainly, but better than whoever they replaced him with.

[Jennifer]

MELVIN LEROY HARDER - Pitched 20 years for the Tribe and won 223 games; Not an easy task for a team that was often so bad. He won 20 games twice and was in double digits 13 times. Only 20 some pitchers have won 15 or more games eight years in a row, something Harder accomplished. He pitched in four consecutive All-Star games (1934-1937) and in 13 inninings did not allow an earned run (unless someone has done it recently no other pitcher pitching at least ten inninings in All-Star play has managed this feat). Both Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams called Harder the toughest pitcher they faced in their careers.

Harder was also one of the greatest pitching coaches of all-time. In his 16 years as a coach he had seven different pitchers who won 20 or more games and was the pitching coach for perhaps the best starting staff of all time the 1954 Tribe team.

If Harder had pitched and coached in New York he would have been elected to the Hall of Fame years ago.

[64Cards]

Agreed that Santo is a much stronger argument for HOF, although I think in their very prime years, Boyer may have been the best of the 3. Kenny just fell dramatically off his peak level, when he just have been good for about another 5 years.

[Imapotato]

When was Stephenson a monster hitter? And his Range Factor was well below average

When did I say Monster Hitter?

I said OBP God...and he was...an excellent hitter, but terrible fielder, which was the intent of my post.

Gheesh, took me forever to find out who it was and now you want to argue that he couldn't hit...

[ElHalo]

When did I say Monster Hitter?

I said OBP God...and he was...an excellent hitter, but terrible fielder, which was the intent of my post.

Gheesh, took me forever to find out who it was and now you want to argue that he couldn't hit...

Riggs Stephenson is:

18th among all LF'ers all time in OWP.
14th in RC/G
17th in total average
7th in OBP
5th in BA
15th in OPS

Calling him a great hitter is certainly no overstatement.

[Imapotato]

Exactly El Halo

But he was more an OBP then SLG% guy

However his 1st 6 years, he hardly played...80 games a year...much as a PH...simply because he could nopt field or throw to save his life...much like George Stone

If they had the DH back then, I am sure Riggs would be in the HOF (and I don't agree with a DH being a HOFer)

[Jennifer]

I ran across an article in the Plain Dealer talking about Steve O'Neills qualifications for the Hall.

O’Neill’s credentials can be compared to one of his catching contemporaries, Ray Schalk of the Chicago White Sox, who is in Cooperstown, O’Neill batted better than .300 in three straight seasons, from 1920 to 1922. Schalk never hit .300. O’Neill leads Schalk in career batting average, home runs, doubles, slugging percentage and on-base percentage.

O’Neill, who played from 1911-28, still holds the major-league record for most double plays by a catcher in a season (36 in 1916) and is second all time to Schalk in post-1900 career assists by a receiver. Schalk played from 1912-29.

In addition, O’Neill was a successful manager while Schalk was not. O’Neill was a workhorse behind the plate. In 1920, he caught 149 of the 154 games. The only five he missed came when Corbett and her twin sister, Rose, were born and he went home to Minooka, Pa. He caught all seven games of the World Series, batting .333.

Plain Dealer article (http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/sports/111364394754771.xml)

[ElHalo]

Schalk is something of an anomoly among HoF'ers, certainly HoF catchers. He's a guy who got there solely on defense and intangibles, and the only other such guys I can think of are middle infielders... Smith, Mazeroski, Maranville. Schalk is recognized as the greatest defensive C of all time, by a wide margin.

[leecemark]

--Schalk was generally considered the best defensive catcher of his time. How he stacks up against catchers who have played since is open to question as is how wide a margin he may have separated himself from other good defensive catchers of his own time. Many people believe he was just one of the many bad VC selections. Simply a vaguley remembered "Clean Sox" who they decided to honor on a whim.
--O'Neil may have been a better player than Schalk. So might have been more recent players, such as Bob Boone or Tony Pena. Being better than Ray Schalk doesn't mean you have a good case for the Hall of Fame.

[ElHalo]

--Schalk was generally considered the best defensive catcher of his time. How he stacks up against catchers who have played since is open to question as is how wide a margin he may have separated himself from other good defensive catchers of his own time. Many people believe he was just one of the many bad VC selections. Simply a vaguley remembered "Clean Sox" who they decided to honor on a whim.
--O'Neil may have been a better player than Schalk. So might have been more recent players, such as Bob Boone or Tony Pena. Being better than Ray Schalk doesn't mean you have a good case for the Hall of Fame.

As I've said elsewhere, I view Schalk as equally valuable to Mike Piazza, and they're both HoF'ers in my view. In my book, the only mistake catcher in the Hall is Ferrell, who I have yet to see any legitimate, or even illegitimate, justification for.

[leecemark]

--You have indeed said that several times, but I can't imagine many people would agree. We can agree that Ferrell is the worst catcher in the Hall though :clapping .

[Bill Burgess]

I cannot agree with either of you, Jim/Mark. Lombardi, Schalk, Ferrell and Bresnahan are not Famers in Burgessland. Must hit to qualify for my Hall. Bresnahan is almost borderline but not quite. Just misses.

And Schalk is a mile away from the best defensive catcher in history. Proves we cannot qualify calling a great game, or measuring arms.

Best defensive catchers ever include Ewing, Bennett, Kling, Mackey, Bench, I-Rod.

I'm not implying that Ray Schalk wasn't a great defensive catcher. He was. But when we're speaking of the absolute GREATEST DEFENSIVE catcher ever, Ray just couldn't receive with Buck, Biz, Charlie, Johnny, or Benchie.

Schalk/Berra/Campy/Cochrane/Dickey just behind.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Bresnahan and Lombardi shouldn't miss your cut on the basis of their hitting. Bresnahan was the best hitting catcher of his era, with the possible exception of Chief Myers (Bresnahan outhit him, but Myers did it all as a catcher while Brenahan had his best hitting years as an outfielder). Catching less than a 1,000 games is what might keep me from saying yes to Bresnahan.
--Lombardi was arguably the best hitting MLB catcher ever until Piazza came along. I've read numerous accounts that say he would have hit .400 if he could have run at all (not only did he have no chance at an infield hit, but IF were able to play him back on the OF grass). He still managed the rare feat of being a catcher/batting champ with fairly good power. He is a questionable HoFer to me due to defensive shortcomings, horrendous baserunning and a relatively short career, but he hit like a Hall of Famer.

[Imapotato]

--Schalk was generally considered the best defensive catcher of his time. How he stacks up against catchers who have played since is open to question as is how wide a margin he may have separated himself from other good defensive catchers of his own time. Many people believe he was just one of the many bad VC selections. Simply a vaguley remembered "Clean Sox" who they decided to honor on a whim.
--O'Neil may have been a better player than Schalk. So might have been more recent players, such as Bob Boone or Tony Pena. Being better than Ray Schalk doesn't mean you have a good case for the Hall of Fame.

How Ray Schalk compares to every other Catcher


Name G OFF DEF TOT
BILL DICKEY 1708 0.962 0.683 0.822
GABBY HARTNETT 1793 0.957 0.673 0.815
MICKEY COCHRANE 1451 0.985 0.627 0.806
YOGI BERRA 1699 0.914 0.630 0.772
ROY CAMPANELLA 1183 0.900 0.610 0.755
JOHNNY BENCH 1742 0.877 0.615 0.746
MIKE PIAZZA 1317 0.993 0.487 0.740
GARY CARTER 2056 0.798 0.658 0.728
IVAN RODRIGUEZ 1427 0.837 0.569 0.703
JASON KENDALL 913 0.803 0.591 0.697
WALLY SCHANG 1435 0.883 0.493 0.688
SPUD DAVIS 1282 0.799 0.570 0.685
JOE TORRE 903 0.910 0.458 0.685
ROGER BRESNAHAN 974 0.842 0.518 0.680
CARLTON FISK 2229 0.851 0.507 0.679
BILL FREEHAN 1581 0.753 0.591 0.672
CHIEF MEYERS 911 0.667 0.673 0.670
SHERM LOLLAR 1571 0.757 0.577 0.667
RICK FERRELL 1806 0.737 0.591 0.664
CHARLES JOHNSON 943 0.587 0.724 0.656
CHRIS HOILES 819 0.784 0.525 0.655
ERNIE LOMBARDI 1544 0.861 0.445 0.653
CHARLIE BENNETT 954 0.692 0.592 0.642
TED SIMMONS 1771 0.852 0.424 0.638
RAY SCHALK 1727 0.454 0.806 0.630


No one is within a Grand Canyon to his Defense
Steve O'Neill is nowhere to be found, and maybe we should ask why Spud Davis doesn't get consideration for the HOF

Funny how fans never take things as "Maybe I don't understand the reasoning behind the election" but instead say "Those old timers didn't know ANYTHING"

[Imapotato]

Best defensive catchers ever include Ewing, Bennett, Kling, Mackey, Bench, I-Rod.

