Should candidates get in to the Hall as "overall contributors"?

[jalbright]

The question is put in the form of a poll in this posting/article (http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/polling?event_id=2388). It has an accompanying piece supporting the candidacy of Felipe Alou (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=2556121)

I'll quote the most salient point from the first cited article: Rob Neyer suggests the rules for the Hall of Fame veteran's committee allows for induction based on a person's overall contributions to the game of baseball over the course of a lifetime. And for someone like [ed. Gil] Hodges, a borderline Hall of Famer based solely on his career as a first baseman for the Brooklyn Dodgers, adding his years as a manager (including the 1969 New York Mets) could make all the difference.

Other examples listed (beyond Hodges and Alou) in the cited poll are: Buck O'Neill, Billy Southworth, Billy Martin, Mel Harder, Eddie Rommel, Dusty Baker, and Lefty O'Doul. Another similar case which occurs to me is Johnny Pesky, who I've added to the poll with this thread.

I'll come back with my perspective on these cases.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Personally, I think Southworth and Martin both belong as managers, so the issue of "overall contributor" is moot. Similarly, I think Alou and Baker need to make their cases as managers, since neither was particularly close to the hall based on their play. I don't think they've done so yet. I'm unaware of anything which truly distinguishes the non playing careers of Harder, Rommel and Pesky, so in my book they sink or swim solely on their playing careers. Given his wartime service I can see a case for Pesky on that basis, but I couldn't justify Harder or Rommel.

Hodges had one really tremendous year as a manager, but really didn't distinguish himself otherwise, so I can't see giving him much credit on that basis. He sinks or swims on his playing career, and I think he sinks, though there might be a case to be made about his wartime service if you could explain why he took a couple of years to get going once he returned from the Marines. I haven't seen that case made yet despite invitations to some of his supporters to try.

To me, the two cases which are really interesting in this regard are Lefty O'Doul, who really was an ambassador of the game in helping it flourish in Japan (he's actually in the Japanese Hall for his role). I lean toward him, but I hestitate because his playing career (absent his play in the PCL) is short of the mark, and I haven't studied his PCL career that closely.

Buck O'Neill is the poster child for the "overall contributor" idea IMO. I don't give him much credit for his play, but he helped scout and sign some greats, he coached (and managed in the Negro Leagues), he has been such a spokesman for the Negro Leaguers, and he was a driving force behind the Negro League museum. If he doesn't deserve it as an "overall contributor", no one does.

Jim Albright

[Captain Cold Nose]

While it certainly is not stated, I think folks like Frank Chance, Hughie Jennings and Rick Ferrell, good players all, got in because of what they added post career. George Kell was a fine third baseman whose post-playing career with the Tigers, including a longtime spent as a broadcaster, and an excellent one at that, he wasn't a homer, really helped in his VC election.
I think Hodges, on the basis of a good career and a World Series title, could get in on the above basis. O'Doul's chances as a player were harmed too greatly because of his short career, but his Japanese contributions, should the Hall ever decide to become International, make him an easy choice.
Players who were just good have to do something special as a manager, which Baker and Alou have not done, to warrant this. I do believe that Southworth and Martin should be in as managers, without anything else.

[jalbright]

CCN

We could add Rizzuto to your list of guys who at least arguably got in under an "overall contributor" umbrella, given his high post-career profile as a Yankee broadcaster.

Jim Albright

[Captain Cold Nose]

CCN

We could add Rizzuto to your list of guys who at least arguably got in under an "overall contributor" umbrella, given his high post-career profile as a Yankee broadcaster.

Jim Albright
Absolutely, Jim. He slipped my mind. And I missed O'Neill the first time around, so I added a vote.

[jalbright]

I can already see one problem with the poll: how do you answer if you think a guy belongs in, regardless of whether or not he needs the "overall contributor" umbrella? It seems CCN didn't vote for Martin and Southworth in the poll, but I did--yet we both state we think they belong solely as managers. I guess the best way to deal with it is if you cast your vote one way or the other because a guy belongs in solely because of his contributions on one level, to please note that fact in a post.

