BBF Mock HoF Election: 1986

[DoubleX]

Welcome to Baseball Fever's Mock HoF Election for 1986. The goal of this project is to conduct Hall of Fame elections from 1979-2007, as if we were the BBWAA, and then compare our results to the actual BBWAA results. For the most part, we will proceed just like BBWAA does. 1979 was selected as the start date as that is when the BBWAA elections first implemented the 5% rule (though it was not always adhered to).

This post will provide two things:

1) The Format and Rules

2) A Guide for the 1986 Election


Format and Rules
- The BBF ballot will consist of the same players that were on the BBWAA ballot, except for in instances where we have elected, dropped, or sustained on the ballot different players than the BBWAA (which will likely be quite a few).

- Voters may vote for between 0-10 candidates. A "None of the Above" option is available if you believe no one is worthy and you wish to submit a blank ballot.

- Adjusting Ballots: Anyone who votes for more than 10 candidates will have all their votes discounted unless they inform me within 48 hours of submitting their vote (or the close of the election, whichever comes first) of the mistake and which players they wish to discount. In such a situation, if I am not informed of the players to be dropped, I will discount that voter's entire ballot. If a voter habitually submits a ballot with more than 10 players, they risk having their votes discounted in all present and future elections. Otherwise, there will be no adjusting ballots after submitted, even if you forgot to vote for someone you meant to vote for or clicked on the wrong player. So please think carefully about your ballot before voting and make sure you have selected everyone you intend to vote for (up to 10).

- 75% support or greater will elect a player. Players receiving less than 5% will be dropped from all future elections (even if in reality, that player was included in future BBWAA elections). Players receiving 5% or more but less than 75% will stay on the ballot for the next election, unless that player's 15-year eligibility is over.

- The election will close exactly a week after it started. The next election might not commence for another day or two.

- IMPORTANT: There is some concern about voters defrauding this process by voting with multiple screen names. First, please don't as there is really no point and it takes the fun out of this which is to see how we come out, more than it being a heated competition to get your player elected. Nevertheless, to take precaution against the possibility of a voter abusing the process, votes will be made public, so if we see unfamiliar screen names casting similar ballots, we'll see cause for concern, and if the concern proves to be founded, some form of punitive action could follow. So basically, ONE PERSON = ONE BALLOT. Anything else is really just moronic and defeats the purpose.

- Also, in the interest of making this process as genuine as possible, I strongly urge voters to not view the results before they vote, as viewing results before voting could influence a person's votes (perhaps subconsciously).

- This thread is also meant to be a discussion thread, so please feel free to stump for and/or against players, including players that will come up for election in the following year.


1986 Guide
In 1986, like 1985, the BBWAA’s screening committee included on the ballot several players that failed to receive at least 5% in previous BBWAA elections. I have not reintroduced any players that have failed to receive 5% in our elections. I have included Minnie Minoso on the ballot. He was eligible from 1969-1975, and did appear on the 1969 ballot. But his brief ML appearances in 1975 and 1980 gave him another 15 year eligibility beginning this year. If anyone has strong objections to Minoso being on the ballot, please raise for discussion.

There are 30 candidates on the 1986 BBF ballot. Here's some information regarding the candidates:

First Timers (14)
Jack Billingham
Paul Blair
Jose Cardenal
Dave Cash
Vic Davalillo
Bud Harrrelson
John Hiller
Willie Horton
Darold Knowles
Tim McCarver
Willie McCovey
Minnie Minoso
J.R. Richard
Manny Sanguillen

Holdovers (16)
Player Year of Eligibility High BBF Support Previous Year’s BBF Support
Luis Aparicio 8th 59.68% (1980) 55.77%
Ken Boyer 12th 32.69% (1985) 32.69%
Lou Brock 2nd 73.08% (1985) 73.08%
Jim Bunning 10th 53.85% (1985) 53.85%
Norm Cash 7th 18.18% (1981) 17.31%
Curt Flood 10th 11.86% (1981) 9.62%
Bill Freehan 5th 38.46% (1985) 38.46%
Frank Howard 8th 24.19% (1984) 21.15%
Catfish Hunter 2nd 32.69% (1985) 32.69%
Bill Mazeroski 9th 37.10% (1980 & 1984) 30.77%
Thurman Munson 6th 16.95% (1981) 11.54%
Tony Oliva 5th 27.42% (1984) 26.92%
Boog Powell 4th 17.74% (1984) 9.62%
Joe Torre 4th 61.54% (1985) 61.54%
Maury Wills 9th 16.13% (1984) 11.54%
Jimmy Wynn 4th 34.62% (1985) 34.62%

Last Year of Eligibility
None

Players on BBF Ballot not on BBWAA Ballot
Luis Aparicio - Elected by BBWAA (1984)
Lou Brock – Elected by BBWAA (1985)
Norm Cash – Dropped by BBWAA (1980)
Bill Freehan – Dropped by BBWAA (1982)
Frank Howard - Dropped by BBWAA (1979)
Boog Powell – Dropped by BBWAA (1983)
Jimmy Wynn – Dropped by BBWAA (1983)

Players on BBWAA Ballot not on BBF Ballot
Dick Allen – Elected by BBF (1985)
Lew Burdette - Dropped by BBF (1979)
Orlando Cepeda - Elected by BBF (1984)
Elston Howard – Dropped by BBF (1981)
Roy Face - Dropped by BBF (1979)
Harvey Kuenn - Dropped by BBF (1979)
Don Larsen – Dropped by BBF (1980)
Mickey Lolich – Dropped by BBF (1985)
Jim Lonborg – Dropped by BBF (1985)
Roger Maris – Dropped by BBF (1982)
Dave McNally - Dropped by BBF (1981)
Andy Messersmith – Dropped by BBF (1985)
Vada Pinson - Dropped by BBF (1983)
Ron Santo - Elected by BBF (1980)
George Scott - Dropped by BBF (1985)
Billy Williams – Elected by BBF (1982)
Wilbur Wood - Dropped by BBF (1984)

Actual Hall of Famers on BBF Ballot
Luis Aparicio (BBWAA - 1984)
Lou Brock (BBWAA – 1985)
Jim Bunning (VC - 1996)
Catfish Hunter (BBWAA – 1987)
Bill Mazeroski (VC - 2001)
Willie McCovey (BBWAA – 1986)

Players Elected by BBF Between 1979-1985 (16)
Player BBF Election Year BBF Election Percentage Year on Ballot
Hank Aaron 1982 100.00% 1st
Dick Allen 1985 75.00% 3rd
Richie Ashburn 1979 75.41% 12th (1st for BBF)
Orlando Cepeda 1984 79.03% 5th
Don Drysdale 1983 79.03% 9th (5th for BBF)
Bob Gibson 1981 89.83% 1st
Al Kaline 1980 90.32% 1st
Harmon Killebrew 1981 93.22% 1st
Juan Marichal 1981 79.66% 1st
Willie Mays 1979 98.36% 1st
Brooks Robinson 1983 88.71% 1st
Frank Robinson 1982 100.00% 1st
Ron Santo 1980 82.26% 1st
Duke Snider 1979 83.61% 10th (1st for BBF)
Hoyt Wilhelm 1979 77.05% 2nd (1st for BBF)
Billy Williams 1982 80.00% 1st

Players Elected by BBWAA Between 1979-1985 (13)
Hank Aaron (1982)
Luis Aparicio (1984)
Lou Brock (1985)
Don Drysdale (1984)
Bob Gibson (1981)
Al Kaline (1980)
Harmon Killebrew (1984)
Juan Marichal (1983)
Willie Mays (1979)
Brooks Robinson (1983)
Frank Robinson (1982)
Duke Snider (1980)
Hoyt Wilhelm (1985)

BBF/BBWAA Election Ratio: 16:13

Players Elected by BBF but not BBWAA (through 1985)
Dick Allen (1985)
Richie Ashburn (1979)
Orlando Cepeda (1984)
Ron Santo (1980)
Billy Williams (1982)

Players Elected by BBWAA but not BBF (through 1985)
Luis Aparicio (1984)
Lou Brock (1985)

Players Dropped by BBF After 15 Years on Ballot (7)
Nellie Fox (1985)
Gil Hodges (1983)
Ted Kluszewski (1981)
Don Newcombe (1980)
Red Schoendienst (1983)
Enos Slaughter (1979)

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past BBF Elections
1979: 61
1980: 62
1981: 59
1982: 55
1983: 62
1984: 62
1985: 52

Links to Past BBF Elections
1979 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=56114&highlight=Mock+Election)
1980 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=56470&highlight=Mock+Election)
1981 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=56809&highlight=Mock+Election)
1982 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=57089&highlight=Mock+Election)
1983 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=57376)
1984 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=57694)
1985 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=58020)

[DoubleX]

As always at the start of an election, here are some thoughts/observations I've had:

1) Newcomers:
- Willie McCovey: After a couple of years with no real standout newcomers, I think most of us can agree that we again have a bonafide newcomer on the ballot in Willie McCovey.