I'm not implying that Ray Schalk wasn't a great defensive catcher. He was. But when we're speaking of the absolute GREATEST DEFENSIVE catcher ever, Ray just couldn't receive with Buck, Biz, Charlie, Johnny, or Benchie.

Schalk/Berra/Campy/Cochrane/Dickey just behind.

Bill Burgess

I am rolling right now...lol

Only guy that comes close to Schalk is Charles Johnson

Ivan Rodriguez? More hype then any C I ever saw...I am better defensivly then he is...but oh look he throws down to 1st, catches him napping, he must be GREAT

Nah..

[csh19792001]

Actually PETE ROSE is the best player not in the Hall of Fame.

But of those ELIGIBLE, I suggest the following:
1. Bert Blylevin
2. Ron Santo
3. Tony Oliva

Really? Better than Joe Jackson? :waving

[leecemark]

--Potato, I have no idea what those catcher numbers you posted are supposed to represent. Perhaps they would be more meaningfull if you said what they were. Also, your chart shows not only Spud Davis, but Chris Hoiles as better than Schalk. Whatever measurement it is, it isn't one I'd use in making Hall of Fame decisions.
--Or at least not as a guide to borderline calls. Whatever it is does have 9 of the top 10 catchers in MLB history at the top of the chart. Only Carlton Fisk, way down at 15 keeps it from accurately predicting the slam dunk Hall choices. I assume its based on rates and Fisk was pushed down because he played so many more games than the rest?

[Imapotato]

sorry I thought I put this disclaimer in

And it's not who is GREAT...but how they measure up in these context

The Overall Ranking of the 157 catchers who caught 800 or more games are shown in the below table, ordered by the Overall score.

The SCORES for both Offense and defense are Normalized Distributions (i.e. from 0.001 to 0.999) of the relative standing in each category. The Total Offense (and Defense) Score is an Average of the six selected percentile measures. This methodology is best suited when handling different categories of standardized scores (i.e. comparing Batting Average and Errors per Game).

The OFFENSIVE Categories used were: Batting Average (AVG), On-Base-Percentage (OBP), Slugging Average (SLG), Secondary Average (SECA), Runs Created (RC), Runs Created per 27 Outs Minus League Average RC27 (RC-LRC).

The DEFENSIVE Categories used were: Games Caught as a Percentage of Team's Games Played (GC), Assists per Game (A/G), Errors per Game (E/G), Fielding Average Minus League Fielding Average for Catchers (F-LFLD%), Doubleplays per Game (DP/G), and Passed Balls per Game (PB/G).

The GRAND TOTAL is an Average of the 6 Offensive and the 6 Defensive Categories.


This is from the Encylopedia of Catchers

[RuthMayBond]

When did I say Monster Hitter?

I said OBP God...and he was...an excellent hitter, but terrible fielder, which was the intent of my post.

Gheesh, took me forever to find out who it was and now you want to argue that he couldn't hit...Actually you said "oPS godsend" (in post 156). I never said he couldn't hit but a max of 142 in the era you mentioned doesn't seem like a god.

[RuthMayBond]

Riggs Stephenson is:

18th among all LF'ers all time in OWP.
14th in RC/G
17th in total average
7th in OBP
5th in BA
15th in OPS Ok, but just don't forget to index :D

[RuthMayBond]

I ran across an article in the Plain Dealer talking about Steve O'Neills qualifications for the Hall.

O’Neill’s credentials can be compared to one of his catching contemporaries, Ray Schalk of the Chicago White Sox, who is in Cooperstown, O’Neill batted better than .300 in three straight seasons, from 1920 to 1922. Schalk never hit .300. O’Neill leads Schalk in career batting average, home runs, doubles, slugging percentage and on-base percentage.

O’Neill, who played from 1911-28, still holds the major-league record for most double plays by a catcher in a season (36 in 1916) and is second all time to Schalk in post-1900 career assists by a receiver. Schalk played from 1912-29.

In addition, O’Neill was a successful manager while Schalk was not. O’Neill was a workhorse behind the plate. In 1920, he caught 149 of the 154 games. The only five he missed came when Corbett and her twin sister, Rose, were born and he went home to Minooka, Pa. He caught all seven games of the World Series, batting .333.

Plain Dealer article (http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/sports/111364394754771.xml)O'Neill does have great other qualifications, but I don't think he deserved even one Gold Glove, because Schalk would have always beat him out

[RuthMayBond]

I am rolling right now...lol

Only guy that comes close to Schalk is Charles Johnson

Ivan Rodriguez? More hype then any C I ever saw...I am better defensivly then he is...but oh look he throws down to 1st, catches him napping, he must be GREAT

Nah..Yes, the amazing CJ led his league in assists . . .
. . . once . . .
. . . TEN years ago :laugh :laugh :laugh

[Heinous Vagner]

the player who deserves a spot on the HOF more than anyone is Goose Gossage.

he was the dominant closert in his day, threw harder than anyone and had the perfect attitude for a closer. he often pitched 2 innings in a save situation.


much love for the goose.

[BoSox Rule]

I can't believe how biased I was in the beginning of this thread.

Dick Allen has my NEW vote.

[BoSox Rule]

Ivan Rodriguez? More hype then any C I ever saw...I am better defensivly then he is...but oh look he throws down to 1st, catches him napping, he must be GREAT
This is just ridiculous.

[Imapotato]

No, it isn't

He is not a great defensively as many say he is...much like Derek Jeter is not a vacuum at SS (media) or black hole (staheadzzz) or clutch

Ivan Rodriguez is an average defensive Catcher, above average in his earlier years. He can hit and do so very well, which is why he is one of the best Catchers in the game...but there are many backup Catchers on MLB rosters now, and some starters who are much better then he. Charles Johnson is probably the most underrated greatest defensive Catcher of the last 30 years...and if he hit as well as Rodriguez or got some pub with Sportcenter highlights, everyone would know that

[leecemark]

--Potato, just saying it doesn't make it true. Why do you believe Johnson is so great? What makes you think Rodriguez isn't?

[Bill Burgess]

JT(Imapotato),

I'm so very intrigued by your assessment of Pudge. I've held him in such high regard until now, defensively. But the house needs your inside notes to help us see what he shows you, or fails to show you.

We also need your inside chops in the other thread on defense. They're doing catchers now. So, both here and there, we need your notes to assist in guiding us to see through your experienced eyes.

I also sent an SOS to Brad (Chancellor). We need our best & brightest to weigh in on this stuff. We need you to share your catcher's radar. What should a master technician have that Pudge lacks? In what aspect of receiving has he been found wanting?

Bill Burgess

[BoSox Rule]

No, it isn't

He is not a great defensively as many say he is...much like Derek Jeter is not a vacuum at SS (media) or black hole (staheadzzz) or clutch

Ivan Rodriguez is an average defensive Catcher, above average in his earlier years. He can hit and do so very well, which is why he is one of the best Catchers in the game...but there are many backup Catchers on MLB rosters now, and some starters who are much better then he. Charles Johnson is probably the most underrated greatest defensive Catcher of the last 30 years...and if he hit as well as Rodriguez or got some pub with Sportcenter highlights, everyone would know that
Ivan Rodriguez has as many runners thrown out than the second, third, and fourth players on the all-time list. His prevention RATE is nearly double anyone else's.

[chanceron]

Wow, this thread was started on 8-7-2003...it will be two years old in a few months, and what have we found out.

