Anyone Undeserving?

[milladrive]

Recently, I had a learning experience regarding Roger Bresnahan. I learned that, despite my previous thoughts, he's probably worthy of being recognized by Cooperstown.

But then, added to all this talk of people who aren't there but we feel should be, the question occurred to me:

Is there anyone in the Hall of Fame that we feel simply doesn't deserve to be there?

[Westlake]

Rube Marquad. He certainly does NOT belong in the Hall of Fame. He had a 3.08 career ERA... when the league average was 3.16. There is absolutely no way I could ever view him as a worthy HOFer. The Veteran's Committee really F-ed that one up.

[TBT]

Catfish Hunter
Rube Marquard
Herb Pennock
Bill Mazeroski
Phil Rizzuto
Rabbit Maranville
Lloyd Waner
Max Carey
Freddy Lindstrom
Tommy Mccarthy
Luis Aparicio
Red Schoendienst
George Kelly
Hugh Jennings

[Dodgerfan1]

Morgan Bulkeley

[Freakshow]

Recently, I had a learning experience regarding Roger Bresnahan. I learned that, despite my previous thoughts, he's probably worthy of being recognized by Cooperstown.

But then, added to all this talk of people who aren't there but we feel should be, the question occurred to me:

Is there anyone in the Hall of Fame that we feel simply doesn't deserve to be there?
Check out the Hall of Mistakes (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=49821).

[milladrive]

Check out the Hall of Mistakes (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=49821).

lol, wow, now that's some well created list. And a terrific series of polls, I might add. :D

I missed out on those, but I'm glad I've seen them. Thanx for pointing them out!

[Captain Cold Nose]

Morgan Bulkeley
At least all the players elected have some quality attributes. Bulkeley was a figurehead. The fact William Hulbert had to wait 60 years after Bulkeley is ridiculous.

[RuthMayBond]

Max CareyCarey might not have been an upper tier HOFer but combine that glove with those steals

[nerfan]

It has got to be Marquard. His most similar pitchers are Milt Pappas, Larry Jackson, Larry French, Wilbur Cooper, Dolf Luque, Claude Osteen, Curt Simmons, Charley Root, Dutch Leonard, and Jim Perry. Ive heard of Perry and Dutch Leonard. Pappas I only know because of him being traded for F. Robby, and seriously, Larry French?

[nerfan]

not to mention French had an ERA about half a point lower than the leagues, whie Marquard had a similar to league ERA/

[RuthMayBond]

It has got to be Marquard. His most similar pitchers are Milt Pappas, Larry Jackson, Larry French, Wilbur Cooper, Dolf Luque, Claude Osteen, Curt Simmons, Charley Root, Dutch Leonard, and Jim Perry. Ive heard of Perry and Dutch Leonard. Pappas I only know because of him being traded for F. Robby, and seriously, Larry French?Larry French was pretty comparable to Bob Lemon and arguably better than Chief Bender, Chesbro, Pennock, Grimes, Marquard, Catfish Hunter AND Pop Haines :eek:

[nerfan]

that is true. although none of those should be in the HOF except Lemon, who made 7 straight AS games and came in top 10 for MVP voting 6 times. Arguements could also be made for Chesbro, Hunter, and Grimes who won 270 games (in admittedly a easier time to win them).

[AlecBoy006]

Don Drysdale
Luis Aparicio

I can support Schoendienst, Ferrell, and Kell.

[nerfan]

Don Drysdale
Luis Aparicio

I can support Schoendienst, Ferrell, and Kell.

Bye Aparicio. Make room for Bert Blyleven, the better than Catfish pitcher. (BBWAA: no, Catfish brought mor skills to the table, we think Catfish is very good at pro ball his peak was better...) SHUT UP!

[W_Marone]

Agreed, dump that clown Catfish Hunter and add Bert Blyleven

[milladrive]

I agree about Blyleven, but quite frankly, this thread isn't about who to add. We have plenty of those threads. ...And it's especially not about who should be removed to make room for someone else. There's plenty of real estate in Cooperstown. Removal for someone else's induction is not valid reasoning.

It's really about what current HoFers the community thinks just doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. Players, execs, umps, or other contributors that have been inducted but we feel shouldn't have been.

And, if possible, not only why we feel they shouldn't have been elected, but why we think they were. ;)

From the replies thus far, a few names are beginning to stand out.