- Minnie Minoso: I believe Minoso to be one of the Hall's biggest omissions. However, his candidacy here might have some controversy as this does not mark the first time he's been eligible. Minoso was originally eligibile frome 1969-1975, but due to very brief appearances in 1976 and 1980, the 15 year period on his eligibility began running again this year. Thus far I have not put anyone on the ballot who A) We've dropped since 1979; or B) Was dropped by the screening committee prior to 1979. Minoso would technically fall into the category of the latter as he only appeared on the 1969 ballot and did not appear in any of his subsequent years of initial eligibility. However, I believe it is appropriate to make an exception here because Minoso did actually play again, and thus we are not counting his eligibility back to the last time he played, 1980. If anyone objects to this, please raise for discussion and we'll see what the consensus is about Minoso remaining on the ballot.

- Other Newcomers: The rest of the newcomers are not such an impressive list. I suspect some, such as Paul Blair, Willie Horton, Tim McCarver, and J.R. Richard, among others, could get a couple of votes, but I'd be surprised to say any of them hang on (maybe Horton).

2) Holdovers:

- Lou Brock: Brock made a very strong push near the end of the last election and ended up just a vote shy of getting in. I suspect we'll elect him sooner or later and that he could be a case of some voters not feeling he was worthy of first ballot status. He is also the second player that the BBWAA elected before we did (the first being Luis Aparicio).

- Joe Torre: Perhaps lost in all the discussion about Dick Allen, Lou Brock, Nellie Fox, and Catfish Hunter during the 1985 election, was the fact that Joe Torre experienced a mammoth leap in support. After a few years of being stuck under 40%, he jumped by nearly 25% all the way to 61.54%. I believe that Orlando Cepeda's sudden election in 1984, in which he experienced a big surge, has given hope for a lot of the holdovers on the ballot. I believe Torre is worthy of election and hope that his support continues to grow. Now that we've elected Ron Santo and Dick Allen, it seems appropriate to make the push to get Torre in, as he would seem to be next in that line among eligible players that the BBWAA never elected, IMO (not counting Minoso).

Norm Cash and Boog Powell: I don't believe either of these guy will get elected anytime soon, and I'm not advocating for either, I just think it's interesting how the two seem to be trading positions over the past few years. Powell will go up to around 17% and Cash will go down to 11%, and then it will be reversed the next year. Any reason for this? I think the two are very similar players - could it be that supporters for these guys are just alternating their support each year?

3) Other Observations:

- Cepeda-Surge: I know I already talked about this a little when talking about Joe Torre, but it's an interesting phenonemon none the less and really shows how we can evolve as an electorate (from week to week). Last year both Torre and Nellie Fox experienced a big surge (though Fox's probably had a lot to do with his eligibility ending). I wonder who might be the next to surge? I don't know how reliable trends are here, but guys like Ken Boyer, Bill Freehan, and Jimmy Wynn, have been slowly but steadily increasing in support in recent years. With Boyer's time on the ballot down to just a few more years, perhaps he'll get a boost.

- Voter Turnout: After two straight years of tying our high for voter turnout, we dipped by 10 votes to an all-time low - 52. Anyone have a theory as to why? Was the ballot just not that interesting? Hopefully we can continue to attract over 50 voters for the next few years, and then I suspect in 1989, when the ballot suddenly gets more interesting, in terms of newcomers, we might get more interst and turnout.

- Holdover Numbers: It's interesting that we've remained pretty constant with the number of players we've been holding over from one year to the next. I think we've been at 16 or 17 for just about every year. Perhaps we have a subconcious collective quota? Support for this could be seen in the fact that as we've brought in new holdovers, we've squeezed out a few to keep the number of holdovers constant (Don Larsen, Roger Maris, Elston Howard, and Vada Pinson are holdovers that we've squeezed out).

- BBF vs. BBWAA: At one point, we were well ahead of the BBWAA in electing players, by almost 2 to 1. However, in the past 2 years, the BBWAA has closed that gap considerably and it now stands at 16 to 13, as the BBWAA has out-elected us 5 to 2 in the past two years.

- Hoyt Wilhelm: We should congratulate the BBWAA on finally realizing in 1985 what we realized in 1979 - that Hoyt Wilhelm is a Hall of Famer.

[John Shoemaker]

I voted for:

Willie McCovey
Frank Howard
Norm Cash
Boog Powell
Willie Horton

[DoubleX]

I most likely will not be able to close this election and start 1979 for several days as I will be away and likely without internet access (or enough to run these elections).

I would be most appreciative if someone would volunteer to take the helm for 1987. Otherwise, the delay between 1986 and 1987 could be almost a week.

[DoubleX]

I voted for:

Willie McCovey
Frank Howard
Norm Cash
Boog Powell
Willie Horton

Why Horton but not Minoso? The only plus I can see for Horton is power, but Minoso had decent enough power, hit for better average, had a better OPS+ (130 to 120), got on base much better (Horton's .332 career OBP is underwhelming, to say the least), was a much better baserunner, was a much better fielder, and likely lost a number of years at the beginning of his career to segregation. Minoso was a five-tool player in his prime, probably a lot like Bobby Abreu, and a much more complete and vastly superior player to Horton, IMO, especially considering that Minoso got off to a much later start in the Majors than Horton.

Anywho, I voted for:

Luis Aparicio
Ken Boyer
Lou Brock
Bill Freehan
Willie McCovey
Minnie Minoso
Joe Torre

I decided against keeping Bunning on my ballot and am still wondering what possessed me to include him.

[DoubleX]

Why Horton but not Minoso? The only plus I can see for Horton is power, but Minoso had decent enough power, hit for better average, had a better OPS+ (130 to 120), got on base much better (Horton's .332 career OBP is underwhelming, to say the least), was a much better baserunner, was a much better fielder, and likely lost a number of years at the beginning of his career to segregation. Minoso was a five-tool player in his prime, probably a lot like Bobby Abreu, and a much more complete and vastly superior player to Horton, IMO, especially considering that Minoso got off to a much later start in the Majors than Horton.

Minoso was also a 7 time All Star and is 99th all time in career MVP shares, while Horton was a 4 time All Star and is 436th in MVP share. And again, the gap here should probably be larger because Minoso likely lost some prime years to segregation. Baseball-reference.com lists Minoso's age as 25 when he first played as a regular in the bigs in 1951 witht he White Sox (he made a brief appearance in 1949 with the Indians), but may suspect he was at least a few years older than 25 then.

[dgarza]

1. Willie McCovey
2. Tony Oliva
3. Minnie Minoso
4. Lou Brock
5. Joe Torre
6. Jim Bunning
7. Ken Boyer
8. Luis Aparicio
9. Frank Howard
10. Catfish Hunter

[AstrosFan]

Jimmy Wynn had 3.9 % more PA, and an OPS+ that was only 1.6 % lower. He was a better base stealer than Minoso, grounded into fewer double plays, and was a strong defender at a more important defensive position. In the time they played, Wynn was the better player. If you give Minoso full credit for time missed due to segregation, I can see him moving ahead, but unless you have Minoso at the very back of the Hall of Fame, I don't see how he gets in and Wynn doesn't.

[John Shoemaker]

Why Horton but not Minoso? The only plus I can see for Horton is power, but Minoso had decent enough power, hit for better average, had a better OPS+ (130 to 120), got on base much better (Horton's .332 career OBP is underwhelming, to say the least), was a much better baserunner, was a much better fielder, and likely lost a number of years at the beginning of his career to segregation. Minoso was a five-tool player in his prime, probably a lot like Bobby Abreu, and a much more complete and vastly superior player to Horton, IMO, especially considering that Minoso got off to a much later start in the Majors than Horton.

Anywho, I voted for:

Luis Aparicio
Ken Boyer
Lou Brock
Bill Freehan
Willie McCovey
Minnie Minoso
Joe Torre

I decided against keeping Bunning on my ballot and am still wondering what possessed me to include him.

Minoso was borderline with me - I'll probably vote for him in the future.

I saw Willie Horton a lot of times in Detroit and he was the heart of that tiger lineupfor many years. He was very underated by many but not by pitchers who had to face him. He finally got his due when a statue to him was erected in Comerica park (one of only 6 Tigers so honored). What is intersting if you go to Comerica park is that Hortons statue stands right next to Cobb (a bigoted raceist). Ty must be turning over in his grave.