#1 there are alot of opinions out there about the best player NOT in the HOF.
#2 This thread could go on forever...we can only hope.
#3 Most opinions are bias...regardless of what opinioners say.
#4 We all love the Game of Baseball.

There have been 102 players elected by the BWAA, 101 players elected by the committee and 9 players elected by the 1971-77 committee of Negro Leagues. Thats 212 players elected to the Hall. The other 48 are not players so in this thread they dont count.

So in my "opinion" if there is a problem with who is in the hall, we only can blame the source. The one thing I like the most is all the people in these committees are committed to trying to do the best for baseball, thats why through baseball history they have changed the way they vote or at least considered change.

Some players elected were just in the right place at the right time. Like Ozzie Smith, a .260 hitter but was able to turn a single into a double play (only Ernie Banks among HOF SS had a better FA than the wizard). Or Koufax who was just terrible his first 6 years (36-40 and over a 4.00 ERA) but was 2nd in no-hitters behind Nolan and won 25+ games 3 years, or Ray Schalk (only Ernie Lombardi had a worse FA among all HOF Catchers) heck this guy played for the Black Sox, what did he do squeal on Shoeless Joe or what, or Frank Chance...the guy hit 20 homers in his career (last among 1B in HOF in runs, hits, rbi's and didnt hit .300 for his career) I know he played the early 1900s but others had a heavier bat than him back then. I say he is in the HOF because of Tinker to Evers to Chance.....all three are in there. Does this mean that if you show up in a catchy phrase or song you get elected to the Hall....then where is the Duke.

I could go on and on and on but I wont (loud :clapping from the crowd).

Finally my choice is Cy Seymour because not only was he a good hitter in the era of the pitchers ...he was a good pitcher in the era of the batters. Yes he drank alot but so did Mickey Mantle.

I also vote to have Bobby Richardson replace Bill Mazeroski in the HOF...this is not bias Bobby just happens to be my favorite :crazy


PS...a while back I almost fell out of my chair when Donnie Baseball was mentioned in this thread because of what he did for my Yankees....give me a break.....in his 14 years as a Yankee...the Yankees came in 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 5th, last, 5th, 5th, 2nd, 1st finally, and 2nd. What did he do clean their uniforms....and I like Don Mattingly but the Hall NO WAY.

Here is a list of first available year elected to the hall
Bob Feller-1962 Jackie Robinson-1962 Ted Williams-1966
Stan Musial-1969 Sandy Koufax-1972 Warren Spahn-1973
Mickey Mantle-1974 Ernie Banks-1977 Willie Mays-1979
Al Kaline-1980 Bob Gibson-1981 Hank Aaron-1982
Frank Robinson-1982 Brooks Robinson-1983 Lou Brock-1985
Willie McCovey-1986 Willie Stargell-1988 Johnny Bench-1989
Carl Yastrzemski-1989 Joe Morgan-1990 Jim Palmer-1990
Rod Carew-1991 Tom Seaver-1992 Reggie Jackson-1993
Steve Carlton-1994 Mike Schmidt-1995 George Brett-1999
Nolan Ryan-1999 Robin Yount-1999 Kirby Puckett-2001
Dave Winfield-2001 Ozzie Smith-2002 Eddie Murray-2003
Dennis Eckersley-2004 Paul Molitor-2004 Wade Boggs-2005

Which of these didnt deserve it.....In the words of Jim Rome....give a take dont suck....I'm out

[Appling]

Here is a list of first available year elected to the hall
Bob Feller-1962 Jackie Robinson-1962 Ted Williams-1966
Stan Musial-1969 Sandy Koufax-1972 Warren Spahn-1973
Mickey Mantle-1974 Ernie Banks-1977 Willie Mays-1979
Al Kaline-1980 Bob Gibson-1981 Hank Aaron-1982
Frank Robinson-1982 Brooks Robinson-1983 Lou Brock-1985 Willie McCovey-1986 Willie Stargell-1988 Johnny Bench-1989
Carl Yastrzemski-1989 Joe Morgan-1990 Jim Palmer-1990
Rod Carew-1991 Tom Seaver-1992 Reggie Jackson-1993
Steve Carlton-1994 Mike Schmidt-1995 George Brett-1999
Nolan Ryan-1999 Robin Yount-1999 Kirby Puckett-2001
Dave Winfield-2001 Ozzie Smith-2002 Eddie Murray-2003
Dennis Eckersley-2004 Paul Molitor-2004 Wade Boggs-2005

Which of these didnt deserve it.....
Thanks for this great list of HOF'ers who were elected in their first year of eligibility. Everyone on this list belongs in the Hall of Fame (IMO) but I wouldn't say Ozzie Smith is as obviously HOF as most of the others. Most of the other first-ballot winners could HIT!

I also wonder about Lou Brock. He belongs in the Hall because he was the first to break Ty Cobb's record for career stolen bases. But if Rickey H had come along before Lou, I don't think Lou would have been a first-ballot winner. In some ways Lou Brock reminds me of Curt Flood.

And if Robin Yount were on the ballot today I doubt that he would be a first-ballot winner. He was a fine player but seems to be forgotten today.

[Appling]

Some players elected were just in the right place at the right time. ...
or Frank Chance...the guy hit 20 homers in his career (last among 1B in HOF in runs, hits, rbi's and didnt hit .300 for his career) I know he played the early 1900s but others had a heavier bat than him back then. I say he is in the HOF because of Tinker to Evers to Chance.....all three are in there. Does this mean that if you show up in a catchy phrase or song you get elected to the Hall....then where is the Duke.

No doubt it helps to have a poem or song written about you, and the Tinker-To-Evers-to-chance poem certainly did a lot to bolster the stock of that crew. All three elected in 1946. IMO the entire class of 1946 could be expelled and the Hall wouldn't suffer a bit. (Well, maybe keep Ed Walsh because of one great season.)

[ElHalo]

Tinker and Evers don't belong within thirty miles of Cooperstown, but I see Frank Chance as a deserving HoF'er.

[ElHalo]

No doubt it helps to have a poem or song written about you, and the Tinker-To-Evers-to-chance poem certainly did a lot to bolster the stock of that crew. All three elected in 1946. IMO the entire class of 1946 could be expelled and the Hall wouldn't suffer a bit. (Well, maybe keep Ed Walsh because of one great season.)

Are you serious? You don't think Rube Waddell, Eddie Plank, and Jesse Burkett are deserving HoF'ers? That's an all time great LF'er and two of the top 20 pitchers of all time.

[chanceron]

Tinker and Evers don't belong within thirty miles of Cooperstown, but I see Frank Chance as a deserving HoF'er.


Frank Chance deserves it more than Tinker or Evers true ...that I'll give him....his career numbers.....17 years.....296 BA......798 Runs.......20 Homers.......596 RBIs.....405 stolen bases (not bad)...only 185 errors in 1286 games .....wow he only sruck out 29 times in 17 years. He lead the league in stolen bases twice and in runs once....4 world series appearances with a .310 BA and he did help beat a Ty Cobb led Detriot team twice in the series. I guess but there have been alot of 1B with better numbers

As far as Tinker he batted .263 career in 15 years, never led the league in anything...did play in the world series 4 times but only batted .235

And Evers played 18 years batting .270 and he too never lead the league in anything

Its all in the poem Tinker to Evers to Chance plus the fact that all three were involved in two Cub world series wins against the mighty Ty Cobb.

[RuthMayBond]

Frank Chance deserves it more than Tinker or Evers true ...that I'll give him....his career numbers.....17 years.....296 BA......798 Runs.......20 Homers.......596 RBIs.....405 stolen bases (not bad)...only 185 errors in 1286 games .....wow he only sruck out 29 times in 17 years. Um, Chance fanned 29 times in 5 "years" (3 of those years being 24 or fewer AB)

[chanceron]

I'm a little confused..when I looked up Frank Chance it shows he played 17 years but only had 29 strikeouts....but there are none in his early years...please someone tell me what I'm missing here. Its making me :crazy

[RuthMayBond]

I'm a little confused..when I looked up Frank Chance it shows he played 17 years but only had 29 strikeouts....but there are none in his early years...please someone tell me what I'm missing here. Its making me :crazyThe league didn't keep track of batter strikeouts a long time ago

[chanceron]

The league didn't keep track of batter strikeouts a long time ago


Thats what I thought except for when I look up Cap Anson's records it shows he struck out 294 times and his last year was like 1897. What did they do, keep up with them and then stopped until around 1910 ...then started counting them again?