Jim Albright

[Fuzzy Bear]

The "overall contributor" category is for a unique few. Hodges is the only guy I'd pick here, for sure. He was a great, and underrated, manager. His work with the Senators is, IMO, underrated severely.

O'Neil and O'Doul deserve consideration. Most of the other guys need to go in as managers, or not at all.

Pesky has a case as a player only; a weak case, but about the same case as Cecil Travis.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I can already see one problem with the poll: how do you answer if you think a guy belongs in, regardless of whether or not he needs the "overall contributor" umbrella? It seems CCN didn't vote for Martin and Southworth in the poll, but I did--yet we both state we think they belong solely as managers. I guess the best way to deal with it is if you cast your vote one way or the other because a guy belongs in solely because of his contributions on one level, to please note that fact in a post.

Jim Albright
That is why I didn't vote for Martin and Southworth, but I can add my votes in if you feel this is just a HOF poll, with the main focus being overall contributions.

[jalbright]

Actually, CCN, since we've both posted our reasons, I'm content to leave it as it is. However, I do want anybody who feels (like we do) that so and so belongs in just based on his managing/playing (pick one) to note that fact in a post.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

The "overall contributor" category is for a unique few. Hodges is the only guy I'd pick here, for sure. He was a great, and underrated, manager. His work with the Senators is, IMO, underrated severely.

O'Neil and O'Doul deserve consideration. Most of the other guys need to go in as managers, or not at all.


Agreed that the overall contributor category should be used sparingly, probably moreso than it has been historically. If O'Neil doesn't deserve it in this category, I can't see how anyone does. O'Doul is more borderline.

As for Hodges' managing, the fact is, he had that one great year with the Mets, and no other years of the type that get managers into the HOF. I think we've sparred (in appropriate fashion) over Hodges' managerial career in the past, but even if he legitimately deserves credit for helping build the Senators, building a team without being there for the success (which in the Senator's case, never really came anyway) doesn't mean much in HOF terms. Furthermore, if Hodges was such a superlative manager, why couldn't he keep the Mets from collapsing back into mediocrity after 1969?

Jim Albright

Jim Albright

[KCGHOST]

This is a category that really chafes my keister. It is basically a popularity contest. We can't even seriously define "overall contributor". It is just a catchall phrase to give impetus to the campaigns of people who don't really qualify as players.

Gil Hodges, a good player, isn't HoF qualified on the basis of his playing days alone. People want to put him him in the HoF because he managed a team that won a world series. He was a mediocre manager before that and a mediocre manager after that. He catches lightning-in-a-bottle one year and we are going to make him an HoFer?? I don't see how adding a mediocre managing career to a playing career is a "plus".

Martin was a major embarrassment to the game and a world renowned pitcher killer. I don't think the managerial record for most times fired is a ringing endorsement for his career.

Southworth looks like a candidate with four pennants and two WS championships, but three of the pennants and both championships were during the war years. He had Stan Musial and the rest of the teams were playing 4F's. An despite all that he has won fewer games than Mike Hargrove.

I do like Buck O'Neill, but that is a hometown choice, and motivated by the ridiculous performance of the recent Negro Leagues Committee. What an embarrassing performance by that group.

[jalbright]

Southworth looks like a candidate with four pennants and two WS championships, but three of the pennants and both championships were during the war years. He had Stan Musial and the rest of the teams were playing 4F's. An despite all that he has won fewer games than Mike Hargrove.

I don't think you fully appreciate Southworth. His success was fueled in no small part to reintroducing platooning to the National League, which is certainly a managerial decision. As for the advantage of having a Musial, I can't think of a manager deserving of the HOF who didn't have at least one like him. And as for having success during the war, Bill James said it wonderfully in his Guide to Managers, p. 163 in my copy:
[T]here is a tendency to automatically discount whatever happened during the war because the game wasn't normal. While this discount is appropriate for players, a manager's job certainly didn't get easier during the war. If anything, wartime performance for managers probably should get extra credit, because wartime baseball was such a fluid situation, with players coming and going all the time, that it created opportunities for innovation and creativity. That kind of baseball is probably a truer test of the manager's skills than regular 1936- or 1976-style baseball, in which some teams just had the horses, and there wasn't much the other teams could do about it.

