Bill Buckner

[DoubleX]

Any Red Sox fans get this far? :)

If we can try our best for a moment to forget about the ball trickling through his legs, does anyone think that Buckner's career deserves more than 2% he received by the writers in his only year of eligibility, 1996?

Now I'm not trying to suggest that Buckner was a Hall of Famer by any stretch, just that he was a much better player than history tends to give him credit for. Six times he was in the top 10 in batting; four times in the top 5; and he does have a batting title. He was only once an all-star (but probably deserved a couple more), and topped 100 RBIs three times, including 1986 with the Sox. With the exception of the error, he was a good fielder but was prevented from the gold glove by competing with the great fielding of Keith Hernandez, Eddie Murray, and Don Mattingly.

Buckner also had 2715 hits, a pretty high total, and that alone should certainly merit him more than just 2% of the vote. He could have passed 3000 had he not missed 30+ games in 9 seasons of his career. Had he been a bit healthier in his career, we'd may likely have a very solid all around player with 3000 hits, yet only one all-star appearance and the biggest gaffe of all-time...would he be a hall of famer in that scenario?

[Brad Harris]

Buckner was a much better player than the casual fan realizes. Having said that, I don't think he should have wound up in the Hall of Fame even (perhaps) had he limped over the 3,000 hit mark.

[dgarza]

Maybe it would have been nice to see him get 10-15%.
If Al Oliver could get 2x+ the %, why not Buckner?

But since he wasn't going to get 75%, it's only a slight slight.

[DoubleX]

I agree. It would be a very tricky situation if Buckner stayed a bit healthier and scraped out 3000 hits. He's almost certainly be the worst player with 3000 hits. It should be enough to at least keep him on the ballot as a straggler. Even without the 3000 hits, I still think he deserved more than just 2% of the vote, though I'm not sure how much more. It's a shame that his whole very solid, albeit largely unspectacular career, is overshadowed by that one (very ghastly) moment. I tend not to blame him so much, I'm a believer in the curse - that ball was not going to be fielded by anyone it wash it to, fate just picked Buckner to be the unfortunate soul to harbor the burden. The things that happen to the Sox time and time again are made of the stuff that only Hollywood could write.

[abacab]

Buckner gets the blame, but Scheraldi was the one who blew the game. Just like last year, when Pedro was the true goat but somehow the blame fell on Grady Little for not pulling his ace in favor of the weak bullpen. Not to mention the Cubs' collapse, in which a fan who interfered in one play got blamed for Cubs pitchers giving up eight runs in one inning. It's almost ridiculous how people will try to find one guy to point to and ignore everything else.

[Gonzo]

Buckner gets the blame, but Scheraldi was the one who blew the game.

Yeah. Maybe if Scheraldi had thrown a different pitch it wouldn't have happened.

[leecemark]

--I agree its a shame that the one error overshadows everything else Buckner accomplished in a fine career. I don't agree he should have gotten more Hall of Fames votes. The election is about deciding whether or not a player is worthy of the Hall of Fame, not paying your respects to a good player. Buckner is clearly NOT a Hall of Fame quality player and I'm not sure why anyone should vote for him. As for the comparison to Oliver and his support, Oliver was a similar but better hitter. More importantly he played CF where the offensive expectations aren't quite as high.
--If you're going to make the Hall as a firstbaseman, you've got to be an elite level slugger (or Tony Perez or have some friends on the VC when that time rolls around - and while Perez was a marginal selection he was much better than Buckner). He only made one All Star team because there were always at least 3-4 better firstbaseman in his league. There are better 1B's from every post-war decade better than Buckner outside the Hall. 40's: Micky Vernon, 50's: Gil Hodges, Ted Kluzewski, Joe Adcock, 60: Norm Cash, Boog Powell, Dick Allen, 70's: Steve Garvey, Cecil Cooper, George Scott, 80's: Kieth Hernandez (similar, but clearly better), Will Clark. If I was to put a little time into it, I'm sure I could come up with 20 eligible firstbasemen not in the Hall who deserve it more than Bill Buckner - and at least half dozen more not yet eligible.

[abacab]

Yeah. Maybe if Scheraldi had thrown a different pitch it wouldn't have happened.