[Dalkowski110]

Try Tommy McCarthy for players. I can see absolutely no reason why the guy was elected. Another guy to seriously consider dumping is Joe Tinker. Evers was a borderline case who IMO doesn't belong, and Chance belongs as a combo player/manager...if that poem had not included Tinker, I can almost guarantee he wouldn't be remembered. Tinker's similarity scores only put Phil Rizzuto in alongside him, and Rizzuto was obviously a mistake. The other most similar players? Ozzie Guillen, Germany Smith, Billy Jurges, Alfredo Griffin, Art Fletcher, Joe Quinn (yes, the one who mismanaged the Cleveland Spiders of 1899), Bill Hallman, Roger Peckinpaugh (who was probably better than Tinker as a fielder and had a better OBP, too...yet I once argued vehemently that he SHOULDN'T be allowed near the Hall unless he pays his way in) and Jack O'Connor.

[abacab]

The really terrible player choices include Marquard, Haines, George Kelly, Travis Jackson, Lindstrom, Hafey, Rick Ferrell, McCarthy, and Youngs.

Phil Rizzuto wasn't nearly as bad of a pick as any of the above. Personally I think Rizzuto was a defensible selection, and he gets a lot of crap because Bill James made an example out of him in his book that pretty much inspired this forum.

Bulkeley was easily the worst non-player selection. There are other questionable picks (Bill McGowan?) but Bulkeley contributed absolutely nothing to baseball.

[milladrive]

Bulkeley was easily the worst non-player selection. There are other questionable picks (Bill McGowan?) but Bulkeley contributed absolutely nothing to baseball.

That I'd have to agree with. Wonder why he was elected in the first place.

[rsuriyop]

Hugh Jennings

Are you serious? The guy had a greater peak than George Davis and Bill Dahlen.

[abacab]

Wonder why he was elected in the first place.

As I understand it, he was elected because he was the first president of the National League. He held the job briefly before leaving baseball for politics. 60 years later, the Hall wanted to honor a pioneer from the early days of professional baseball, so they simply picked the first president of the NL without bothering to research what he actually accomplished (which was nothing).

[Dalkowski110]

Actually, from reading Bill James, Bulkeley was only selected because he was the first NL President. The HoF felt it was discriminating against the National League if it only selected Ban Johnson, the AL's first president. An absolute dunce could have been the first NL Prez, and they would have elected him. Another absolutely off-the-wall selection was Lloyd Waner. The younger Waner was only enshrined, IMO, because of the presence of his very-deserving brother, Paul. If he'd been "Lloyd Jones," I doubt he'd have gotten in.

[vasprtsfn]

Sandy Koufax.

[abacab]

Sandy Koufax.

I originally had something typed here that would get me kicked off the site. Then I thought better of it.

Seriously, though, come on.

[Appling]

Another absolutely off-the-wall selection was Lloyd Waner. The younger Waner was only enshrined, IMO, because of the presence of his very-deserving brother, Paul. If he'd been "Lloyd Jones," I doubt he'd have gotten in.
That's funny -- that "younger brother" bit hasn't helped the case of Dom DiMaggio, who in my opinion is FAR more deserving that Little Poison. Why not the Little Professor?

[Dalkowski110]

I'd say another big factor of the Waners being inducted into the Hall but not both of the DiMaggios is that Paul and Lloyd were Big Poison and Little Poison of the Pittsburgh Pirates. They played and starred on the same team during the same era. The same cannot be said of the DiMaggios, whose careers barely overlap.

[iPod]

Don Drysdale
Luis Aparicio

I can support Schoendienst, Ferrell, and Kell.

Do you really feel like Aparicio was worse than guys like Travis Jackson, Fred Lindstrom, Dave Bancroft, etc? At least Aparicio won 9 gold gloves at short, made 10 all-star teams, and led the AL in steals 9 consecutive seasons. Yes, outside of those things he's terrible, but at least he has something impressive in his favor. I mean, honestly, how could anyone even begin to create a Hall of Fame case for a guy like Travis Jackson?

I know you don't like Drysdale because all you look at his won-lost record, and I know a lot of other people think Drysdale isn't a Hall of Famer for more complex reasons, but I don't really agree. His ERA, relative to league, is almost identical to Marichal and Feller, although admittedly Marichal's and Feller's ERAs are higher than their reputations suggest. He led the league in strikeouts 3 times and was in the top 3 in strikeouts every year from 1959 to 1964. His strikeout/walk ratio was superb, 2.91, or 36th all time. In his prime seasons, 1962-65, he led the league in starts every year and was in the top 5 in CG every year. That in itself doesn't mean much but... if you had a pitcher the caliber of Drysdale, wouldn't you sleep a little soundly at night if you knew he was going to start 40 times a year instead of 34 or 5? We talked about this in the Gooden/Pedro thread, the intrinsic value of knowing one of your aces is able to start 5 or 6 more times in a season than usual.