Jim Albright

[Fuzzy Bear]

I certainly disagree with the assessment of Hodges as a mediocre manager. He took over a terrible Senator team and improved it every year. The team fell from 6th to 10th place after Hodges left.

Back then, the expansion Senators were a team that took the crappy players that no one else wanted in the expansion draft. The bottom of the barrel. The quality of players available in the 1961-62 expansion drafts were the worst of any draft. There were no quick fixes through free agency, and Bob Short was a cheapskate owner, so the Senators' farm system was one of the poorest in the majors.

Hodges brought immediate improvement to the Mets; they improved by 12 games his first season, and that was BEFORE they won it all.

Hodges would NOT make the HOF as a manager, only, and is borderline, at best, as a player only. In his unique case, I support the combined criteria for selection.

I should say that, as a rule, I agree with KCGHOST on this topic. It has the potential of being Frankie Frisch II; the sequel, flooding the HOF with cronies of whomever as a popularity contest. If Johnny Pesky can't make it in on his playing credentials alone, he shouldn't make it in, period. Companies give a good pension and a gold watch to the janitor who works for them for 40 years, but they don't name the new research center after him.

[RuthMayBond]

Martin was a major embarrassment to the game and a world renowned pitcher killer.Maybe at the end but he sure turned a lot of teams around

<I don't think the managerial record for most times fired is a ringing endorsement for his career.>

I don't think George Stienbrenner gets the prize for owner, and how about all of Connie Mack's losses?

[Biggtone23]

I like the idea of overall contributors being in the Hall. A couple of names not on the list I would support are Jim Kaat, who was pretty close as a player and has been a great broadcaster for over 20 years, and Joe Torre, once again very close as a player and a terrific managing career should get him in.

I think we would all cringe though, when this is used to get Tim McCarver into the Hall of Fame. (shudders)

[jalbright]

I certainly disagree with the assessment of Hodges as a mediocre manager. He took over a terrible Senator team and improved it every year. The team fell from 6th to 10th place after Hodges left.
.........
Hodges would NOT make the HOF as a manager, only, and is borderline, at best, as a player only. In his unique case, I support the combined criteria for selection.

Please show me where I called him a mediocre manager. He was good--but the Hall is not for the merely good. I happen to disagree that his managing career entitles him to open the door to the Hall when his playing career isn't enough to do the job.

Jim Albright

[538280]

Maybe at the end but he sure turned a lot of teams around


That was Martin's specialy. Teams would hire him because the wanted to win right away, and he would almost always do that. However, he could never stick around for long as he completely trashed the pitching staff and rubbed a ton of people the wrong way. If you wanted to win right now, he was great, but he was far from a truly great manager. That is why he moved around so much. Personally, he is one of my least favorite people ever associated with baseball. The more I read about him, the more my dislike increases.

[RuthMayBond]

That was Martin's specialy. Teams would hire him because the wanted to win right away, and he would almost always do that. However, he could never stick around for long as he completely trashed the pitching staff.How does trashing a pitching staff help a team win?

[538280]

How does trashing a pitching staff help a team win?

Trashed them for upcoming years, not necessarily in that one year. Look at what happened to Oakland's promising pitchers after the early 80s.

[yest]

I voted for Southworth soly as a manager

[RuthMayBond]

Trashed them for upcoming years, not necessarily in that one year. Look at what happened to Oakland's promising pitchers after the early 80s.It still doesn't answer how it helps a team win, and that was the only example I was aware of. You seemed to imply Martin did it almost all the time

[flash143817]

I'd be open to this idea because it is the "Hall of Fame" and not the "Hall of Great Players".