[DoubleX]

Jimmy Wynn had 3.9 % more PA, and an OPS+ that was only 1.6 % lower. He was a better base stealer than Minoso, grounded into fewer double plays, and was a strong defender at a more important defensive position. In the time they played, Wynn was the better player. If you give Minoso full credit for time missed due to segregation, I can see him moving ahead, but unless you have Minoso at the very back of the Hall of Fame, I don't see how he gets in and Wynn doesn't.

I do give Minoso credit for the years he missed to segregation, and that makes the gap between them a little bigger. By many accounts, Minoso didn't get a real shot at the Majors until he was 28, that's a number of years that ignorance robbed him of. The defensive gap between Minoso and Wynn is miniscule, IMO. As a corner OFer, Minoso was good for just about, if not more, defensive win shares as Wynn was good for as a CFer. Minoso was also reportedly a good defensive 3Bman in the Negro Leagues. Also, because this is the Hall of Fame, Minoso gets some subjective points for being a big insipiration for hispanic ball players. Before there was Clemente, there was Minoso. Wynn really has nothing subjectively going for him other than being the best player on some pretty bad teams. Wynn made just 3 All Star games and is 400th all time in MVP shares - Minoso made 7 All Star teams (despite not starting until he was 28) and is 99th all time in MVP shares - that's a big difference in the Fame factor.

But at the heart of this comparison, IMO, is the fact that Minoso was probably about 28 years old when he first got a real shot in the Majors. Considering what he did from 28 years on, I think it's pretty impressive. Imagine if Minoso, was able to break in at 21 like Wynn. I imagine the gap between them would be pretty big. It's easy to say Wynn had 3.9% more plate appearances when he likely started his career 7 years earlier and wasn't kept out of the league like Minoso was.

Still, I'd vote for Wynn long before I'd vote for Willie Horton.

[BoofBonser26]

FYI:

Aparicio
Brock
Bunning
Flood
Mazeroski
McCovey
Torre

[Erik Bedard]

Looks like Bunning might be the next Cepeda. Too early to tell, though.

BTW, this was the first time I've voted for less than the maximum ten. I went with:

Aparicio (first time voting for him)
Brock (ditto)
Bunning
Flood
Freehan
Mazeroski
McCovey
Minoso
Torre

[John Shoemaker]

I wonder how long Willie McCovey will stay at 100%. IMO he is clearly the class of this group. Unless someone votes "none of the above" I can't imagine anyone voting for someone else and leaving Willie McCovey off.

[AstrosFan]

Okay, fine, Jimmie Foxx. Those are good enough reasons for ranking Minoso ahead. I think just going ahead and assuming that Minoso was several years older than listed just because it has long been suspected is a little presumptuous; even SABR lists his birthdate as Nov. 29, 1925. But Minoso does deserve extra subjective credit, because he was hindered by segregation.

However, you haven't given a good reason for voting for not voting for Jimmy Wynn. I imagine Wynn deserves to rank about the same among centerfielders as Minoso does among left fielders. Are the left fielders just significantly better?

[DoubleX]

Okay, fine, Jimmie Foxx. Those are good enough reasons for ranking Minoso ahead. I think just going ahead and assuming that Minoso was several years older than listed just because it has long been suspected is a little presumptuous; even SABR lists his birthdate as Nov. 29, 1925. But Minoso does deserve extra subjective credit, because he was hindered by segregation.

However, you haven't given a good reason for voting for not voting for Jimmy Wynn. I imagine Wynn deserves to rank about the same among centerfielders as Minoso does among left fielders. Are the left fielders just significantly better?

Most biographical sites list Minoso's birthdate as November 29, 1922, including MLB.com's biography of Minoso (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070214&content_id=1802368&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws)created in conjunction with this year's VC election, and which states:

The only minor discrepancy is when Minoso is asked for his age. He answers 79, but records show that Minoso was born in November 1922, meaning he recently turned 84.

That would make him 28 going on 29 when he finally broke in for real in 1951.

As for Wynn, I've discussed my take on Wynn a few elections ago (I think I did in two elections actually), I guess it's up to you if you think my reasoning is good or not.

The CF/LF thing is an interesting question. I think 1-7, CF is extremely strong, but it thins out very quickly after that and I think plausible arguments could be made for about a dozen players rounding out the top 10. LF, while not quite as strong at the very top, is still very strong in its own right and doesn't weaken nearly as fast as CF does in the latter half of the top 10. That being said, I do have Minoso ranked slightly higher in LF than I do Wynn in CF, and I do believe the 10th best LFer is better than the 10th best CFer. Plus, the Hall of Fame is not just about a strict ranking of players based on statistics, there is a subjective element, IMO. I'll only go so far with the subjective element, but Minoso benefits from it more than Wynn. In Minoso's case, he gets points for losing a number of years to segregation, he gets points for being a major hispanic influence, and he gets points for being more highly regarded in his time than Wynn was in his time, and that's even with Wynn starting out 7 years younger.

[AstrosFan]

I don't get the idea of giving a player points for being more highly regarded; that's often a misinterpretation of statistics, like Wynn being low in batting average.

You point out that Wynn didn't receive a single vote when the BBWAA cast their ballots, dropping him immediately from the ballot, although this statement seemed to be more in response to Wynn being highly regarded, than regarding his worthiness of the Hall. But we must remember this was still an age when people were hung up on batting averages and counting stats.

I don't think Wynn would be in the upper half of the Hall of Fame among position players. But it is important to remember that the Hall is not defined by the all-time greats like Mays, Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, and so forth. Just looking at a list of Hall of Famers, and excluding Negro Leaguers, I would say that Wynn was better than Richie Ashburn, Earl Averill, Max Carey, Earle Combs, Larry Doby, Hugh Duffy, Kirby Puckett, Lloyd Waner, and Hack Wilson. Some of those are considered mistakes by the general BBF populace, but many of them are considered legit. And those are just the center fielders.

Wynn isn't a slam dunk like McCovey, who will no doubt be our leading vote-getter this year. But there are plenty of Hall of Famers that Wynn was superior to. He isn't an upper echelon Hall of Famer, but he certainly wouldn't be one of the weakest selections.

Comparing Wynn to Minoso was probably a poor choice. Can you explain to me what makes Ken Boyer more deserving of the Hall? I see a player with 3.2 % more PA and an OPS+ 10.3 % lower. He was a worse baserunner than Wynn, and was not as good at his peak. His edges are defense and that MVP, which shouldn't really count since it was largely undeserved.

I am not picking on you, DoubleX. I am questioning everyone out there. Why is Jimmy Wynn a worse player than Lou Brock? Or Luis Aparicio? Or Ken Boyer? Or Tony Oliva? I see people who are voting for these guys, but not Wynn? Is there a strong argument for these guys over Wynn that does not entirely revolve around fame?

[DoubleX]

I don't get the idea of giving a player points for being more highly regarded; that's often a misinterpretation of statistics, like Wynn being low in batting average.

How is Wynn's low BA a misinterpretation of statistics? He hit .250, the adjusted league average was .257. He had a low batting average, even considering era and park.

You point out that Wynn didn't receive a single vote when the BBWAA cast their ballots, dropping him immediately from the ballot, although this statement seemed to be more in response to Wynn being highly regarded, than regarding his worthiness of the Hall. But we must remember this was still an age when people were hung up on batting averages and counting stats.

You missed the context I was using these points. They were in response to 538280 who was comparing Wynn to Ashburn and pointed out Ashburn's struggles with the BBWAA while curiously omitting the fact that Wynn never received a single vote from the BBWAA. I was not using that as an argument against Wynn, I was really using it to point out what I perceived as a flaw in 538's argument for Wynn in comparison to Ashburn.

Still, part of being a Hall of Famer is about perception, its about Fame. It says something to me that not a single person, including his hometown media, voted for Wynn when his time came. Have you seen the names of people who have received at least a vote or two around that time? Wynn couldn't even muster that (though I do believe he was good enough to merit sticking on the ballot).

I don't think Wynn would be in the upper half of the Hall of Fame among position players. But it is important to remember that the Hall is not defined by the all-time greats like Mays, Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, and so forth. Just looking at a list of Hall of Famers, and excluding Negro Leaguers, I would say that Wynn was better than Richie Ashburn, Earl Averill, Max Carey, Earle Combs, Larry Doby, Hugh Duffy, Kirby Puckett, Lloyd Waner, and Hack Wilson. Some of those are considered mistakes by the general BBF populace, but many of them are considered legit. And those are just the center fielders.