After a little more research I find that before 1897 they counted strikeouts and after 1912 they counted strikeouts....Wonder why they stopped counting batter strikeouts between 1897 and 1913?

Anyone else out there know anymore on this subject?

[chanceron]

Sorry, I'll take this research to another thread so not to tie this great thread up ..... on the best player not in the Hall Of Fame.
Ron

[Bill Burgess]

Best Guys not in the Hall of Fame:

Bill Lange, Joe Gordon, Bill Madlock, Herman Long, Ned Williamson, Ron Santo

Pre-1900 Pitchers:
Jim Whitney, Bob Caruthers, Silver King, Ed Morris, Tony Mullane, Larry Corcoran, Sakie McMahon, Jim McCormick

Pitchers:
Nap Rucker, Ed Ruelbach, Carl Mays, Eddie Cicotte, Urban Shocker,


For fantastic Defense:
Charlie Bennett, Martin Bergen, Jimmie Archer, Marty Marion, Glenn Wright, Buck Weaver, Happy Felsch.

Negro Leagues:
Biz Mackey, Louis "Santop" Loftin, Carlos Torrienti, John Beckwith, Jim Hill, Spot Poles, Bruce Petway, Bingo DeMoss, Mule Suttles, Jumbo Kimbro.


Bill Burgess

[STLCards2]

Best Guys not in the Hall of Fame:

Nap Rucker, Ed Ruelbach, Red Ruffing, Carl Mays, Eddie Cicotte, Urban Shocker,



Bill Burgess

Ruffing is a Hall of Famer, which is remarkable despite the fact he had the worst start in Hall of Fame History. Ruffing started out something like 38 -92. Unbelievable!

[RuthMayBond]

Best Guys not in the Hall of Fame:

Bill Lange, Ned Williamson, Roger Maris

Mr. 7-year, Mr. 5000 PA, and Mr. Two-career-years

Pre-1900 Pitchers:
Ed Morris

Mr. 7-year

For fantastic Defense:
Martin Bergen, Jimmie Archer, Buck Weaver, Happy Felsch.

Mr. 4-year, Mr. undistinguished, Mr. 1913, and Mr. 6-year

[bonfig1]

Pete Rose. All-Time Hits Leader! Let Pete in the frickin Hall.

[Exposfan556]

This is a piece I wrote about Dawson over in the Cubs section a little time ago:

Personally I don't think he should go to the hall of fame but I don't have a vote. So my opinion really doesn't matter.

Since this is a Cubs section and most of us are Cub fans and a little bias to our Cubbies. I believe though that when you talk about national awards such as MVP, Cy Young, or HOF you should put your local favoritism aside and look at it with open eyes. Having said this and knowing what I am going to say next. Let me state that I loved watching Dawson play and was glad he was on our team.

Dawson was a good player not a great player. In fact I believe his best seasons were with the expos not with the Cubs. If you look at his 1987 MVP seasons it isn't all that great. In fact he had better season with the expos then that year. The reason he won the award is because he led the league in HR and RBI's two stats that voters love, even though those two stats might not be the best indicators of importance. That year he crushed 49 HR's (which is a mind-boggling number back then in the 80's) but only slugged .568 and had an on-base percentage of .329. He couldn't even get on-base a third of the time (also his career OBP is .327). In fact he isn't even in the top five in slugging that year.

Let’s look at the traditional stats that most people look at when evaluating players. He only top 100 RBI's 4 times in his 21 seasons. He only tops 100 runs twice. He only hits 30 or more HR's three times. In fact he only averaged 21 hrs a season. He only hits over .300 4 times. True he did bat .299 one year, but to credit that then you have to discount the years he batted .301 and .302. He never topped 200 hits, he topped 180 twice. Andre did have a stretch of seven seasons where he did top 20 SB's. Everybody likes to look at his low home run total and say "well he played in a different era. Players didn't hit as many HR's. You have to factor that in." And they are right in saying that. Unfortunately they don't factor his era in when looking at his SB's. Andre played in an era where it was common for the SB leaders to have 60, 70, 80, 90, or even over 100 SB's in a season. In fact Andre was never in the top 5 in SB's any of those 7 years. In fact he was only slightly above average in SB's those years. To me just looking at the traditional stats reveals nothing truly great about Dawson.

Looking at the non-traditional stats like OBP, Slugging, and BB/K ration reveals even further that Dawson doesn't deserve to go into the hall. From what I understand .500 Slugging is the benchmark for above average hitter. Dawson’s career avg is .482, he only tops .500 4 times. His career OBP is .327 he only has 2 seasons above .350. His career BB/K is close to 1/3. This means for every walk he takes, he strikes out three times.


To me Dawson’s numbers look good or I should say better than they really are because he played long after he should have retired. I personally think he should have retired after the 1990 season. Yeah the next season he hit 31 homers but that was basically all he did. He hung around for six more seasons basically as a spare part or being a name. You take away those six years of padding and he would lose 93 homers and something like 370 RBI's. Granted if you like we can subtract his 91 from that list and say he should of retire after 91 not 90 but still he would padding. Dawson in my view was an all or nothing guy. He would either hit one over the wall, off the wall, into a mitt, or strike out. He was not a complete hitter and it shows in his stats much more than in the retelling of his legend.


Basically this is what I believe to be true. Andre Dawson was a great Cub Player because of his leadership and his persona. He was not however a great Major League Ballplayer worthy of the HOF. A good ballplayer yes, a great one no.

As an Expos fan I am biased however Dawson has several things going for him. I think in both years Dale Murphy won the NL MVP Dawson was runner-up. He had MVP votes other years. In the early 1980's he was considered to be the best NL outfielder by many. He suffers from playing in Montreal I believe. If he had played his whole career with the Cubs or Dodgers I think he would be in the HOF. I think Dawson deserves to be in the HOF.

[rediwat]

Re the best player not in that hall..well, if we talk pitchers, for a bit,
Bert Blyleven has been...and continues to be...ROBBED>

Check out these numbers:

Warren Spahn 63 Shut OUts...363 wins...3.09 ERA...Best lefty??HOF.
Jim Palmer 53 Shut OUts....268 wins..2.86 ERA...Great Rightie.HOF
Fergie Jenkins 49 Shut Outs...284 wins..3.34 ERA...longevity and toughHOF
Don Drysdale 49 Shut Outs...209 wins..2.95ERA..Shutouts, ERA overcome
low Number of wins.
Jim Bunning 40 Shut Outs...224 wins...3.27ERA...only pitcher w.100+
wins each lge.
__________________________________________________ _______________Bert Blyleven....60 Shut Outs...287 wins...3.31ERA...Why not in HOF??CRAZY

[rediwat]

Re the best player not in that hall..well, if we talk pitchers, for a bit,
Bert Blyleven has been...and continues to be...ROBBED>

Check out these numbers:

Warren Spahn 63 Shut OUts...363 wins...3.09 ERA...Best lefty??HOF.
Jim Palmer 53 Shut OUts....268 wins..2.86 ERA...Great Rightie.HOF
Fergie Jenkins 49 Shut Outs...284 wins..3.34 ERA...longevity and toughHOF
Don Drysdale 49 Shut Outs...209 wins..2.95ERA..Shutouts, ERA overcome
low Number of wins.
Jim Bunning 40 Shut Outs...224 wins...3.27ERA...only pitcher w.100+
wins each lge.
__________________________________________________ _______________Bert Blyleven....60 Shut Outs...287 wins...3.31ERA...Why not in HOF??CRAZY
"Blyleven had the best curveball of his generation...perhaps of any,"
(Anonymous, after getting shut out by Blyleven)

[Appling]

"Blyleven had the best curveball of his generation...perhaps of any,"
(Anonymous, after getting shut out by Blyleven)
I agree that Bly belongs! Perhaps the best curveball pitcher ever.