Schiraldi was the losing pitcher in both game 6 and game 7. In game 6, he came in with the Sox up 2, and gave up three straight singles (including an RBI single by RAY KNIGHT of all people). Bob Stanley relieved him, and threw a wild pitch that tied the game. Then came Buckner's error, which ended it. Everyone who didn't see the game or read a summary seems to think that if Buckner makes the play, the Sox win the series, which is why he gets all the blame today.

In game 7, Schraldi came on in a tie game (after the Sox had blown a 3 run lead) and gave up a home run to RAY KNIGHT, and the Mets held the lead the rest of the way. Though the Sox scored two more, the Mets got three more. It was the shoddy bullpen work by Schiraldi and co. that lost the Series, not one missed grounder.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Buckner wasn't going to get to 3,000 hits unless he was given a regular job by a team that played him KNOWING that he wasn't the best player for the job.

If Buckner could have made it to 3,000 hits, he might have gotten into the HOF, but he was never that good after his leg injuries that pushed him to 1B. Had Buckner never had his leg injuries early in his career, he may well have ended up as a 3,000 hit outfielder, where his less than Ruthian power would have been less noticable.

[Williamsburg2599]

The only HOF he might get into is the mets:D.2% sounds reasonable to me.

[RedSoxVT92]

I feel bad for poor Bill Buckner. Had a pretty good career but it is all overshadowed by one error. And he really didnt cost the game, pitching just could not get that one out, Mookie may have beaten him to the bag anyway and people seem to forget the game was tied. How unfair. Anyways I dont think he had a HOF career but one that should get some reconition. He was very close to 3000 hits, had a .289 batting average and 1208 RBI's. But he has only 1 all star game apperance, his highest finish in MVP voting was 10th(81,82) Wasnt really that great offensivley for a first baseman and his glove wasnt all that great either. His Ink tests are also pretty low.

(baseball-reference.com)
Black Ink: Batting - 9 (237) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 94 (237) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 25.7 (428) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 69.5 (248) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

If not for injurys he very well could be in the HOF. A underated player who deserves alot more respect than he gets but not a HOFer.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If not for injurys he very well could be in the HOF. A underated player who deserves alot more respect than he gets but not a HOFer.

This can be said for a lot of guys, of course.

Buckner would have had better totals if he hadn't had the leg injuries, and his career would have been more impressive if he had been able to stay in the outfield. Whether or not he could have overcame his impatience at the plate enough to be able to hang on for 3,000 hits is debatable; Buckner's lack of plate discipline may have extinguished his playing time prior to him getting 3,000 hits.

Had Buckner gotten his 3,000 hits, he would have gone into the HOF. He's an example of a guy who NEEDS 3,000 hits to get in. Roberto Alomar and Albert Belle don't need 3,000 hits to get in; they have other things to sell. Bill Buckner does, and he doesn't have what he needs, ergo . . .

[538280]

I must disagree with the general feeling that Buckner should have gotten more votes. Buckner was a nothing special player, who lasted a long time. The prime example of a long lasting journeyman. His peak OPS+ were around 115, which is an okay total for a 1Bman but nothing special. His career OPs+ was 99, which is right around the replacement level for a 1Bman. Is that a HOFer? The guy who was around a replacment level hitter for his position? He wasn't anything special as a fielder either.

I'm glad that the voters were able to look past the career totals and not vote for him.

I do agree that it is too bad a fine career was overshadowed by an error, but Buckner really wasn't a good player at all-he just lasted a long time.

[KCGHOST]

Bill Buckner was simply an average player who somehow got 5 teams to give him 10K PA's. He was fortunate to play in an era when no one looked past BA. He simply wasn't as good a hitter as Harold Baines.

[digglahhh]

Very similar career K rate to Tony Gwynn. I don't mean to suggest anything by it, its just a nice little nugget. Buckner was very difficult to strikeout.

[tigers527]

You could put Buckner in as a special coaching exemption. I do not know rather or not he actually coached. I am just suggesting that every little league infielder in the New England area from 86-92 likely got down on every ground ball cause of Buckner.

[Captain Cold Nose]

You could put Buckner in as a special coaching exemption. I do not know rather or not he actually coached. I am just suggesting that every little league infielder in the New England area from 86-92 likely got down on every ground ball cause of Buckner.
Anyone ever get Dave Stapleton's take on what happened, the usual defensive replacement for the BoSox?