Wynn isn't a slam dunk like McCovey, who will no doubt be our leading vote-getter this year. But there are plenty of Hall of Famers that Wynn was superior to. He isn't an upper echelon Hall of Famer, but he certainly wouldn't be one of the weakest selections.

I agree with that completely and I do think Wynn as good arguments against most of the players you mention. But I also don't think a player should be in just because there are worse players than him in - the Hall should not be measured by its mistakes. I don't think Wynn would be an egregious selection, but I don't think he would be a good one either, and that's why I don't support him.

I'll address a couple of the players you mentioned: Doby, like Minoso, lost years to segregation, and Doby, at peak, was a better hitter than Wynn (though not by that much). And again, the Hall is about more than just statistics. I think in Doby's case, being the first African-American in the AL and only trailing Robinson by a few months boosts his case. I wouldn't put Doby in if he had a mediocre career just because of the distinction of being the first AL player, but given that he had a good career, the distinction of being the first in the AL goes in his favor for the Hall.

As for Puckett, his Hall case is much better than Wynn's because of the subjective factor. Puckett was one of the faces of baseball for most of his career - He had 10 All Star appearances in 12 seasons, six Gold Gloves, six Silver Sluggers, 47th in MVP shares in just 12 seasons of play, a batting title, post-season heroics, a nice .318 BA, 2300 hits in just 12 years with 3000 seeming like a virtual certainty if injury didn't cut his career short. In short, Puckett seemed to be regarded as one of the best of his generation for a decade, and it could have been longer if not for the eye disease. Wynn doesn't come close to this.

The Hall celebrates, IMO, personal accomplishment, that's why milestones mean something, and Wynn just didn't have much on the personal level - no awards, not much on the leaderboards, and unimpressive counting stats even considering the era and ballpark - 1665 hits for a Hall of Famer is extremely underwhelming, IMO. Looking at Wynn's statistics, nothing jumps out as indicative of a Hall of Fame career. Sure, players can get in on peak, IMO, players like Dick Allen, but Wynn was far from the dominant hitter than Allen was for over a decade.

Comparing Wynn to Minoso was probably a poor choice. Can you explain to me what makes Ken Boyer more deserving of the Hall? I see a player with 3.2 % more PA and an OPS+ 10.3 % lower. He was a worse baserunner than Wynn, and was not as good at his peak. His edges are defense and that MVP, which shouldn't really count since it was largely undeserved.

I have to admit I'm on the fence with Boyer, and I'm sure I'll be tested when Sal Bando comes up next year and 538280 puts me to the fire. When it comes to who was the better player, Boyer or Wynn, I'm not sure what the answer is. But, I think Boyer stands out more at 3B than Wynn does in CF, and that 3B is pretty poorly represented in the Hall while CF is fairly well represented. And again, it's the subjective factor here. If you asked me to make an objective list of who's the better player, I might just have Wynn ahead, but when it comes to the Hall of Fame, I feel that Boyer is the more appropriate choice. First, and like I already said, I think he stands out more at his position than Wynn does at his, but probably not by much. Boyer's counting stats look much more like a Hall of Famer's than Wynn's. He has the Gold Gloves and a reputation as a strong defender, he has the MVP and rates 128 in MVP shares, and he has 7 All Star appearances. And for much of his career, I believe Boyer was generally regarded as one of the two or three best 3Bman at the time. I don't know if Wynn ever really had that distinction at his position, and if he did, it wasn't for as many years as Boyer.

I am not picking on you, DoubleX. I am questioning everyone out there. Why is Jimmy Wynn a worse player than Lou Brock? Or Luis Aparicio? Or Ken Boyer? Or Tony Oliva? I see people who are voting for these guys, but not Wynn? Is there a strong argument for these guys over Wynn that does not entirely revolve around fame?

Don't worry about it - this is what we do here, right? :) Like I've said, when it comes to the Hall for me, it's not just about who's the better player, it's about more. And when you get into the more grey area players, such as some you mentioned, sometimes those other factors are the things that put them over the Hall of Fame line while keeping others, who might have actually been a little better, out. Wynn's in that grey area for me, and I don't see what much else his case has going for him other than reading deeply into the stats to see that he was better than his raw numbers indicate. I've consider that, and I just don't feel like it's enough by itself. Plus, just looking at his raw stats, they aren't really the stats that look like a Hall of Famer. The Hall of Fame is vain, IMO, it likes pretty statistics, that's why I vote for Brock. Wynn doesn't have it, and doesn't have the peak to quite make up for it, IMO (unlike say Dick Allen). If, for example, Wynn had the career he had and had the distinction Doby had, I'd almost certainly vote for Wynn as well - the subjective element would be enough to get him over the line, IMO.

That being said, I wouldn't use counting statistics so prevalently in a discussion about who's the best, but in terms of Hall of Fame credentials, I believe counting stats, as well as awards and recognition and leaderboard appearances and such are important, because it is indicative of personal achievement and recognition. Of course, fame can be deeply rooted in statistics, but it's not enough in Wynn's case, IMO.

[DoubleX]

I also want to stress that I don't think Wynn would be a terrible selection, and given the choice, I'd rather not argue against Wynn and would rather let his supporters try to make their case and get him in. I have players I feel that way about so I can appreciate the feeling that you need to stump for him and gain support for him, and thus I'd rather not step in the way of that, particularly because I'm not really opposed to him being in. You just asked why I don't vote for him, and why I don't vote for him compared to someone else, and I explained why. But not supporting someone is different than being against them. I don't support Wynn, and don't support him compared to some of the players mentioned, but I'm not against him.

[AstrosFan]

Just as a clarification, I meant Wynn's low BA made people think of him as being weaker offensively than he really was, since it often wasn't believed a low BA player could be an excellent offensive player.

I don't see Boyer as being better among 3B than Wynn is among CF, and I see CF as stronger among the Hall candidates. But enough of that. I'd just encourage everyone to think outside the box, and not always be a reflection of the fame of the player.

[KCGHOST]

Brock
McCovey
Minoso

[DoubleX]

For people not voting for Minoso, what's the hang up? Career too short?

[vtbub]

Career a bit too short and really doesn't, besides his speed, stand out. A better player than I thought he was, but is in the very good category, not great.

He's mostly known for playing at 54, not playing in '54.

[DoubleX]

Career a bit too short and really doesn't, besides his speed, stand out. A better player than I thought he was, but is in the very good category, not great.

He's mostly known for playing at 54, not playing in '54.

You have to remember why his career was so short. He was probably 28 years old when he finally got a chance in the majors. Despite getting such a late start, for 10 years he was pretty much a five tool player as he did everything well. He was a perennial All Star; won three Gold Gloves and likely would have won several more had they existed earlier; a perennial fixture in the batting race; regularly had a high OBP; good showings in the MVP voting despite the late start; and he was a major influence over hispanic players.

I think having Minoso out of the Hall is a great injustice as he's kind of stuck in limbo. He didn't play quite long enough in the Negro Leagues to get in that way, and he didn't play quite long enough in the Majors to get in that way. I think though, when you look at what he did in his ML career, and remember that he lost several years due to ignorance, I think it's more than enough to get him in.

[leecemark]

--I don't know how much this will factor in for anyone else, but I give Minosa some credit as a pioneer as well as credit for missing the front of his career to segregation. These days you here alot of talk about Roberto Clemente as a Latin American pioneer, but Minoso (and several others) preceded him by quite a bit. Minnie's career was winding down by the time Clemente emerged as a noteworthy figure. Minosa was the first player to face both the color and language barrier and overcome them to become a star.

[DoubleX]

--I don't know how much this will factor in for anyone else, but I give Minosa some credit as a pioneer as well as credit for missing the front of his career to segregation. These days you here alot of talk about Roberto Clemente as a Latin American pioneer, but Minoso (and several others) preceded him by quite a bit. Minnie's career was winding down by the time Clemente emerged as a noteworthy figure. Minosa was the first player to face both the color and language barrier and overcome them to become a star.

Agreed completely, though it's also worth mentioning that he was a very good player who probably lost at least 35-40% of his career to to the color barrier, so of course his ML numbers will not look as impress as they could and will belie how good he actually was.

[John Shoemaker]

I can't believe that so far I am the only person to vote for Willie Horton - 1 of only 6 players in the Detrot Tigers illustrious history to have his number retired and have a statue in Comerica Park.

[BoofBonser26]

I would like to repeat my plea for Lou Brock. I know he's a low-tier HOF, but he's a HOFer nonetheless and deserves induction.