If he had 13 more career wins or an ERA under 3.000 he would probably be there now. Or if he won even one Cy Young Award.

[Exposfan556]

Jack Morris

[538280]

No doubt, Ron Santo, and I'm not even a Cubs fan.

[chanceron]

Pete Rose. All-Time Hits Leader! Let Pete in the frickin Hall.

Not without shoeless joe going first.

[Dan]

As much as I'd like to say Ron Santo, I would say Bert Blyleven.

[STLCards2]

1. Ron Santo
2. Carl Mays
3. Goose Gossage
4. Bert Blyleven
5. Jim Rice
6. Minnie Minoso
7. Andre Dawson
8. Ted Simmons
9. George Van Haltren
10. Alan Trammel

[ElHalo]

Any top 10 out of the Hall list that doesn't include Sherry Magee has some serious flaws. A few months ago, we did a series of polls to determine who the single best player not in the Hall was, and the final two guys were Santo and Magee... and Magee won.

[STLCards2]

Yeah, you are probably right, I could have easily included Magee. I keep forgetting about his gray-ink totals.

[Brad Harris]

Having given it more thought....


Ron Santo
Bert Blyleven
Alan Trammell
Goose Gossage
Minnie Minoso
Deacon White
Ted Simmons
Wes Ferrell
Bobby Grich
Paul Hines

[RuthMayBond]

Having given it more thought....


Deacon White
Paul Hines
Interesting to say the least

[jclinansmith]

Now, as for Rose... Great hitter! Good coach and fielder! Hall of Famer? No. Hall of Fame Numbers? Yes. The man gambled on the game. He definately made an impact on his sport. Did he bet for his own team, or against it? It is still uncertain. The Hall is about the numbers, but it is also about the person.

You bet against the game you play, you're out! No bones about it! Thems the rules!

:gt

I agree with this statement 1000% and since we have no conclusive decision on wether or not Rose bet on his own team or games..then its a mute point and Rose should be in. Take it away one day if we find out that he did was in fact that very thing. Hes paid his price and Charlie Hustle deserves his day in the sun.

We sometimes forget that in this country we are innocent until proven guilty. Even in Baseball.

But I wonder...at what point in time would you (acting as Pete Rose) just say screw it..screw em all...its just not worth trying anymore? This man has resolve and although people will not believe him he obviously keeps pushing because...just perhaps..he knows he did not bet on his games.

oh well...in due time I guess.

[Bill Burgess]

My gut tells me that Pete Rose bet on his own team, to win. Because Pete is an ego-driven guy. The rules stipulate that one cannot bet on ANY team, let alone your own.

All my instincts tell me Pete bet on the Reds to win. My instincts also tell me that Pete never bet against his own teams. Just my impression of the guy. Wish he'd fess up and come clean. Americans have always shown themselves willing to forgive someone who admits their error, is contrite, sorry, and apologizes. Even if the apology is too late, and less than 100% sincere.

If Pete confessed all, I think he'd get forgiven faster than with his stone-walling. IMHO. I could be all wrong.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Betting on ANY MLB baseball game is forbidden to anyone employed by MLB. Rose was well aware of that and deserved his banishment whether he bet on the Reds (or Expos or Phillies) or not. We may not know if he bet on his own team or not, but that is irrelevant. For the record, I do not believe (although of course I don't know) that Rose ever bet on his team to lose, even he he did bet on them at all.

[cubs_rock]

SANTO


HECK YES!!!!

[3-dogfan]

No, but perhaps he should have garnered more consideration over the years. Don't get me wrong, I'm not seriously advocating him for the Hall, nor would he garner my vote. However, he does have some pretty impressive career totals.


I COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH YOU COMMISSIONER, Willie was my favorite player as a kid so I am biased, but I have checked some actual hall of famers and he has stats and achievements greater than some, Pee Wee Reese to name one, don't get me wrong I think Pee Wee should be there, he was a stalwart shortstop & team leader that did much for the Dodgers, but Willie Davis was damn good too.

My five that should get in... (or at least a few votes)
5. Willie Davis
4. Bill Buckner
3. Ron Santo
2. Gil Hodges
1. Vada Pinson

And of course Pete Rose should already be in the hall of fame, they call him a criminal, but it's a crime that he's not in...4256, come on!:clapping

[3-dogfan]

--Betting on ANY MLB baseball game is forbidden to anyone employed by MLB. Rose was well aware of that and deserved his banishment whether he bet on the Reds (or Expos or Phillies) or not. We may not know if he bet on his own team or not, but that is irrelevant. For the record, I do not believe (although of course I don't know) that Rose ever bet on his team to lose, even he he did bet on them at all.
:D
All you say is true, but Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame, regardless!:D

[3-dogfan]

Ron Santo should have been a 1st ballot Hall of Famer in 1980, it's a friggin' crime!

[3-dogfan]

As much as I'd like to say Ron Santo, I would say Bert Blyleven.
Bert Blyleven, Tommy John, Ron Santo, Gil Hodges & Bill Buckner should all be in the Hall of Fame, already!

It's sad...

1955, 1959, 1963, 1965, 1981, 1988.

1899, 1900, 1901, 1916, 1920, 1941, 1947, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1966, 1974, 1977, 1978.

1983, 1985, 1995, 1996, 2004.

[Bill Burgess]

Best Guys not in the Hall of Fame:

Let me be clear. I am not advocating these great players who are not in the Hall of Fame for membership. Many do not belong. I require hitting.

Bill Madlock, , Ron Santo

Pre-1900 Pitchers:
Jim Whitney, Bob Caruthers, Silver King, Ed Morris, Tony Mullane, Larry Corcoran, Sakie McMahon, Jim McCormick

Pitchers:
Nap Rucker, Ed Ruelbach, Carl Mays, Eddie Cicotte, Urban Shocker,


For fantastic Defense:
Charlie Bennett, Martin Bergen, Jimmie Archer, Marty Marion, Glenn Wright, Buck Weaver, Happy Felsch, Jimmy Ryan, George Gore, Bill Lange, Joe Gordon, Herman Long, Ned Williamson.

Negro Leagues:
John Beckwith, Spot Poles, Bruce Petway, Bingo DeMoss, Jumbo Kimbro.

Bill Burgess

[538280]

Bill Madlock

I know you like Madlock, Bill, but I'm interested as to why. You say you like fielding from 3B (and back that up by ranking Kamm/Bluege among the top 20, Baker at #17). Madlock was a pretty bad fielder, Bill. Made quite a few errors and had little range too. He was known as a clubhouse cancer, who always seemed to have controversy around him, and while he won three batting titles he was a one dimensional hitter, and was known to sit out games to improve his shot at the title. Why exactly should he be in the HOF?

[csh19792001]

I just realized this thread is 3 years old.

And tearforamariner started it. This guy had 3,000+ posts in 2 years, and hasn't even been on here in almost a year.

We've had so many of these dissidents, absconding (sometimes forever). One wonders why people are so incredibly active in their participation, and then suddenly disappear forever.

What about this guy? What happened to him?
http://www.baseball-fever.com/member.php?u=873

And what the hell is this? "researcher" "Last Activity: 12-31-1969 07:00 PM"

Speaking of which, have all the posts before 4-7-2002 been erased? (April of 2002 goes for HOF, History, and Current Events) I go to "beginning", and that's as far as it brings me. Why can't I search back to Jan of 2000, when the site was created?

We should do a "roll call" thread and see what happened to the hardcore regulars who left forever. Maybe they gave reasons as to why they never came back.

[csh19792001]

I know you like Madlock, Bill, but I'm interested as to why. You say you like fielding from 3B (and back that up by ranking Kamm/Bluege among the top 20, Baker at #17). Madlock was a pretty bad fielder, Bill. Made quite a few errors and had little range too. He was known as a clubhouse cancer, who always seemed to have controversy around him, and while he won three batting titles he was a one dimensional hitter, and was known to sit out games to improve his shot at the title. Why exactly should he be in the HOF?

That is a very odd thing for Burgess to opine, and I can't see why he'd name Madlock along with Santo, but as an aside...what I emboldened irritates me.