[digglahhh]

CCN,

I'm not sure if it was Stapleton's take, but I know that Buckner was usually lifted late in close games for a defensive replacement. But Buckner had been such a warrior all season for Boston and gutted through such intense pain, producing very well in spite of it that McNamara felt he owed it to Buckner to let him be on the field for the final out to fully enjoy the experience. Buckner's legacy is really unfair, I don't even think tragic is much of a stretch. A man characterized by heart, determination, dedication and pretty damn good ball playing becoming one of the all time goats; nobody ever said that life was fair...

[Captain Cold Nose]

CCN,

I'm not sure if it was Stapleton's take, but I know that Buckner was usually lifted late in close games for a defensive replacement. But Buckner had been such a warrior all season for Boston and gutted through such intense pain, producing very well in spite of it that McNamara felt he owed it to Buckner to let him be on the field for the final out to fully enjoy the experience. Buckner's legacy is really unfair, I don't even think tragic is much of a stretch. A man characterized by heart, determination, dedication and pretty damn good ball playing becoming one of the all time goats; nobody ever said that life was fair...
I know why Buckner was left in the game, and I actually like the idea behind it. I'm just wondering if Stapleton, ordinarily the defensive replacement, has been asked about it. Thus, his take.
Buckner has been very unfairly maligned.

[oscargamblesfro]

Buckner always struck me as similar offensively in a way to a player like , say, Joe Judge or someone of that ilk, who was also a first baseman with a long, good, but never great peak, though I know Buckner started in the outfield, and was probably a somewhat better hitter than Judge, though not in his class defensively. Above average player to be sure, had a fine career, but I wouldn't put him in the Hall.

[JohnGelnarFan]

538280,I respectfully disagree. you stated that he had a fine career but wasn't a good player at all. I think that's stretching the truth a bit. He may not have matched up,power wise,with other first baseman but he was a very good hitter.You must have seen him at the plate. 3 100+ RBI seasons,7 times over .300,480 doubles and even stole as many as 31 bases in a season. He's not a hall of famer but his career was better than a very high percentage of all that have stepped on a major league field. He actually was a good fielder before his knees went bad.





I must disagree with the general feeling that Buckner should have gotten more votes. Buckner was a nothing special player, who lasted a long time. The prime example of a long lasting journeyman. His peak OPS+ were around 115, which is an okay total for a 1Bman but nothing special. His career OPs+ was 99, which is right around the replacement level for a 1Bman. Is that a HOFer? The guy who was around a replacment level hitter for his position? He wasn't anything special as a fielder either.

I'm glad that the voters were able to look past the career totals and not vote for him.

I do agree that it is too bad a fine career was overshadowed by an error, but Buckner really wasn't a good player at all-he just lasted a long time.

[Bench 5]

I watched him play for the Cubs for several years. He was a great clutch hitter, fierce competitor, and good player for many years. He was not a HOF'er but there are a ton of good players that are not HOF'ers. He was comparable to Mark Grace. Tough out and pretty good defensively. When he was with the Dodgers he had good speed but when he came to the Cubs his knees were shot. He was the master of the delayed steel. Despite his knee problems he still had decent speed as a Cub. Plus he got into a couple fights with Gary Carter so he can't be all bad.:crazy

[JohnGelnarFan]

Good comparison to Mark Grace,Bench 5. One thing I left out was that he won a batting Championship with your Cubs in 1980 with a .324 average. He also hit .323 in 1978.



I watched him play for the Cubs for several years. He was a great clutch hitter, fierce competitor, and good player for many years. He was not a HOF'er but there are a ton of good players that are not HOF'ers. He was comparable to Mark Grace. Tough out and pretty good defensively. When he was with the Dodgers he had good speed but when he came to the Cubs his knees were shot. He was the master of the delayed steel. Despite his knee problems he still had decent speed as a Cub. Plus he got into a couple fights with Gary Carter so he can't be all bad.:crazy

[tigers527]

Plus he got into a couple fights with Gary Carter so he can't be all bad.:crazy

Gary Carter of the permed mullett? Thats just wrong, Gary Cater had the best lettuce in MLB. Therefore, no one should ever fight Gary.