[538280]

If I were Jimmy Wynn reading this, I'd be absolutely ripped that I'm not getting in because the people who watched me weren't smart enough to realize how good I was. I agree somewhat that fame should play a role in determining the credentials of a player, but to me Wynn, based on how good he REALLY was, not how good he was perceived to be, was one of the top 10 (or at least top 12) CFers of all time, and quite a force in his best years. I think he's better than most of the CFers currently in the HOF, and I think he's a good amount better than our first ballot HOFer Richie Ashburn. Not only was Wynn much better at his peak (Wynn had 6 seasons OPS+ over 140, Ashburn one. Wynn had four seasons 30 or more WS, Ashburn zero), but he was a much better hitter over his career for rates (128 OPS+ vs. 111, .302 EqA vs. .289) and while Ashburn was better defensively, Wynn was good and I don't think that makes up the offensive difference. So, please people, focus on real talent a little more than perceived talent and vote for Jimmy Wynn.

If you guys were a GM in the late 60s/early 70s, and you could choose from Jimmy Wynn or Lou Brock, which would you choose? I'd like some people to answer that question for me.

[DoubleX]

If you guys were a GM in the late 60s/early 70s, and you could choose from Jimmy Wynn or Lou Brock, which would you choose? I'd like some people to answer that question for me.

I'd take Wynn, but that doesn't mean he had more of Hall of Fame career than Brock did.

I know you and I don't see eye to eye on this, but if Wynn were in, he'd have some of the most unimpressive raw statistics of all Hall of Famers, even considering park and era, and that has to count for something, IMO. This isn't purely discussion of who based on advanced statistics is the best player from years X to Y - this is a Hall of Fame discussion, which looks at the career as a whole, and Wynn's career, other than what advanced metrics show for his peak years, is not that impressive, and his peak isn't quite good enough, unlike someone like Dick Allen, to make up the difference, IMO. To get to Wynn's Hall of Fame case, you really have to dig far below the surface, moreso than for most Hall of Famers, to even make a case. Being a Hall of Famer shouldn't necessitate as much effort to make the case as it does for Wynn, because on the surface, in just about everyway, Wynn looks nothing like a Hall of Famer. Name me another player, who is not clearly a mistake in the Hall, that you have to dig so much to get to their Hall of Fame worthiness. It seems oxymoronic to the meaning of fame when you have to dig so much below the surface. Sure he's better that a number of Hall of Famers, but I think you and I would agree that people should not be in just because some mistakes are in or that a player is better than the lower tier of players in.

[538280]

I'd take Wynn, but that doesn't mean he had more of Hall of Fame career than Brock did.

It's got to be on fame though IMO. Let's see, Wynn was a much better hitter (more than enough better to make it a landslide offensively despite Brock's baserunning), a much better fielder, he had a much better peak, Brock's case is pure longevity as a player and a lot of it rests on fame as a HOFer.

[DoubleX]

It's got to be on fame though IMO. Let's see, Wynn was a much better hitter (more than enough better to make it a landslide offensively despite Brock's baserunning), a much better fielder, he had a much better peak, Brock's case is pure longevity as a player and a lot of it rests on fame as a HOFer.

See the additions to my last post about how estblashing Wynn's Hall of Fame case seems to be a much more laborious task than should be normal for a clear cut Hall of Famer.

In sum, Brock stood out much more over his career than Wynn did because he excelled at particular things over the course of his career like only a few players ever have (namely SBs and Hits), and the Hall acknowledges those personal accomplishments and how they make the player standout. Wynn, while certainly good at a number of things for a few years, did not really excel at anything in particular for his career, and his peak just wasn't good enough, IMO, to compensate. Wynn was technically the better player at peak, but it takes a lot more than that to be in the Hall of Fame. Perhaps you should start the Baseball Hall of Advanced Statistical Ranking Fame, because the actual Hall is about more than just advanced metrics and strict rankings premised on advanced statistics.

EDIT: I've just decided that I'm sick of talking about Jimmy Wynn. It's beating a very dead horse as far as I'm concerned. If you still want to stump for him, by all means please do, and if others want to respond, they should. But as far as I'm concerned, I don't see what can be advanced either way at this point really, though perhaps someone else has a new perspective to add.

[John Shoemaker]

If I were Jimmy Wynn reading this, I'd be absolutely ripped that I'm not getting in because the people who watched me weren't smart enough to realize how good I was. I agree somewhat that fame should play a role in determining the credentials of a player, but to me Wynn, based on how good he REALLY was, not how good he was perceived to be, was one of the top 10 (or at least top 12) CFers of all time, and quite a force in his best years. I think he's better than most of the CFers currently in the HOF, and I think he's a good amount better than our first ballot HOFer Richie Ashburn. Not only was Wynn much better at his peak (Wynn had 6 seasons OPS+ over 140, Ashburn one. Wynn had four seasons 30 or more WS, Ashburn zero), but he was a much better hitter over his career for rates (128 OPS+ vs. 111, .302 EqA vs. .289) and while Ashburn was better defensively, Wynn was good and I don't think that makes up the offensive difference. So, please people, focus on real talent a little more than perceived talent and vote for Jimmy Wynn.

If you guys were a GM in the late 60s/early 70s, and you could choose from Jimmy Wynn or Lou Brock, which would you choose? I'd like some people to answer that question for me.

I'd take Jimmy Wynn without a doubt.

[538280]

I know you and I don't see eye to eye on this, but if Wynn were in, he'd have some of the most unimpressive raw statistics of all Hall of Famers, even considering park and era, and that has to count for something, IMO. This isn't purely discussion of who based on advanced statistics is the best player from years X to Y - this is a Hall of Fame discussion, which looks at the career as a whole, and Wynn's career, other than what advanced metrics show for his peak years, is not that impressive, and his peak isn't quite good enough, unlike someone like Dick Allen, to make up the difference, IMO. To get to Wynn's Hall of Fame case, you really have to dig far below the surface, moreso than for most Hall of Famers, to even make a case. Being a Hall of Famer shouldn't necessitate as much effort to make the case as it does for Wynn, because on the surface, in just about everyway, Wynn looks nothing like a Hall of Famer. Name me another player, who is not clearly a mistake in the Hall, that you have to dig so much to get to their Hall of Fame worthiness. It seems oxymoronic to the meaning of fame when you have to dig so much below the surface. Sure he's better that a number of Hall of Famers, but I think you and I would agree that people should not be in just because some mistakes are in or that a player is better than the lower tier of players in.

I think that an important part of evaluating ANY player is digging below the surface and lookiong at the environment they played in and seeing how much they really helped their teams win. I don't even think raw, counting statistics are really relevant to any discussion, they're statistics, they don't give any info on the intangible contributions or the fame of the player (although many times through statistical misinterpretation they result in players being underrated or overrated). I think "digging below the surface" is something that has to go in with EVERY SINGLE PLAYER and because of this I don't think that you have to really realize the impact of that digging to get Wynn to HOF status has any bearing on him being or not being a HOFer.

[538280]

I'd take Jimmy Wynn without a doubt.

Then jump on the bandwagon, man! We need all the votes we can get.

[DoubleX]

I think that an important part of evaluating ANY player is digging below the surface and lookiong at the environment they played in and seeing how much they really helped their teams win. I don't even think raw, counting statistics are really relevant to any discussion, they're statistics, they don't give any info on the intangible contributions or the fame of the player (although many times through statistical misinterpretation they result in players being underrated or overrated). I think "digging below the surface" is something that has to go in with EVERY SINGLE PLAYER and because of this I don't think that you have to really realize the impact of that digging to get Wynn to HOF status has any bearing on him being or not being a HOFer.

I don't want to discuss Wynn anymore, but establishing someone's Hall of Fame case, should not necessitate a deep search below the surface - Fame should not be so hidden, it should be more apparent. I suppose we differ on how far you have to dig to get to Wynn's Hall of Fame status, but I think it's pretty far given that he would have some of the most unimpressive raw numbers in the Hall, and the Hall is a lot more about celebrating raw numbers, as indicative of personal achievement, than a strict statistical ranking players. Like I've said before, I tried to balance each player on a case by case basis for the Hall of Fame which looks at several factors, and in Wynn's case, the balancing tips against the Hall for me, as I don't feel he's enough of a Hall of Famer statistically (though his case is strong in this one aspect) to overcome the ways in which he doesn't strike me as a Hall of Famer. You seem to want to give a whole lot of weight to one aspect, whereas I look at several aspects (though it is possible for a player to be so good in one aspect that the others don't matter, but that's not quite Wynn, IMO). It's a difference in philosophy, and I don't think we need to go any further with that.