Not long ago I went back and took the time to research the whole Madlock/malingering/sitting out games issue on Proquest in great depth, and presented the findings here. Afterwards, you apologized for your provious Madlock bashing after I'd presented the findings, cognizant of the fact that you'd been misinformed. I'm sure you remember that discussion.

Just becuase Bill James writes something doesn't make it a fact (read: sometimes myth) that needs to be perpetuated.

[thecoach]

There are many, and I am sure he has been named, but for me its PETE ROSE!!!

[Bill Burgess]

I know you like Madlock, Bill, but I'm interested as to why. You say you like fielding from 3B (and back that up by ranking Kamm/Bluege among the top 20, Baker at #17). Madlock was a pretty bad fielder, Bill. Made quite a few errors and had little range too. He was known as a clubhouse cancer, who always seemed to have controversy around him, and while he won three batting titles he was a one dimensional hitter, and was known to sit out games to improve his shot at the title. Why exactly should he be in the HOF?

If you read my post, you would see that I specificly go out of my way to say that I was not advocating all those players for the Hall. I think the most of the best players not in the Hall should not be in.

I really don't know much about Bill Madlock outside he won 4 BA titles, and played 3B. When an infielder outside of 1B wins 4 BA titles, I notice.

I didn't even know he was black until I finally saw a photo of him. Just goes to show I wasn't personally biased. Just going by his record.

Bill

[The Dude]

Speaking of which, have all the posts before 4-7-2002 been erased? (April of 2002 goes for HOF, History, and Current Events) I go to "beginning", and that's as far as it brings me. Why can't I search back to Jan of 2000, when the site was created?

We should do a "roll call" thread and see what happened to the hardcore regulars who left forever. Maybe they gave reasons as to why they never came back.

Maybe we're all just different stories and baseball-fever is only part of everybodies story, like in The Big Lebowski. Save the rest for another day.

[538280]

That is a very odd thing for Burgess to opine, and I can't see why he'd name Madlock along with Santo, but as an aside...what I emboldened irritates me.

Not long ago I went back and took the time to research the whole Madlock/malingering/sitting out games issue on Proquest in great depth, and presented the findings here. Afterwards, you apologized for your provious Madlock bashing after I'd presented the findings, cognizant of the fact that you'd been misinformed. I'm sure you remember that discussion.

Just becuase Bill James writes something doesn't make it a fact (read: sometimes myth) that needs to be perpetuated.

I do remember that discussion. I do think that whether or not Madlock was sitting out the games because he wanted to win the batting title or because he was injured is irrelevent though. Either way he is getting the same effect, benifiting his hopes to win the title. It cheapens a batting title when you sit out a lot of games, even if they are honest injuries.

Madlock is not a HOFer anyway, and I always find it odd that Bill rates him so high, since he's not his type of player at all.

[ivylover]

No brainer: Santo!!!
But, the veterans are going to induct him though!:D

[Bill Burgess]

Madlock is not a HOFer anyway, and I always find it odd that Bill rates him so high, since he's not his type of player at all.
I did not think I was rating him too high. I thought I rated him 15-20, or something like that.

Normally, when I rank a guy lower than 15th, it's for PR purposes, to keep someone's memory alive. Still, I don't think very many IFers won 4 BA titles. Outside of Wagner/Hornsby/Carew/Boggs.

Bill

[csh19792001]

I did not think I was rating him too high. I thought I rated him 15-20, or something like that.

Normally, when I rank a guy lower than 15th, it's for PR purposes, to keep someone's memory alive. Still, I don't think very many IFers won 4 BA titles. Outside of Wagner/Hornsby/Carew/Boggs.

Bill

In either case, back on topic. Best player not in the Hall Of Fame? Maybe someone could actually take the time to research, read, and make a case. Well, that's what I did.

Bill Dahlen for the HOF (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=36518)

Dahlen has as strong a case as anyone. He just has no contemporary support whatsoever because of his era and the lack of media attention he received.

[538280]

In either case, back on topic. Best player not in the Hall Of Fame? Maybe someone could actually take the time to research, read, and make a case. Well, that's what I did.

Bill Dahlen for the HOF (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=36518)

Dahlen has as strong a case as anyone. He just has no contemporary support whatsoever because of his era and the lack of media attention he received.

I agree with you 100% that Dahlen should be in the HOF, and that he is one of the best outside. But, why is everyone who arrived at a different conclusion than you did not taking the time to research?

[ElHalo]

Speaking of which, have all the posts before 4-7-2002 been erased? (April of 2002 goes for HOF, History, and Current Events) I go to "beginning", and that's as far as it brings me. Why can't I search back to Jan of 2000, when the site was created?

I think it's a lot more than that that got erased. I just noticed this, but I'm showing about 9,700 posts. Last time I checked, I was well over 10K. Something got dumped somewhere.

[csh19792001]

I agree with you 100% that Dahlen should be in the HOF, and that he is one of the best outside. But, why is everyone who arrived at a different conclusion than you did not taking the time to research?

It's the appropriate attitude to take the majority of the time.

I don't have to be right (I'm frequently wrong), but I'm a student of the game and a historian.

I can't say the same for several of our most strident, opinionated members here.

[futurehalloffamer]

Among eligible players not enshrined, the best is Ryne Sandberg, who should've been a first-ballot pick in the last BBWAA election.

He is followed by Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven.

Huh?! :ughh

[futurehalloffamer]

Huh?! :ughh

Whoops, sorry...I didn't realize that post was almost three years old! :D

[Murderers Row]

How about Joe Torre.

[sfgiants29]

Has no one said Pete Rose yet!?!?

[romanos72]

Cubbieinexile:

You hit it right on the head. Dawson was good, not great. I'd put Rice over Dawson, and think only Santo and Blyleven have been snubbed. lets take Red Shoendiest out and put Santo in. Blyleven can replace Rollie Fingers. Think the Hall will go for this?

[csh19792001]

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2006/1/8/20133/13493

By Cyril Morong
Posted on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 07:01:33 PM EST

The best, eligible Non-Hall of Famers

Who are the best players not in the Hall of Fame? The results of this year's election will be announced on Tuesday.

We need some kind of measurement to determine this. So I used the "Win Shares" or WS stat created by Bill James and the "Total Player Rating" stat created by Pete Palmer (it is now called Batting + Fielding Wins or BFW). Both stats attempt to incorporate all aspects of the game, hitting, fielding and stealing. Their methods are somewhat different. Bill James is a consultant with the Red Sox and Pete Palmer is the editor of the Baseball Encyclopedia. I only look at position players here. If I have time I will look at pitchers. I only looked at players who have been retired at least 5 years.

Win Shares

Bill James gives each team 3 WS for each actual win and he allocates them to the players and pitchers based on their performance. I intended to list the 10 best who are not yet in the Hall of Fame. But Rose is not really eligible. So I listed 13. Mullane is not really a position player, getting 348 WS from pitching. Van Haltren got about 40 from pitching.

Rose 547 (13)
Mullane 399 (45)
Dahlen 394 (49)
Darrell Evans 363 (73)
Staub 358 (76)
Magee 354 (84)
Whitaker 351 (88)
Dwight Evans 347 (92)
Van Haltren 344 (96)
D. Allen 342 (97)
Dawson 340 (100)
Leach 328 (117)
Dave Parker 327 (118)

Will Clark had 331 WS (about 115th)

Win Shares per 648 Plate Appearances

A player could rack up a lot of WS if they just kept playing for a long time. So I also determined how players did per 648 Plate Appearances or per season. Kauff does well because of his good seasons in the less competitive Federal League in 1914-15. My complete rankings on this are at

http://us.share.geocities.com/cyrilmorong@sbcglobal.net/WSperPA.htm

The number in parentheses is where they rank all-time among all players, including Hall-of-Famers.

Joe Jackson 33.48 (9)
Benny Kauff 31.82 (14)
Charlie Keller 30.68 (18)
Dick Allen 30.30 (19)
Wally Berger 27.58 (48)
Dave Orr 27.55 (50)
Pete Browning 27.43 (51)
Al Rosen 27.41 (53)
Gene Tenace 27.09 (57)
Sherry Magee 26.84 (59)
George Gore 26.54 (63)

Joe Jackson is, of course, not actually eligible either, like Rose.