[Appling]

I'd say another big factor of the Waners being inducted into the Hall but not both of the DiMaggios is that Paul and Lloyd were Big Poison and Little Poison of the Pittsburgh Pirates. They played and starred on the same team during the same era. The same cannot be said of the DiMaggios, whose careers barely overlap.
I suspect a stronger reason is that Paul probably supported the selection of his brother Lloyd, while Joe did nothing to show his support of Dominic.

I consider Joe and Dominic to be contemporaries (although they played for rival teams). Joe's career was 1936-1942, then 1946-1951. Dominic was 1940-1942, then 1946-1952. Both missed three seasons due to WWII.

The AL leader in the decade 1940-49 was Lou Boudreau, but Lou missed no war years.
The top three hit producers who missed three seasons (1943-44-45) because of the war were:
1. Ted Williams - 1303; 2. Joe DiMaggio - 1156; Dom DiMaggio - 1154.

Dom was equal to brother Joe as a defensive center fielder. Maybe he was just too close to Joe, for Joe to praise him.

I would rate Dom DiMaggio as much more deserving of HOF honors than Lloyd Waner.

[CTaka]

Do you really feel like Aparicio was worse than guys like Travis Jackson, Fred Lindstrom, Dave Bancroft, etc? At least Aparicio won 9 gold gloves at short, made 10 all-star teams, and led the AL in steals 9 consecutive seasons. Yes, outside of those things he's terrible, but at least he has something impressive in his favor. I mean, honestly, how could anyone even begin to create a Hall of Fame case for a guy like Travis Jackson?


I would take Aparicio over Jackson. I can't speak for Alec but it is possible that he named Aparicio as "undeserving" instead of Jackson because of the OPS+ advantage Jackson has (102 to 82). But Aparicio would/should get an LQ advantage to offset a fair portion of that advantage. Jackson has the power advantage while obviously Luis has the huge edge on defense and on the bases.

Jackson was simply a very mediocre player. In his "hall of fame" career, he only reached 500+ PA's seven times. Aparicio did that 17 times. Game after game, Luis was out there and contributing with his leather and his legs (at least when he could reach base!). But even Babe Ruth doesn't help your team if he's on the bench and not playing. And Jackson just ended up "not playing" far more than you'd expect from a hall of famer.

I'd be curious to know Alec's reason for picking Aparicio over Jackson in the "undeserving" category. Neither is exactly going to challenge Honus Wagner, but I would say Jackson is more undeserving than Luis.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Actually, from reading Bill James, Bulkeley was only selected because he was the first NL President. The HoF felt it was discriminating against the National League if it only selected Ban Johnson, the AL's first president. An absolute dunce could have been the first NL Prez, and they would have elected him. Another absolutely off-the-wall selection was Lloyd Waner. The younger Waner was only enshrined, IMO, because of the presence of his very-deserving brother, Paul. If he'd been "Lloyd Jones," I doubt he'd have gotten in.

He may have, although being "Little Poison" to Paul Waner's "Big Poison" helped.

Lloyd Waner was inducted into the HOF in 1967, at a time when batting averages were at there lowest point, before or since, during the 20th century. Paul Waner had died two years earlier. Lloyd Waner is a much criticized pick, but a defensible one, to a point. Waner was a career CENTER fielder, and a very good one, so he has defensive value that many comparable offensive player do not have. His HOF candidacy was driven more by his lifetime BA, in a career of decent length, than his relationship to his brother.

Dom DiMaggio was probably a better player at his peak. Dom is not in the HOF and Waner is because (A) his career was much shorter, and (B) his lifetime BA was just under .300.

I'm not advocating for Bobby Veach for the Hall, but he'd probably have been a better pick than Waner. Veach has his advocates, but two of his outfield mates (Ty Cobb and Sam Crawford) are already there. Veach was probably better than Waner, even given Waner's defensive advantage.

[Dalkowski110]

"He may have, although being "Little Poison" to Paul Waner's "Big Poison" helped."

That's...pretty much what I said.