This will be the last I'm going to speak on this, because like I said, I'm exhausted about talking about Wynn. I have no problems if you want to keep making your case, and I wish you luck in that and wouldn't object at all if you managed to convince enough people to get Wynn in. But please, don't address me personally anymore regarding Wynn, I'm done. Perhaps others will join the fray, I actually find it curious that not much has been said about Wynn given the comments by you and Astrosfan and me. Oh well.

[2Chance]

Aparicio
Brock
Bunning
Freehan
F. Howard
Mazeroski
McCovey
Minoso
Torre
Wynn

I left off some guys that I loved to watch play but couldn’t punch their ticket: Manny Sanguillen, who had a unique concept of a strike zone....Boog Powell & Norm Cash....Tim McCarver, who was a better catcher than a broadcaster....Tony Oliva, a great hitter....Maury Wills (again), who was an exciting part of any Dodger game....JR Richard, who threw smoke....Hunter always seemed to throw a good game, not that it necessarily makes him HoF material....Curt Flood, perhaps the best defensive outfielder to get shut out (maybe sharing the title with Paul Blair)....and my hometown favorites, who might be better than you remember, Willie "the Wonder" Horton (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hortowi01.shtml) and John Hiller (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hillejo01.shtml).

[DoubleX]

I'm actually surprised that McCarver hasn't received any votes. Not that I think he belongs anywhere close to the Hall, but he had a good reputation while playing, and to some, he's probably endeared himself as an announcer (and to others, annoy them to no end).

[abacab]

Like the Morgan-bashing (as a broadcaster), I've never understood the McCarver-bashing.

[Erik Bedard]

I'm actually surprised that McCarver hasn't received any votes. Not that I think he belongs anywhere close to the Hall, but he had a good reputation while playing, and to some, he's probably endeared himself as an announcer (and to others, annoy them to no end).

If there was an anti-HoF, I'd induct McCarver in first-ballot for his broadcasting "prowess".

[John Shoemaker]

Then jump on the bandwagon, man! We need all the votes we can get.

I just said I'd take Jimmy Wynn before Lou Brock. IMO Jimmy Wynn is just below the line but I'll take another look at him. Lou Brock is quite a bit below the line IMO.

[John Shoemaker]

Aparicio
Brock
Bunning
Freehan
F. Howard
Mazeroski
McCovey
Minoso
Torre
Wynn

I left off some guys that I loved to watch play but couldn’t punch their ticket: Manny Sanguillen, who had a unique concept of a strike zone....Boog Powell & Norm Cash....Tim McCarver, who was a better catcher than a broadcaster....Tony Oliva, a great hitter....Maury Wills (again), who was an exciting part of any Dodger game....JR Richard, who threw smoke....Hunter always seemed to throw a good game, not that it necessarily makes him HoF material....Curt Flood, perhaps the best defensive outfielder to get shut out (maybe sharing the title with Paul Blair)....and my hometown favorites, who might be better than you remember, Willie "the Wonder" Horton (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hortowi01.shtml) and John Hiller (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hillejo01.sht.ml).

Willie "the Wonder" Horton was a wonder and he needs our help to get 5% and stay on the ballot.

[DoubleX]

Willie "the Wonder" Horton was a wonder and he needs our help to get 5% and stay on the ballot.

With Horton on your ballot, I was wondering if you'll be voting for players like Reggie Smith and Bobby Bonds in the next couple of years?

If anyone else has thoughts on Bonds and Smith, please chime in - I'm considering voting for both (probably won't though, at least not at first).

[dgarza]

If you guys were a GM in the late 60s/early 70s, and you could choose from Jimmy Wynn or Lou Brock, which would you choose?
Wynn...although I would also be strongly eye-balling Rico Carty and Bobby Mercer.
Hey, I'd like Jerry Koosman over Nolan Ryan too.
I still don't know what this has to do with the Hall of Fame.

[John Shoemaker]

With Horton on your ballot, I was wondering if you'll be voting for players like Reggie Smith and Bobby Bonds in the next couple of years?

If anyone else has thoughts on Bonds and Smith, please chime in - I'm considering voting for both (probably won't though, at least not at first).

I'm sure they will both be on my ballot. I saw them both play many times and although they both were great players and have great stats, watching them in person for many years tells me more about them than just statistics.

[yanks0714]

There are 14 voters who haven't voted for Minnie Minoso! I ask each of them to give their reasons for that. In fact, I demand to know their reasons for not including Minnie Minoso as HOF worthy.

[yanks0714]

I'm sure they will both be on my ballot. I saw them both play many times and although they both were great players and have great stats, watching them in person for many years tells me more about them than just statistics.

Really? I think both should play a part in your evaluation.

My late father felt that brady Anderson was the best dang CF'er in baseball. Why? Because he watched the every single Orioles game. It wasn't until I showed him some of Brady's statistics that my Dad finally realized that Brady Anderson quite possibly wasn't the best CF'er in baseball.

Sometimes you simply need to question your own opinions, check the stats to see if what you think is actually true, re-evaluate your understanding, be honest with yourself, and be willing to admit you might have been wrong.

[John Shoemaker]

Really? I think both should play a part in your evaluation.

My late father felt that brady Anderson was the best dang CF'er in baseball. Why? Because he watched the every single Orioles game. It wasn't until I showed him some of Brady's statistics that my Dad finally realized that Brady Anderson quite possibly wasn't the best CF'er in baseball.

Sometimes you simply need to question your own opinions, check the stats to see if what you think is actually true, re-evaluate your understanding, be honest with yourself, and be willing to admit you might have been wrong.

Don't get me wrong - I love statistics - they tell a lot about players. But a lot of times they don't tell the whole story - you need first hand knowledge too.

[yanks0714]

If you guys were a GM in the late 60s/early 70s, and you could choose from Jimmy Wynn or Lou Brock, which would you choose? I'd like some people to answer that question for me.

Chris, I hate to break this one to you but I was around in the late 60s/early 70s and the perception among baseball fans back then was that Lou Brock was the better player. Sorry.

I liked Jimmy Wynn a lot. But back then I considered Brock the better player. Some of the perception came about because Brock was on those successful Cardinal teams while Jimmy Wynn was this little guy nicknamed the Toy Cannon who played in virtual seclusion down Houston way.

I voted for both but nowadays feel Wynn was the better player back then. But Brock is a HOF'er as well.

[Colorado Express]

Brock
Horton
Howard
McCovey
Minoso
Munson
Oliva

[John Shoemaker]

Brock
Horton
Howard
McCovey
Minoso
Munson
Oliva

I'm glad to see another vote for Willie Horton. He was a very underrated player. Now we need 2 more votes to keep him on next years ballot.

[The Dude]

Reggie Smith. He's an interesting case that's for sure. Well, lets start off simple with Smith and just put some stats out there. Batted .300 seven times, 5 full seasons, 1 very close season, and another half season. Finished top 10 in HR's 5 times, RBI's 4 times. Led the league in OPS+ in 1977, and was 2nd in 1978. Hows this for you: of the Eight guys who led the NL in OPS+ in the 1970's, only Dave Parker and Reggie Smith aren't in the Hall of Fame.

Those are only stats though. I think what we need to look at is the impact of Reggie Smith on his team. Smith played on one losing team through his career. I mean sure, you could point to a person who may have outperformed him on the team, but Reggie Smith always gave people a run for their money.

Well let's take for example the 1977 Pennant Winning Dodgers. He was first in HR, and 2nd in RBI and AVG. However, he beat Steve Garvey in OPS+ by 24 Points. And in total, Smith was probably the best player on the 1971 and 1973 Red Sox. They might not have won the Division or a Pennant, but they were stuck behind arguably the best Dynasty of all time. So as you might be able to tell, I'm heading towards the Keltner list. Let's run him through it quick.

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
I'm doubting he was.

2.Was he the best player on his team?
In 1971 and 1973, he was the best player on the Red Sox. He was the 2nd best player on the team in 1973. He was the best player on the 1974 Cardinals. He was either the best or the 2nd best player on the Pennant winning 1977 and 1978 Dodgers

On all 3 teams he played with some good players. For the red Sox, he was competing against Yaz and Fisk. For the Cards, Ted Simmons and Joe Torre, and hall of Famer Lou Brock. On the Dodgers he had to fend off Steve Garvey, Ron Cey, Dusty Baker, and Steve Yeager.

3.Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
As a Center Fielder in the American League, I would say Smith was the best in the AL from 1969-1971 and 1973. Had he not been moved to RF in 1972, he would have been the best CF in the American League in 1972.

Smith was also the best CF in the Majors from in 1970 and 1971. In 1973, he just wasn't as good as Cesar Cedeno was, and Jimmy Wynn had a fabulous season in 1969.