(John McGraw is 56th at 27.16 but is in as a manager)

I think WS has a bias in favor of outfielders. See the link for an explanation. So here are the two best players at each position. The number in parentheses is where they rank at the position. I show their WS per 648 PA if it is not above.

1B Dick Allen (2)
1B Dave Orr (11)

2B Grich 25.94 (6)
2B Doyle 25.37 (8)

SS Dahlen (7) 24.55
SS Vern Stephens (11) 23.72

3B Rosen (4)
3B Groh (7) 25.05

(McGraw is 5th at 3B)

C Tenace (8)
C Haller (11) 25.67
C Freehan (12) 25.08

Tenace was not really a full-time catcher, so I listed 3 here.

TPR or BFW

Now turning to Palmer's measure. BFW uses zero as the average. So a -1 would mean your team would lose one more game if such a player replaced an average player. A +5 means if you added such a player to your team in place of an average guy you would win 5 more games.

Here are the top players in career BFW

Grich 51.6 (23)
Dahlen 48.5 (26)
Santo 45.3 (30)
Darrell Evans 41.2 (49)
Allen 39.2 (55)
J. Jackson 38.3 (63)
W. Randolph 37.1 (69)
Glasscock 36.6 (72)
Bob Johnson 35.7 (74)
Whitaker 35.6 (76)

TPR or BFW per 648 PA

My rankings on this are at

http://www.geocities.com/cyrilmorong@sbcglobal.net/TPR-7500PA.htm

Grich 4.068 (13)
Santo 3.124 (34)
Dahlen 3.022 (36)
Bob Johnson 2.875 (41)
K. Hernandez 2.637 (48)
Reggie Smith 2.568 (54)
Randolph 2.541 (57)
N. Cash 2.499 (58)
Darrell Evans 2.487 (59)
J. Wynn 2.427 (63)

Wins above replacement level (WARP)

One problem with BFW is that a player is hurt by a -1 season even though he still contributed to his team by being better than the next available option (or replacement).

I also have a list of wins above replacement level that I created myself. In one case, I assumed that -2 TPR (BFW) for a 700 PA season was replacement level. In another case, -3. For each player, I determined how many 700 PA seasons they had (dividing their career PAs by 700), multiplied that by -2 or -3, and then added it to their career. TPR (or now BFW). It is up through 2004. My rankings for this is at

http://us.share.geocities.com/cyrilmorong@sbcglobal.net/REP.htm

Here are the top players using -3 for WARP.

Dahlen 93.07 (29)
Rose 91.88 (32)
Darrell Evans 87.22 (37)
Grich 86.83 (38)
Santo 85.57 (40)
Palmeiro 84.82 (42)
Whitaker 78.32 (63)
Randolph 77.65 (67)
Trammell 71.88 (80)
Buddy Bell 71.6 (83)
K. Hernandez 71.46 (85)

It seems that the players on these lists tend, for the most part,

-have no big career milestones like 500 HRs, 3000 hits or a career AVG of .300
-were not known for being great at any one thing like alot of HRs or SBs
-did not win alot of awards
-did not consistently lead the league in some category.

These guys were generally very good at all aspects of the game. Maybe they escaped notoriety because they lacked one defining characteristic of excellence. But they helped their teams win, perhaps enough to be in the Hall.

The two players who seem to be most deserving of the Hall of Fame based on all of this are Grich and Dahlen. Their names come up on almost all of the lists I have here. It is impressive that they rank high in lists using both the James method (WS) and the Palmer method (BFW). To me, this raises the possibility that they really were great players.

The only list Dahlen is not on is WS per 648 PAs for all players. But that could be because shortstops generally don't do as well in this (see my link for an explanation). But he is 127th all-time on this (this includes all position players, even those already in the Hall-that is an impressive rank). He also has the highest WS per 648 PAs of any SS not in the Hall who has been retired for 5 years.

Grich is not on the career WS list here. But his career total was 329, tied for 115th all-time through 2001, including pitchers. That is easily good enough for the Hall. He is also not on the WS per 648 PAs here. He is 78th in WS per 648 PAs. That is also very impressive. He also has the highest WS per 648 PAs of any 2B not in the Hall who has been retired for 5 years.

For more on the horribly unheralded Dahlen, please see the thread below:

Bill Dahlen for the HOF (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=36518)

[csh19792001]

Here's the new biography, for this interested in digging deeper and going beyond the stats:

Bad Bill Dahlen: The Rollicking Life and Times of an Early Baseball Star (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786419784/103-2235280-1099004?v=glance&n=283155)

Excerpt:

Modern-day fans often think of 19th-century ballplayers as strictly a bunch of hell-raisers. Many of them were, but not all, and not all the time. During homestands, several Colts players and their families boarded at Chicago's Worth Hotel, and one of the ways they passed their evenings was by playing a game called Living Pictures. They would begin the game by placing several tables together, and by making skillful use of the draperies would construct a stage. The players would then mount the stage posed as characters from a famous literary scene. While generally lighthearted and harmless, on one August night this form of entertainment almost cost the Colts the services of Clark Griffith, their best pitcher.

The evening began with a living picture of "Beauty and The Beast," with handsome Bill Lange playing the Beast. Then came "Cupid and Psyche," with Mal Kittridge as Cupid and Barry McCormick as Psyche, followed by "The Noble Fireman," generally acknowledged as the hit of the evening. Bill Everitt played the fireman, Button Briggs was the maiden in need of rescue, George Decker was the ladder, and Tim Donahue played the faithful fire dog.

Next up was "Romeo and Juliet," with an attractive young woman who boarded at the hotel recruited to play Juliet. Dahlen did not usually take part in these skits, favoring the company of the team's other hell-raisers instead. He was, however, taking part this night, and a dispute erupted between Griffith and him over who would play Romeo. Dahlen claimed that Griffith was too bowlegged for the part. Griffith countered that a "fat, pudgy Dutchman" would look ridiculous as Romeo. Griffith eventually won the role, but while he was posing on a ladder during the renowned balcony scene, the ladder gave way and crashed through the stage. Leaning over too far from her "balcony," Juliet also fell through the stage. It took a while, but eventually everyone was safely rescued.

Lusty hitting, led by Dahlen and with major contributions from Anson, Everitt, Lange and Ryan, had again been the Colts' strong point this season. Dahlen had yet another marvelous offensive season, one comparable to his great 1894 campaign. His totals and averages were a bit below 1894, but given that overall batting in the league was down from then, in some ways it was even better. He finished second to Ed Delahanty in both slugging percentage and extra-base hits, categories in which he had finished seventh and ninth respectively in '94. In addition to tying for third place in triples,13 Dahlen was fourth in the league in doubles, fifth in home runs, and in the top 10 in both total bases and stolen bases. Finishing so high in the latter two categories was evidence of his ability to combine power and speed. His team-leading .352 batting average earned him a gold watch and chain from the club, along with assurances from Hart that the Colts would accept no off-season trade offers for him.

Hart's assurances aside, just how sincere he was in his desire to keep Dahlen is open to question. The two had quarreled in the season's final weeks when Hart refused Dahlen's request for an advance on his 1897 salary. Dahlen countered by requesting his release, hinting that some other club would be willing and happy to offer him an advance. Hart did not appreciate the implied threat, and fired right back at Dahlen. "Don't make yourself believe that we won't give you your release, for we probably will," he said. "We will keep you on the roll until spring, unless we get a chance to trade you, but don't think that Chicago can't get along without you."

Dahlen followed his tiff with Hart with an even nastier battle with Anson during the club's post-season tour. Bill had been a thorn in the old man's side ever since he had joined the Colts as a fresh-faced (and fresh-mouthed) 20-year-old in 1891. The iron discipline that Anson had been able to impose on his players had been deteriorating for years. By now it had just about ceased to exist with most of the veterans, including Dahlen. Anson and his star shortstop had clashed frequently, most recently when Dahlen skipped a practice session at Cleveland a few days before the season ended.