But there should definitely be a distinction made so that we know people are getting in on "overall contributions" so that they don't start ripping people like Gil Hodges if their playing contributions weren't great enough but they are judged as having been great enough overall to make it in.


But I thought of a name to be added to the voting list: Tommy John

John is arguable but out as a player with his 288 wins, but does that, combined with his paving the way for future pitching medical procedures, put him over the top overall?

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'd be open to this idea because it is the "Hall of Fame" and not the "Hall of Great Players".

But there should definitely be a distinction made so that we know people are getting in on "overall contributions" so that they don't start ripping people like Gil Hodges if their playing contributions weren't great enough but they are judged as having been great enough overall to make it in.


But I thought of a name to be added to the voting list: Tommy John

John is arguable but out as a player with his 288 wins, but does that, combined with his paving the way for future pitching medical procedures, put him over the top overall?
Should John get credit for taking the risk to have the surgery? I'm not convinced of that, and think he sometimes gets too much credit for what amounts to good timing, if you can call it that.

[flash143817]

Should John get credit for taking the risk to have the surgery? I'm not convinced of that, and think he sometimes gets too much credit for what amounts to good timing, if you can call it that.

I say yes. It's not easy to give consent on an unknown procedure like that. John had good timing to be around when Jobe was first in the trial stages of this surgery, but he still had to let it happen. Jobe himself put the odds of recovery as 1 in 100. I know I'd have a tough time letting someone cut me open when that particular surgery hadn't been performed on someone before, especially when they are giving me such slim odds.

[efin98]

I should say that, as a rule, I agree with KCGHOST on this topic. It has the potential of being Frankie Frisch II; the sequel, flooding the HOF with cronies of whomever as a popularity contest. If Johnny Pesky can't make it in on his playing credentials alone, he shouldn't make it in, period. Companies give a good pension and a gold watch to the janitor who works for them for 40 years, but they don't name the new research center after him.

His case as you state it is at best for him to be enshrined in the RED SOX Hall of Fame- not Cooperstown. #6 should be retired by Boston, but that's all.

His coaching career lasted only 10 years on the big league level, he managed two losing teams, and the only note about his playing career is that he gets blamed for the '46 World Series loss. Sorry, but that's not worthy of enshrinement.

At most he may belong in the Minor League Hall of Fame due to his contributions to the developement of Red Sox players during the course of the 50+ years but even then it's a stretch.

[jalbright]

I say yes. It's not easy to give consent on an unknown procedure like that. John had good timing to be around when Jobe was first in the trial stages of this surgery, but he still had to let it happen. Jobe himself put the odds of recovery as 1 in 100. I know I'd have a tough time letting someone cut me open when that particular surgery hadn't been performed on someone before, especially when they are giving me such slim odds.

I disagree. John's career was down the tubes if he didn't try it. What were the risks of having a useless arm? Very low, I'd say. So what did John have to lose? Grabbing a life preserver thrown to when you're drowning in the ocean isn't a heroic act.

Jim Albright

[Biggtone23]

I dont think he should get in for just being the first person to have the surgery. But when you combine his near Hall of Fame pitching career and then throw in a game changing surgery I think that pushes him over the top.

[flash143817]

I disagree. John's career was down the tubes if he didn't try it. What were the risks of having a useless arm? Very low, I'd say. So what did John have to lose? Grabbing a life preserver thrown to when you're drowning in the ocean isn't a heroic act.

Jim Albright

But the fact that he made a successful recovery paved the way for everyone after him. If he wouldn't have successfully recovered then they would likely have scrapped that surgery and then arguably the most influential medical advancement in baseball history would have been lost. Then a large number of today's pitchers would have had signficantly shorter careers. In that respect, John had a hugely positive effect. Now maybe it was a case of "right place at the right time" but somebody had to be the guinea pig.


But when you combine his near Hall of Fame pitching career and then throw in a game changing surgery I think that pushes him over the top.

To me this is the spirit of an "overall contributor". He wasn't necessarily great enough in either respect individually to get in, but the combination of both makes his "overall" good enough.