[Williamsburg2599]

You could put Buckner in as a special coaching exemption. I do not know rather or not he actually coached. I am just suggesting that every little league infielder in the New England area from 86-92 likely got down on every ground ball cause of Buckner.
being in NE and playing 1st base,I usually kneel down infront of most grounders:laugh

[538280]

538280,I respectfully disagree. you stated that he had a fine career but wasn't a good player at all. I think that's stretching the truth a bit. He may not have matched up,power wise,with other first baseman but he was a very good hitter.You must have seen him at the plate. 3 100+ RBI seasons,7 times over .300,480 doubles and even stole as many as 31 bases in a season. He's not a hall of famer but his career was better than a very high percentage of all that have stepped on a major league field. He actually was a good fielder before his knees went bad.

He was not a very good hitter at all. Focus on things that actually correlate to runs. Buckner did hit for a high average, and he did have a few RBI seasons, but he really wasn't creating many runs for his teams. He had very little power, especially for a 1Bman, and couldn't really draw a walk either.

I agree he had a well above average career, simply because he lasted so long, but over his career, using a plus/minus type system he would probably come out below average. 99 OPS+ is exactly average for all players. Considering he was playing the biggest offensive position on the field he was actually a below average hitter.

Since he was a good fielder, but not great, I don't see that this guy is really anthing special at all. Just a really, really long lasting journeyman.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He was comparable to Mark Grace.


Only if you ignore walks. Grace had far more plate discipline than Buckner, and maybe a tad more power. Grace was also the superior defensive player, by a lot. Grace's HOF case is far, far better than Buckner's.

[leecemark]

--And Grace is still clearly below the Hall of Fame line. So why are we talking about Buckner?

[Captain Cold Nose]

--And Grace is still clearly below the Hall of Fame line. So why are we talking about Buckner?
He deserved a slightly better fate than what he received. That's all.

[leecemark]

--This is a common line of thought around here, but I'll never understand it. The Hall of fame vote is a simple yes or no. If you believe that someone is not a Hall of Famer, why would you expect 5 or more percent of the actual voters to say "Bill Buckner is a Hall of Famer". Logically, a guy like Buckner should get zero percent of the vote. Even if he had 99% of a Hall of Fame career (which he did not) there is no way for a voter to say "well he had a nice career, but not quite". A yes vote for an undeserving player is a dishonest ballot.

[Cougar]

--This is a common line of thought around here, but I'll never understand it. The Hall of fame vote is a simple yes or no. If you believe that someone is not a Hall of Famer, why would you expect 5 or more percent of the actual voters to say "Bill Buckner is a Hall of Famer". Logically, a guy like Buckner should get zero percent of the vote. Even if he had 99% of a Hall of Fame career (which he did not) there is no way for a voter to say "well he had a nice career, but not quite". A yes vote for an undeserving player is a dishonest ballot.

Let me respond with the following logic, dusting off some elementary statistics:

If some Player X truly had 99% of a HOF career, then if all voters could assess that perfectly, correct, he should not be in.

But -- assessments are imperfect. There is variance in any given HOF voters assessments of a player's objective and subjective merits, usually wide variance.

Assuming those assessments create a bell-shaped normal curve, you're going to expect that player to get nearly half of the BBWAA votes.

OK so far, right...this might apply to a guy who was on the ballot for 15 years but never quite got over the hump...a Cepeda, or a Nellie Fox. (Vet committee aside.) Maybe a Gossage or Blyleven or Jim Rice; Steve Garvey's maybe the best case on the current ballot, since he's going into his last year on the ballot and in his best votes came close to 50% but didn't clear it (going by memory).

Now, Buckner's not that close. But, if a player's precisely two standard deviations short of a true HOF career, he still should expect to get about 2.3% of the votes (one tail of the normal curve). Just a little better (about 1.64 deviations), and a guy clears 5% and stays on the ballot.

Thus, when one says "He deserved a better fate", the argument really is "He's not so far from the threshold of a 'true' HOFer that probabalistically we should expect the guy to at least get a modicum of support."

Saying that about a guy like Buckner, who has 2700 hits, 500 doubles, and a batting title, seems fair.

I concur with the consensus, however -- by my reckoning, there are about 25 retired (or nearly so) first basemen who have better Hall cases than Bill Buckner. That fact is pretty much disqualifying for ol' Buck.