From Cleveland, the club was scheduled to go to St. Louis, where it would finish the season. Anson went down to the train station early and bought tickets for all his players, then boarded the train with the tickets in his pocket. When the rest of the team arrived, the conductors would not allow them through the gates because they had no tickets. While getting word of the situation to Anson would have been easy enough, they thought it would be a fine joke on the old man to let him go to St. Louis by himself. A few miles out of Cleveland, Anson became aware of the situation. He left the train, took a streetcar back to the depot, and after a colorful 15-minute tirade, took his team, en masse, to another St. Louis-bound train.

Tensions grew even worse a week later, when Anson ordered team practices in Chicago in preparation for a post-season tour. Except for rookie pitcher Button Briggs, all the Colts stayed away. Along with several of his teammates, Dahlen chose instead to spend his day at the racetrack. Then, one night during the tour, on a train chugging its way through the wilds of Indiana, the animosity between Anson and Dahlen boiled over. Dahlen had gone to bed early that night and had skipped the normal procedure of getting his berth ticket from Anson. When the conductor asked him for the ticket, Dahlen told him he did not have one and suggested he get it from his manager. By this time, Anson was completely fed up with his shortstop. "If he wants his ticket, let him come and get it," he told the conductor. When the conductor went back to Dahlen with Anson's response, Bill replied angrily that there was no way he was going to get out of bed and go ask Anson for the ticket.

Stuck in the middle of this juvenile dispute, the conductor told Anson the rules required him to put Dahlen off the train if he could not produce a ticket. "Well, put him off," Anson replied, and a few minutes later, when the train stopped at a railway crossing, the conductor escorted Dahlen off the train. According to one newspaper report of Dahlen's unceremonious departure, "He dropped down alongside the raging waters of Cedar Lake, and spent the night in contemplation of a deserted picnic ground."

Still, the question remains of why exactly Dahlen had to be put off the train. The team had already purchased tickets for the trip, tickets that were separate from those entitling them to the sleeper car. Dahlen could have simply left the sleeper car and sat in coach for the trip. Speaking of the incident several days later, Anson attempted to reestablish his managerial control. "The young man simply got gay," he said of Dahlen, "and I simply put him off at Buffalo [sic]. Whenever a player thinks he is much better than the common lot it is time to change his views. I had to let him know that he was not running the outfit. There is nothing more to say about it." Hart called it a case of childishness. "Both were probably bluffing and both will probably be sorry when they reflect on their action."

Disregarding Anson's bluster, the players all sided with Dahlen, although some believed he had deliberately arranged the whole affair because he no longer wanted to continue the tour. Many around Chicago also believed that Dahlen had forced the issue as part of his plan to escape the Colts. Anson and Dahlen went a few weeks without speaking to one another until Hart brought them together in his office, where they shook hands and reconciled.

Nevertheless, this latest episode revived memories of Dahlen's desertion in Cleveland two years earlier and spurred some reporters covering the club to campaign openly for the Colts to trade him. The fans, caring only that he was among the best players in the game, felt differently. They mostly wanted their star shortstop to stay, as did W.A. Phelon Jr., Sporting Life's Chicago correspondent. Phelon disagreed sharply with those reporters who were urging the club to trade Dahlen because of his disruptiveness. While granting that he could be a difficult player to manage, Phelon believed that Dahlen's hitting, fielding, and running skills far outweighed any attitudinal problems he might have.

"Dahlen may be a kicker and a disorderly element," Phelon wrote, "but any man who can play the ball that Dahlen does is of more value to a team than half a dozen good young men who would observe all the club rules and regulations and bat about 100 points weaker and accept about half as many chances. If Anson had a team full of Dahlens," he continued, "his hair would turn gray in a week, but they would leave Baltimore so far behind that they could not be seen with a spyglass."

Yet, it was general knowledge that Bill himself would have welcomed a trade, preferably to an Eastern team, and if the rumors were correct, specifically to the Phillies. He attended the National League meetings, held in Chicago in mid-November, hoping that it would happen, but it did not. Pittsburgh offered to trade their shortstop, Fred Ely, for Dahlen, but the Colts turned it down cold.

After hinting he would buy a saloon and laze around all winter, as he had a year ago, Dahlen chose to join a local indoor baseball team, one that included several of his fellow Colts. Another teammate was the great Boston shortstop Herman Long, who moved to second base, as Dahlen, by his efforts, claimed the shortstop position. Despite batting left-handed, Dahlen hit very well, and his quickness on the slippery indoor floor made him clearly the fans' favorite performer.

Dahlen also spent much of his winter at Mussey's billiards parlor, in the company of other Colts players wintering in Chicago. Often seen at Mussey's, the city's unofficial gathering place for baseball people, were Griffith, who was also studying law this winter, Ryan, Pfeffer, and even Anson when he was not off hunting somewhere.

[Food]

Pete Rose, of course.

Aside from Rose, Dale Murphy.

[terribledude]

Just to weigh in, a few of my choices:

Ron Santo
Bobby Grich
Alan Trammell
Dick Allen
Albert Belle

[Bill Burgess]

Best Guys not in the Hall of Fame:

Let me be clear. I am not advocating these great players who are not in the Hall of Fame for membership. Many do not belong. I require hitting.

Bill Madlock, Ron Santo

Pre-1900 Pitchers:
Jim Whitney, Bob Caruthers, Silver King, Ed Morris, Tony Mullane, Larry Corcoran, Sakie McMahon, Jim McCormick

Pitchers:
Nap Rucker, Ed Ruelbach, Carl Mays, Eddie Cicotte, Urban Shocker,

For fantastic Defense:
Charlie Bennett, Martin Bergen, Jimmie Archer, Marty Marion, Glenn Wright, Buck Weaver, Happy Felsch, Jimmy Ryan, George Gore, Bill Lange, Joe Gordon, Herman Long, Ned Williamson.

Negro Leagues:
John Beckwith, Spot Poles, Bruce Petway, Bingo DeMoss, Jumbo Kimbro.

Once again, let me repeat myself. I am NOT advocating all of these players for the Hall. Most of the best players not in the Hall do not belong there.

Bill Burgess

[Brownie31]

Lefty O'Doul and Gil Hodges.

Brownie31

[RuthMayBond]

Lefty O'DoulWas he real good defensively? Neither his OPS+ nor his plate apps are as good as Charlie Keller.

[csh19792001]

Best Guys not in the Hall of Fame:

For fantastic Defense:

Bill Burgess

Gotta have arguably the most valuable player eligible but not yet elected into the HOF in there somewhere, William. Not to mention he was one of the best defensive players in baseball history.

Post #237 on this thread (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=636010#post636010)

And if you don't like the barrage of numbers, I also provided a book preview in the next post. :o

[RuthMayBond]

Gotta have arguably the most valuable player eligible but not yet elected into the HOF in there somewhere, William. Not to mention he was one of the best defensive players in baseball history.

Post #237 on this thread (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=636010#post636010)

And if you don't like the barrage of numbers, I also provided a book preview in the next post. :oWow, Chris using SABR stats :eek: :eek: :eek:

[csh19792001]

Wow, Chris using SABR stats :eek: :eek: :eek:

I use them, I try to actively read to facilitate my understanding of them, but I don't like to turn baseball players into numbers, and I don't think every conversation of baseball history and its should be dominated by statistics. In fact- I think that stats are ancillary to the lives, the times, and the stories of this great game of ours.

[Bill Burgess]

And if you don't like the barrage of numbers, I also provided a book preview in the next post. :o
Actually, I do use numbers, and even enjoy them. I simply use traditional ones for the most part. Don't comprehend Win Shares, or PCA.

My favorites ones are Relative Stats, Home/Away, ERA+, OPS+. Black/Grey Ink, Pitcher's Relative Opponent's Onbase Ave.
See? I watch. I learn.

Bill

[BaseballHistoryNut]

There are a lot of worthy candidates here, and of course Joe Jackson and Pete Rose were particularly great players but are in a special category and are, I presume, not eligible as answers to this question. With that presumption, despite the fact there are lots of other good answers, my answer is an easy one for me:

Dick Allen.

[RuthMayBond]

My favorites ones are Pitcher's Relative Opponent's Onbase Ave.Where the heck do you get this? I've seen Pitcher's OOB Average/Percent but never the Relative version

[musial6]

Indian Bob Johnson