As a right Fielder, Smith was only the best in his league in 1977, ironically the same year that the Dodgers won the pennant. I would also say he was the best in the league. I would also say that 1977 was Smith's greatest year.

So to Summarize: Best at his position in his league 5 times, and in the Majors 2 times.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Yes. Arguably his two best seasons were the same two seasons the Dodgers went to the world series.

5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

He played 3 half seasons after the 1978 world series. He had OPS+ of 125, 153, and 135.

6.Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No. I would say he's the 2nd or 3rd best CF not in the HoF.

7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

To be blunt, no. But we must look deeper. 5 of his top 10 most similar players (Shawn Green, Bobby Bonilla, Paul O'Niell, Ellis Burks, and Moises Alou) played in the inflated 90's. Dick Allen is already a HOF by our standards and is a contemporary of Smith. Bob Johnson is just under the line to some people, and if you believe that the league quality has improved over time, then it would seem that one would support Smith's induction then. Cy Williams was a deadballer who adjusted to the live ball well mid-career. For big hall people, he might be in. Then there's Del Ennis. I have no idea what to say about Ennis. HE was a good player for a period of time, and that's about it.

8.Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
No. He falls short on inks and HOF tests. However, he has more gray ink than CF Hack Wilson and RF Harry Hooper. Also, it should be noted that the HoF hasn't dealt with problem of over-competitiveness in the 1970's and 1980's.

9.Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
I wouldn't say yes. I would say that his statistics show all we need to know about him. We've already been shown that he was the best CF in the Majors for part of his career. He was consistently batting .300 or above, hit at least 20 HR's a year, ranked in the top 10 in RBI's a lot.

What we have to understand is that the league was so good, that doing this was like hitting 35 HR's and being in the top 3 in RBI's in the 1920's or 1930's. And a number of players like that are in the HoF.

One might point out that Smith had a number of good years for the Red Sox. Automatically people point out the green monster as a reason for their greatness. First, Smith was a switch hitter, and probably spent most of his time hitting left handed, and if he used the wall as an advantage as a lefty, that should add points to him for being able to go the other way with the ball so much. Second, as I've already said, Smith's two best years were probably 1977 and 1978, as a RF in Chavez Ravine!

10.Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
No. I would put Al Oliver in front of him. Jimmy Wynn is either right there with him, ahead of him, or behind him.

11.How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
MVP is 30 WS, right? He had 29 two times, just missing. He never won an MVP award in real life. He was not very close in 1977 or 1978.

12.How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
He had 10 All-Star seasons if going by WS. He did in 7 all-star games. I believe that no, most other players with 7 aren't in the hall of fame.

13.If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
I believe that it's already proven.

14.What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
No major impact that I know of. He did go and play in Japan when he was healthy enough and offered a contract from the Giants to be a part time player.

15.Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

I would say no. He went to Japan for more money, when it would seem to me one would want to play in the best league. He also was involved in an incident with a Giants fan that was started when the Giants fan hit him him with a batting helmet.


So what does this all say? I don't know. I feel that Smith as the best at his position for a peak amount of time and being the MVP on a 2-time pennant winning team is worth a lot. I'd like to know how many people in that situation aren't in the HoF.

[BoofBonser26]

Okay people. I am not arguing that Brock is the best player on the ballot. I am not arguing that he wouldn't be one of the weakest HOFers. That's what I think. But he still deserves the HOF!

Those of you who haven't voted for him, what else do you need? I know some don't like the strikeouts. But look at the numbers! 3000 hits! All those steals! Counting numbers, sure, but they do mean something! Weak HOF, sure, but that's still in the HOF. Please. He deserves better than 70%.

[538280]

I'll be voting for Reggie Smith. Smith was more than a solid hitter (136 OPS+), played CF for a good part of his career, and has a record of bringing great success to his teams. We elected Orlando Cepeda-he has an OPS+ three points lower while playing 1B not even especially well, and Smith was a solid CFer for part of his career.

[538280]

Okay people. I am not arguing that Brock is the best player on the ballot. I am not arguing that he wouldn't be one of the weakest HOFers. That's what I think. But he still deserves the HOF!

Those of you who haven't voted for him, what else do you need? I know some don't like the strikeouts. But look at the numbers! 3000 hits! All those steals! Counting numbers, sure, but they do mean something! Weak HOF, sure, but that's still in the HOF. Please. He deserves better than 70%.

I'm voting for Brock mainly because I think in that case the fame component can get him over the hump. But I can absolutely see the rationale for voting against him. This guy is a LFer, and not even a good fielding one. You'd expect a little more offensive production from a HOF corner OF. Outside of very bad mistakes, there are no corner OF in the HOF who are worse offensive players than Brock (even including his SBs), because he's just not at HOF level there. And he's not making anything up with his defense.

Longevity is nice, but what really matters is career VALUE, just playing and being a bad player can help a little but not much. Brock is probably JUST above the line for career, but IMO from a value standpoint not enough to make up for peak. It's the fame that gets him in for me and I'm even a little half hearted in voting for him.

[538280]

Chris, I hate to break this one to you but I was around in the late 60s/early 70s and the perception among baseball fans back then was that Lou Brock was the better player. Sorry.

I liked Jimmy Wynn a lot. But back then I considered Brock the better player. Some of the perception came about because Brock was on those successful Cardinal teams while Jimmy Wynn was this little guy nicknamed the Toy Cannon who played in virtual seclusion down Houston way.

I voted for both but nowadays feel Wynn was the better player back then. But Brock is a HOF'er as well.

If you were a GM, the perception really doesn't matter, it's just which one would help you win games more. I voted for Brock too, but I strongly feel Wynn was the better player and I think putting yourself in the shoes of a GM at that time choosing the players can see you realize the big value disparity there truly was between Wynn and Brock while they were active. Brock lasted longer but that's the only advantage he's got.

[-Kyle-]

Jim Bunning
Jimmy Wynn
Bill Freehan
Joe Torre
Lou Brock
Norm Cash
Willie McCovey
Minnie Minoso

I still can't believe Allen got in the hof. :clapping

[Ubiquitous]

If you were a GM, the perception really doesn't matter, it's just which one would help you win games more. I voted for Brock too, but I strongly feel Wynn was the better player and I think putting yourself in the shoes of a GM at that time choosing the players can see you realize the big value disparity there truly was between Wynn and Brock while they were active. Brock lasted longer but that's the only advantage he's got.


The writers routinely gave Brock MVP votes, the fans and managers made Brock an all star something like 7 times. Jimmy Wynn was an all-star 3 times and got MVP votes 3 times.

[DoubleX]

If you were a GM, the perception really doesn't matter, it's just which one would help you win games more. I voted for Brock too, but I strongly feel Wynn was the better player and I think putting yourself in the shoes of a GM at that time choosing the players can see you realize the big value disparity there truly was between Wynn and Brock while they were active. Brock lasted longer but that's the only advantage he's got.

You have to remember though, if you're putting yourself in the shoes of a GM at that time, they didn't perceive value in the same way we have come to perceive value. They didn't have handy tools like OPS+ and win shares and WARP and Bill James and Baseball Prospectus and so forth. They likely went largely on perception and raw numbers, and even in that context, probably valued different aspects than we value now. I would think they'd see Brock's speed and high BA, and they'd be more attracted to him. To really appreciate Wynn, you have to dig beneath the surface and rely on more modern statistical methods which didn't exist back then. Without those methods, I think it would be difficult for a GM to fully appreciate Wynn, and they'd probably be underwhelmed by his raw numbers, which on their face, are not particularly impressive. The evidence in this disparity in perception is seen in the facts that Brock made more All Star teams than Wynn, fared much better in MVP voting, and got in the Hall of Fame on the first ballot while Wynn didn't pick up a single vote.

When I grew up and started learning about baseball in the late 80s, the Cubs trading Lou Brock to the Cardinals was still widely considered one of the biggest gaffes of all time - that's how highly Lou Brock and what he brought to the table were perceived.

All being told, I'm pretty certain that a GM, circa 1970, would take Lou Brock over Jimmy Wynn. Fast forward to 2007, and that probably would not be the case - but it was a different time with different values, different perceptions, and different tools available.

[John Shoemaker]

I'll be voting for Reggie Smith without reservation!

[DoubleX]

Looking ahead a little to next year's election, I wanted to comment on three things:

1) We have an incredibly small incoming class - just 5 players:

Sal Bando
Bobby Bonds
Jerry Grote
Mike Marshall
Steve Stone

2) As I mentioned earlier, I will not be able to end this election and get 1987 started for at least several days, so vtbub has been gracious enough to volunteer getting 1987 started for us. So I just want to thank vtbub publicly for the gesture.