[dl4060]

If you want to talk about a Red Sock from that time who deserves a better fate than he received, talk about Dwight Evans. Evans was a much better player than Buckner. Buckner was a good hitter for average, but nothing else. He was overrated at the time because people in the mid-80's saw him hit .290 something and drive in 100 or so runs. He was lucky enough to hit behind Wade Boggs, which will help someone who is decent but not spectacular drive in afew runs. When he played with the Red Sox he was above 100 for OPS+ only once. For a first baseman, that is not too impressive.

[oscargamblesfro]

Where would you guys rank Buckner all-time amongst first basemen, including 19th century guys, foreign players, Negro Leaguers etc. I get the feeling, off the top of my head, that he could very possibly, in a best case scenario, rank as low as the 60's or 70's all time if one includes any player from any era and any major league...maybe lower than that.


Buckner has pretty good counting stats indeed, but was probably never higher than say maybe 4th among first basemen in his league in any given year, with the general lack of power that he had. What's often forgotten is that he had pretty good speed and was an effective base stealer in his younger days.

[leecemark]

--Cougar, I understand the math involved. My point was, if YOU don't think Bill Buckner is a Hall of Famer then why should you be disappointed that others didn't vote for him? Buckner is pretty clearly NOT a Hall of Famer and anybody who did vote for him either had a motive other than seeing him inducted (and guys get courtesty votes every year - as long as they don't have a realistic chance of getting elected) or is so clueless they don't deserve to have a vote.

[538280]

Where would you guys rank Buckner all-time amongst first basemen, including 19th century guys, foreign players, Negro Leaguers etc. I get the feeling, off the top of my head, that he could very possibly, in a best case scenario, rank as low as the 60's or 70's all time if one includes any player from any era and any major league...maybe lower than that.


I don't rank past 25 by position, but I seriously doubt he'd make my top 50. Best guess would probalby be 60s or 70s. He really was a pretty bad hitter for a 1Bman, and he wasn't a really great fielder either.

[Yankwood]

I must disagree with the general feeling that Buckner should have gotten more votes. Buckner was a nothing special player, who lasted a long time. The prime example of a long lasting journeyman. His peak OPS+ were around 115, which is an okay total for a 1Bman but nothing special. His career OPs+ was 99, which is right around the replacement level for a 1Bman. Is that a HOFer? The guy who was around a replacment level hitter for his position? He wasn't anything special as a fielder either.

I'm glad that the voters were able to look past the career totals and not vote for him.

I do agree that it is too bad a fine career was overshadowed by an error, but Buckner really wasn't a good player at all-he just lasted a long time.I really have to laugh at that last statement. "wasn't a good player-just lasted a long time". Please explain to me why no other "bad" players lasted 22 years in the major leagues. Are teams in the practice of telling lousy players, "Why don't you just hang around here for a couple decades. You really stink" This is funny stuff. Agreed, he is not a Hall of Famer in my opinion either, but this assessment is a slap in the face to a good player.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Buckner was a good player; this should not be in doubt. He played a long time, and retained his ability for a long time, although he was really pushing it at the end.

Buckner is better than at least one player in the HOF. He's better than George (Highpockets) Kelly, who is probably the worst player in the HOF, and an outrageous Frisch cabal selection. That, of course, is not an argument for Buckner.

If Buckner HAD achieved 3,000 hits, I would have voted for him in the HOF. But he didn't. If Buckner had achieved 3,000 hits, his career would have been more valuble, and he probably would have reached a higher peak. But he didn't. Ergo . . .

[Yankwood]

Very good assessmant Fuzzy Bear. Buckner hit .300 7 times and .299 once. This was not done by a player who wasn't very good. You gotta admit though, "High Pockets" is a Hall of Fame nickname.

[Bench 5]

Bill James has him ranked 66th all time at IB. For anyone to say he wasn't a good player is ridiculous. I don't think anyone here considers him a great player but he was certainly a very solid player. He played OF prior to coming to the Cubs but as a first baseman he was above average defensively. He had good hands. His biggest weakness was that he didn't have a good throwing arm.

Amongst his contemporaries, James rates the following players above him:
Eddie Murray
Willie McCovey
Don Mattingly
Tony Perez
Keith Hernandez
Cecil Cooper
Steve Garvey
Bob Watson
Kent Hrbek
Andre Thornton
George Scott

He rankes Buckner above the following contemporaries in the top 100:
Chris Chambliss
Dan Driessen
Bruce Bochte
Jason Thomson

Overall I can't argue too much with James rankings here. I would rate him top 10 at his position for the bulk of his career which is pretty darn good if you ask me.