[jalbright]

But the fact that he made a successful recovery paved the way for everyone after him. If he wouldn't have successfully recovered then they would likely have scrapped that surgery and then arguably the most influential medical advancement in baseball history would have been lost. Then a large number of today's pitchers would have had signficantly shorter careers. In that respect, John had a hugely positive effect. Now maybe it was a case of "right place at the right time" but somebody had to be the guinea pig.

First off, if you want to make the argument that he worked especially hard to recuperate, and thus set the standard for the rehab of the surgery, you're on stronger ground than saying he deserves it for undergoing the surgery itself. Even so, lots of guys rehab from nasty injuries, and that doesn't entitle them to a spot in the HOF. John has a decent case for his play, and IMO he rises or falls on that basis alone.

Also, I doubt that if John's surgery hadn't led to his returning to pitching professional ball that the surgery would have necessarily been scrapped. "Guinea pig" surgeries aren't always expected to be successful, especially the first time out. The technique might need to be refined a bit, but a "failure" of that sort is hardly unexpected in the first try. So long as John had a useable arm, I doubt seriously the idea would have died so quickly.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Should John get credit for taking the risk to have the surgery? I'm not convinced of that, and think he sometimes gets too much credit for what amounts to good timing, if you can call it that.

I wouldn't give John extra credit for the surgery. I do think, however, that John's career, in and of itself, is good enough for the HOF.

[Fuzzy Bear]

That was Martin's specialy. Teams would hire him because the wanted to win right away, and he would almost always do that. However, he could never stick around for long as he completely trashed the pitching staff and rubbed a ton of people the wrong way. If you wanted to win right now, he was great, but he was far from a truly great manager. That is why he moved around so much. Personally, he is one of my least favorite people ever associated with baseball. The more I read about him, the more my dislike increases.

I tend to agree with this assessment, and this is why I don't endorse Martin for the HOF.

[Mattingly]

I'm guessing that if MLB had a John Madden type, who'd won a Super Bowl (or two, I can't remember), and had a humongous following as a broadcaster, he would definitely get in under "cumulative" things? In this case, both as a manager and a broadcaster.

Would that work here also? Or would this be mostly for player and manager, and that neither was distinguished enough to warrant enshrinement, but that each would help the other's entry.
That was Martin's specialy. Teams would hire him because the wanted to win right away, and he would almost always do that. However, he could never stick around for long as he completely trashed the pitching staff and rubbed a ton of people the wrong way. If you wanted to win right now, he was great, but he was far from a truly great manager. That is why he moved around so much. Personally, he is one of my least favorite people ever associated with baseball. The more I read about him, the more my dislike increases.
For Martin, he was also a heavy drinker. He was also described as a 5'11" guy around 170 lbs who had no issues getting into fights that his body couldn't handle.

Unfortunately for him, he was also Steinbrenner's personal whipping boy. They were constantly at each other from what I remember reading in the NY Daily News back then, and George owned the team, so guess who ended up winning the public feuds?

I'm not sure who in the Yanks' FO he'd bothered other than George, but Reggie Jackson and himself almost had a fight.

How did he trash the pitching staff? Overusing the rotation or the pen? Using some players but not others? Sorry if this sounds more like something from the "History" forum, rather than HoF.

Anyway, his most recent disciple is Sweet Lou, who used that "Billy Ball" of small ball to his advantage. Let's not forget the dirt-kicking explosions at home plate that Martin was infamous for, since honed well by Piniella. :p

[jalbright]

It appears Martin did overwork his pitchers. Bill James did something on how consistently pitchers used hard by Martin (his top four starters or so IIRC) declined precipitously within a year or two of pitching that way for Martin.

Billy was a jerk. So was Durocher, even moreso than Billy. But both won. Personally, I think folks who are dismissing Billy are doing so more on style points than anything else, and I can't second that approach.