3) I told vtbub that he doesn't have to worry about updating the Guide I post with every election, as it can be fairly time consuming to update. With that in mind, I was wondering if people find the Guides useful or interesting, or do people feel they are unnecessary? Also, is there any information people would like to see included (or perhaps disincluded) from the Guide in future elections?

[BoofBonser26]

3) I told vtbub that he doesn't have to worry about updating the Guide I post with every election, as it can be fairly time consuming to update. With that in mind, I was wondering if people find the Guides useful or interesting, or do people feel they are unnecessary? Also, is there any information people would like to see included (or perhaps disincluded) from the Guide in future elections?
I think the guide is highly interesting and I read it after voting every election.

[Erik Bedard]

I usually read the guide before voting.

[John Shoemaker]

I think the guide is highly interesting and I read it after voting every election.

I do the same - it's very informative.

[538280]

All being told, I'm pretty certain that a GM, circa 1970, would take Lou Brock over Jimmy Wynn. Fast forward to 2007, and that probably would not be the case - but it was a different time with different values, different perceptions, and different tools available.

XX, my question wasn't necessarily meant to be taken as transporting you back as if you were born in say the 20s and became a GM in the late 60s/early 70s. I just meant that if you could put yourself as you are now in that time, running a team, would you choose Brock or Wynn. And I just think that putting yourself in that position leaves you in a situation to see that there isn't really much reason to take Brock, based on what we now know is true about the game.

[538280]

The writers routinely gave Brock MVP votes, the fans and managers made Brock an all star something like 7 times. Jimmy Wynn was an all-star 3 times and got MVP votes 3 times.

Of course, I wasn't debating that Wynn was more highly regarded than Brock. He wasn't. That doesn't necessarily mean that, in actuality, he wasn't better though.

[vtbub]

I'll work on some sort of guide for the newbies, and probably a quick and dirty cut and paste from before, but it will be Sunday night before it all gets up.

[John Shoemaker]

What happened??? A of a sudden everyone on the list increased by 1 vote including "none of the above".

[BoofBonser26]

What happened??? A of a sudden everyone on the list increased by 1 vote including "none of the above".
reyesfan#1 selected all the poll options. A mod will delete this soon, I hope.

CALLING A MOD, please...:hp

[The Dude]

Yes. I know DX has made me aware of mods editing the polls, but this is such a blatant error, I don't think he'll mind me deleting Reyes votes. I'm sure he'll make the user aware of his error.

The only problem with this is it still leaves the vote, so everyone who was being voted on, their percentage will be decreased.

[John Shoemaker]

I don't know where Wilie McCovey dropped a vote. I think we should be listing only 42 voters participated in the poll not 43.

[DoubleX]

Yes. I know DX has made me aware of mods editing the polls, but this is such a blatant error, I don't think he'll mind me deleting Reyes votes. I'm sure he'll make the user aware of his error.

The only problem with this is it still leaves the vote, so everyone who was being voted on, their percentage will be decreased.

Thanks for catching that Dudecar!

It is a little annoying now that we'll have to manually recalculate the votes to compensate.

Unfortunately, I will not be around when this election ends, so I'd be greatly appreciative if someone could volunteer to tabulate the votes after the election is over? It wouldn't be difficult, as it would just require dividing the number of votes a player actually received by one less than the total ballots submitted. So if it says 60 total ballots, you'd have to do tabulate using 59 ballot.

[2Chance]

Count me in as somebody who reads the guide, and usually the discussion, before voting.

[Ubiquitous]

Of course, I wasn't debating that Wynn was more highly regarded than Brock. He wasn't. That doesn't necessarily mean that, in actuality, he wasn't better though.

Then why do you keep mentioning that a GM of that era would pick Wynn over Brock?

[yanks0714]

If you were a GM, the perception really doesn't matter, it's just which one would help you win games more. I voted for Brock too, but I strongly feel Wynn was the better player and I think putting yourself in the shoes of a GM at that time choosing the players can see you realize the big value disparity there truly was between Wynn and Brock while they were active. Brock lasted longer but that's the only advantage he's got.

I'm not just talking about the fans, Chris. I'm talking about baseball Managers and GM's. The perception in those days was that Brick was the superior player to Jimmy Wynn. We can look back now and say they were wrong but back when both were playing Lou Brock was considered the better player.

[Erik Bedard]

.... and, even though I wasn't around (and neither were you, Chris), I bet that perception hadn't changed in 1986.

[Colorado Express]

3) I told vtbub that he doesn't have to worry about updating the Guide I post with every election, as it can be fairly time consuming to update. With that in mind, I was wondering if people find the Guides useful or interesting, or do people feel they are unnecessary? Also, is there any information people would like to see included (or perhaps disincluded) from the Guide in future elections?
I read the guide prior to each election as well.

[DoubleX]

vtbub has been kind enough help out again by manually tabulating the votes at the end of the election so we can see how everyone really performed. Given our usual turnout, the difference in a vote can be the difference in a couple of percentage points, which can also be the difference between getting in or from being dropped.

[mtortolero]

I feel bad about I didn´t check his name. Let´s compare this two pitchers
Pitcher A
1242 IP 87-76 125 sv 1036 K 535 BB 2.83 ERA 134 ERA+ 7.5 K/9 1.26 whip
Pircher B
1042 IP 68-71 300 sv 861 K 309 BB 2.83 ERA 136 ERA+ 7.4 K/9 1.14 whip

Pitcher A is one of the most underrated relievers ever. Pitcher B is one of the most overrated.

[The Dude]

It's sad Hiller wont make it, but I didn't have the room. I'll be voteing for him on the VC ballot though.

[digglahhh]

Boyer
Brock
Freehan
Howard
McCovey
Minoso
Torre

I'm kind of getting sick of voting for Howard, as it wasn't with particular fervor that I started.

I'm almost feeling guilty about voting for Brock.

I've been voting for Boyer and it probably has something to do with 3B being under-represented, but for the most part I don't really care about equal positional representation. I think that there are legitimate reasons why top talent is often funneled into certain positions.

[John Shoemaker]

Boyer
Brock
Freehan
Howard
McCovey
Minoso
Torre

I'm kind of getting sick of voting for Howard, as it wasn't with particular fervor that I started.

I'm almost feeling guilty about voting for Brock.

I've been voting for Boyer and it probably has something to do with 3B being under-represented, but for the most part I don't really care about equal positional representation. I think that there are legitimate reasons why top talent is often funneled into certain positions.

I'm getting tired of voting for Frank Howard too but for another reason - I think he should already have gotten into the HOF. But since he hasen't yet I'll keep voting for him and hope he picks up more support. He was awsome!!

[538280]

Then why do you keep mentioning that a GM of that era would pick Wynn over Brock?

Not a GM of that era, that's not what I meant. I meant that if YOU were a GM then knowing everything about baseball that you know as it is now, who would you take.

[BoofBonser26]

Where have all the voters gone?

[2Chance]

Long time passing.

[DoubleX]

Even with the vote totals being slightly skewed, it looks like McCovey will be the only one to make it (barring a late surge by Brock).

[John Shoemaker]

With only 2 days to go Willie McCovey is still at 100% - wouldn't that be wonderful if he finished that way. It would also be ironic in that his more famous teamate Willie Mays lost 1 vote in our 1979 election (although I don't know if we ever found out the reason he was left off 1 ballot).

[Erik Bedard]

Even odder, the one person who left Mays off his ballot has voted for McCovey.

[John Shoemaker]

Hallelujah! Willie Horton got a third vote and that should get him to the next round unless we get over 60 people voting. He was too great a player to be out after one round.

[vtbub]

Are we still subtracting one vote from the total?

McCovey is in and Brock is an eyelash short, especially if we subtract a vote.

[John Shoemaker]

Are we still subtracting one vote from the total?

McCovey is in and Brock is an eyelash short, especially if we subtract a vote.

We should be subtracting one vote from the total.

[vtbub]

We have unanimously elected:

Willie McCovey

Top Vote Getters That Carry Over:

Lou Brock (74.51%)
Minnie Minoso (62.75%)
Jim Bunning (58.82%)
Joe Torre (56.86%)
Luis Aparicio (50.98%)

Players That move On to the VC By Time:

None

Players That Failed to get 5%: (3 Votes)

Jack Billingham
Paul Blair
Jose Cardenal
Dave Cash
Vic Davillio
Bud Harrelson
John Hiller
Darold Knowles
Tim McCarver
J.R. Richard
Manny Sanguillen


51 of you voted, thank you very much.

1987 will be up at some point tonight.