[Yankwood]

He was not a very good hitter at all. Focus on things that actually correlate to runs. Buckner did hit for a high average, and he did have a few RBI seasons, but he really wasn't creating many runs for his teams. He had very little power, especially for a 1Bman, and couldn't really draw a walk either.

I agree he had a well above average career, simply because he lasted so long, but over his career, using a plus/minus type system he would probably come out below average. 99 OPS+ is exactly average for all players. Considering he was playing the biggest offensive position on the field he was actually a below average hitter.

Since he was a good fielder, but not great, I don't see that this guy is really anthing special at all. Just a really, really long lasting journeyman.If he was not very good at all, perhaps you can explain why he was able to last 22 years in the major leagues. I'm curious.

[Freakshow]

Bill James has him ranked 66th all time at IB.
That looks about right, although James didn't include Negro leaguers (Leonard, Suttles, Easter, Taylor, etc.) or more recent superstars like Pujols, Thome, Helton, Delgado and Giambi.

The 500 Player Pyramid project last year

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=33234

gave us this ranked list of the top players at the position

First Base (38)
10 Gehrig*
9 Foxx*
7+ Greenberg*
7 Anson*#
7 Brouthers*#
6+ Thomas F
6+ Mize*
6+ McCovey*
6 Murray*
6 Leonard B*(n)
6 Bagwell
6 Killebrew*
5 Sisler*
5 McGwire
5 Palmeiro
5 Connor*#
5- Suttles(n)
4 Allen
4 Perez*
4 Terry*
4- Cepeda*
3+ McGriff
3+ Hernandez K
3- Mattingly
2+ Cash N
2+ Clark W
2+ Start J #
2 Beckley J*#
2 Pujols A
2 Thome J
2 Chance F*
2 Garvey S
2 Bottomley J*
2 Hodges G
2 Vernon M
2- Galarraga A
2- Grace M
2- Helton T

The Hall of Fame threshold would be anyone with a rating of 3 or better.

[Yankwood]

Is there a certain qualification on how we rank a player regarding his position? Maybe I'm in err but I still think of Killebrew as a 3rd Baseman rather than at first. On the other hand, my memory of Ernie Banks is as a first baseman although he probably gets ranked more as a shortstop. Just thought I'd throw that out. Do statisticians use whatever position he played the most games at? Or does that not even matter. Can we rank certain players as All Time whatevers as long as they were good enough? Case in point, the aforementioned Ernie Banks who was better than most of the players listed on the above list. In fact he played 10 seasons as a first baseman. It seems that should be enough. I think I just confused myself.

[abacab]

Is there a certain qualification on how we rank a player regarding his position?

That's a legit question. It's basically a judgement call. Usually it's the position where he played the most, but not always. Banks played more games at first as you pointed out, but he almost always gets ranked as a shortstop because his best years (by far) were as a shortstop. Killebrew can go either way. He's more often put at first, I think, because he wasn't particularly good fielder at either position, and therefore gets classified at the "easier" position.

[Freakshow]

Is there a certain qualification on how we rank a player regarding his position?
I try to use the position where a guy accrued the most value. If he accrued less than half his total career value at a single position, I'll look at where he played during his peak years. In a few rare cases it's necessary to make an arbitrary decision, making the most reasonable compromise.

For Banks or Killebrew there is little question: the former was a shortstop, the latter was a firstbaseman.

[Cougar]

--Cougar, I understand the math involved. My point was, if YOU don't think Bill Buckner is a Hall of Famer then why should you be disappointed that others didn't vote for him? Buckner is pretty clearly NOT a Hall of Famer and anybody who did vote for him either had a motive other than seeing him inducted (and guys get courtesty votes every year - as long as they don't have a realistic chance of getting elected) or is so clueless they don't deserve to have a vote.

I guess it's a matter of uncertainty. Doesn't apply so much in Buckner's case, but say for a guy who's more borderline (maybe a Tony Perez) -- you might think he's not a HOFer, and you might even feel pretty confident in that assessment, but at the same time one might also appreciate that there's enough uncertainty, enough decent arguments in his favor, that having the discussion brought to an abrupt close might seem jarring.

To put it more succinctly, I might disagree that Perez, or Albert Belle -- or even Buckner -- should be in the HOF, but I don't necessarily think supporting them is intellectually indefensible. Getting bounced from the ballot kind of implies that it is (without necessarily meaning to.)