As for the overall contributor thing, I look at Buck O'Neill as one standard, Hughie Jennings as another. Buck O'Neill did so many positive things in so many areas that his entire body of work in baseball merits HOF recognition--it's just that when you put all the pieces together, his case is truly extraordinary. The Jennings case is for when a guy just misses the HOF in two separate categories (in Jennings case, as a player and as a manager). He's not quite enough in either one, but close--but if you put the two together, I don't have any objection. Even if Phil Rizzuto is that spectacular as a broadcaster, the truth is, broadcasters get that one award, not a plaque. So the combination player/broadcaster doesn't cut it in my eyes.

Jim Albright

[Mattingly]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/managers/martibi02.shtml

Jim, with which team did Martin mostly hurt the pitchers? He's played more games with the Yanks than any other team. Any particular years or pitchers, or just overall? I'm figuring it's similar to what people are saying now about Dusty Baker.

As to Buck O'Neill, he's definitely brought recognition and put a wonderful and very decent face on Negro League baseball. I don't know about him as a player, but if anyone deserves enshrinement, I believe he would be that person. :)

[flash143817]

First off, if you want to make the argument that he worked especially hard to recuperate, and thus set the standard for the rehab of the surgery, you're on stronger ground than saying he deserves it for undergoing the surgery itself. Even so, lots of guys rehab from nasty injuries, and that doesn't entitle them to a spot in the HOF. John has a decent case for his play, and IMO he rises or falls on that basis alone.



It wasn't the rehab in itself that I give him credit for. Plenty of players have successfully rehabbed themselves back into the game like you said.

It was that his specific rehab set the stage for the most important surgical advancement in baseball history. If John doesn't recover from that surgery, then it's completely possible that they stop trying that procedure, robbing pitchers of their most important medical procedure. To me, that makes his recovery extremely significant to the course of baseball history. Combining that with his near-HOF playing career could put him over the top in this "overall" category.

For the record though, I do NOT support John's case for the HOF strictly on playing accomplishments.

[flash143817]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/managers/martibi02.shtml

Jim, with which team did Martin mostly hurt the pitchers? He's played more games with the Yanks than any other team. Any particular years or pitchers, or just overall? I'm figuring it's similar to what people are saying now about Dusty Baker.



The A's teams in the early '80s are notorious for Martin blowing their arms.

Rick Langford won 19 games and threw 290 innings. 2 years later his career was effectively over.

Mike Norris won 22 games with a 148 ERA+ that same year, throwing 284 innings. It was the last good year of his career and it ended at the age of 28 due to arm trouble.

Matt Keough won 16 games and had a 129 ERA+ in 250 innings that same year. He never had another good year and his career was over by age 30 with arm trouble.

Martin's teams consistently led the league in complete games and his starters always threw more IP than any other teams' starters.

It is similar to the deserved criticism that Dusty Baker gets for ruining the arms of Prior and Wood.

[538280]

It appears Martin did overwork his pitchers. Bill James did something on how consistently pitchers used hard by Martin (his top four starters or so IIRC) declined precipitously within a year or two of pitching that way for Martin.

Billy was a jerk. So was Durocher, even moreso than Billy. But both won. Personally, I think folks who are dismissing Billy are doing so more on style points than anything else, and I can't second that approach.

Durocher proved he could stay in places and win over a long period of time. Martin jumped around and never stayed anywhere long. This was due to not only his divisiveness, but also because he just couldn't handle a pitching staff. The pitchers were completely blown out after just a few years. Look at players like Mike Norris, Steve McCatty, Rick Langford, and Ed Figueroa.

[dgarza]

I voted for:

Buck O'Neill - Best example of overall contributor.

Gil Hodges - He is borderline as a player for me, but I voted for him, as I probably would lean that way. His managerial contributions don't do anything for me, so my vote for him is based on his playing record only.

Billy Southworth - Based wholly on his managing, he's a "yes" for me. His playing years wouldn't even matter.

Billy Martin - Same as Southworth.

Lefty O'Doul - For me, he's in as a player despite his relatively "short" career. His "contributor" efforts can only help him even more, but, for me, they are unneccessary.