[Cougar]

If you want to talk about a Red Sock from that time who deserves a better fate than he received, talk about Dwight Evans.

I don't think a single person on this board would disagree with this.

[RuthMayBond]

The only HOF he might get into is the mets:DBosox fans probably don't want to look at Total Baseball 7:
All-Time Leaders: Lifetime
Assists, First Base, Buckner 8th
Fielding Runs by position, First Base, Buckner 4th (ahead of Grace)
Assists per Game, First Base, Buckner 1st!

[538280]

If he was not very good at all, perhaps you can explain why he was able to last 22 years in the major leagues. I'm curious.

He was able to keep in shape and remain an okay major leaguer for a long time. Of course, talking about careers that makes him a very good player, but while he was playing he was no more than average.

Dick Allen was no Bill Buckner, right? :laugh

[Yankwood]

He was able to keep in shape and remain an okay major leaguer for a long time. Of course, talking about careers that makes him a very good player, but while he was playing he was no more than average.

Dick Allen was no Bill Buckner, right? :laughActually, Dick Allen was alot better than Bill Buckner, but neither are Hall of Famers.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Bosox fans probably don't want to look at Total Baseball 7:
All-Time Leaders: Lifetime
Assists, First Base, Buckner 8th
Fielding Runs by position, First Base, Buckner 4th (ahead of Grace)
Assists per Game, First Base, Buckner 1st!

Bill James once did an essay to show how assists at 1B were NOT a reliable assessment of defensive value. James compared Buckner to Steve Garvey, a player with relatively few assists (compared to Buckner) at 1B.

Buckner was the kind of 1B who (because of injuries, perhaps), would rarely, if ever, take a ground ball and make the putout at first. He expected, and demanded that the pitcher run over to 1B to cover the bag while he made the throw. (Buckner, reportedly, was renowned for barking at pitchers who failed to do this.) Because of this, Buckner racked up all of these assists at 1B. Conversely, Steve Garvey rarely threw to the pitcher backing up at 1B. Garvey's view was "if you want something done, you'd better do it yourself". Garvey viewed the underhand toss to the pitcher as an opportunity for something bad to happen; a bobbled ball, the pitcher colliding with the baserunner, etc. As a result, Garvey had relatively few assists.

The way to guage 1B defense, according to James, is to see how many assists he has where the putout is made by the catcher and other infielders. This is a better indicator of a throwing arm; to see how many plays the 1B makes to bases other than first.

[Yankwood]

And also, Garvey was often ridiculed for his horrendous throwing arm, so that accounted for him taking it by himself most of the time. Even with the seemingly simple underhand toss to the pitcher covering.

[baseballPAP]

That was definately the reason for Buckner's high assist totals....he would field a ball 15 feet from the bag and stand there and wait on the pitcher to cover. Even to the point of allowing the runner to be safe to prove his point. I can remember learning to play first base while watching baseball when Iwas 10 or so, and my coach saying "watch Hernandez....Buckner ain't worth spit."

Oh, and Garvey's arm was so bad he couldn't throw out his back.

[Fuzzy Bear]

That was definately the reason for Buckner's high assist totals....he would field a ball 15 feet from the bag and stand there and wait on the pitcher to cover. Even to the point of allowing the runner to be safe to prove his point. I can remember learning to play first base while watching baseball when Iwas 10 or so, and my coach saying "watch Hernandez....Buckner ain't worth spit."

Oh, and Garvey's arm was so bad he couldn't throw out his back.

Each guy, according to Bill James, had a different philosophy that was forged by their injury history.

Buckner (according to James) would be livid if a pitcher failed to cover 1B on a grounder to first. Buckner knew his legs and their limitations; his message to the pitcher was "It's your job! Just because I made it to the bag this time doesn't mean I'll make it next time!"

Garvey, with a bad shoulder but no problems with his legs, considered the flip to the pitcher to be an unnecessary risk. Why make a throw, reasoned Garvey, when a throw is not necessary. To Garvey, a throw, even a flip to a pitcher covering, was an opportunity for an error; plus, Garvey, unlike Buckner, was confident that he could make the play himself.

Garvey's arm was poor for a third baseman, but for a first baseman, he had a decent number of assists to bases other than first. He deserved his Gold Gloves.