People who should be in the Hall of Fame

[PUgrad2005]

I'm a big baseball fan--and I have a few problems with the voters of the Hall of Fame. I hope someone can come up with logical reasons for each of these people. Just kidding--these people should be in the Hall of Fame, there is no logical reason they shouldn't be.

"Shoeless" Joe Jackson: How does someone who hits .375 with 6 RBI's help throw a World Series

Check out this website: http://www.blackbetsy.com/joefacts.htm

Pete Rose--All time hits leader--may have gambled....may have gambled on baseball...never betted against his own team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rose)....not in the Hall of Fame

Mark McGwire--had the single season Home Run Record. Only substance he took...was legal when he took it. The only reason he's not in the Hall of Fame is Jose Canseco--an admitted steroid user.

Rafael Palmeiro--3000 hits, 500 HR's....only reason anyone considered him a steroid usier--was in Canseco's book. Only reason they found a positive steroid test--he told Congress that he never took steroids.

Why are these people not in the Hall of Fame!

[iPod]

You can debate the merits of why they are outside the Hall of Fame, but it's not like the reasons are mysterious. Whether you agree or disagree, it's obvious why they aren't in.

[mwb]

Palmerio's not even eligible for a few more years.

[Baseball Guru]

I'm a big baseball fan--and I have a few problems with the voters of the Hall of Fame. I hope someone can come up with logical reasons for each of these people. Just kidding--these people should be in the Hall of Fame, there is no logical reason they shouldn't be.

"Shoeless" Joe Jackson: How does someone who hits .375 with 6 RBI's help throw a World Series

Check out this website: http://www.blackbetsy.com/joefacts.htm

Pete Rose--All time hits leader--may have gambled....may have gambled on baseball...never betted against his own team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rose)....not in the Hall of Fame

Mark McGwire--had the single season Home Run Record. Only substance he took...was legal when he took it. The only reason he's not in the Hall of Fame is Jose Canseco--an admitted steroid user.

Rafael Palmeiro--3000 hits, 500 HR's....only reason anyone considered him a steroid usier--was in Canseco's book. Only reason they found a positive steroid test--he told Congress that he never took steroids.

Why are these people not in the Hall of Fame!



The only one that really doesn't have a "logical" reason IMO is Mac....

Raffy isnt eligible yet and the other 2 are banned by MLB and MLB rules state that if you are banned your are not eligible for the HOF... You may not agree with it but it is "logical" :)

btw, welcome to the site!:waving

[Brad Harris]

I'm a big baseball fan--and I have a few problems with the voters of the Hall of Fame. I hope someone can come up with logical reasons for each of these people. Just kidding--these people should be in the Hall of Fame, there is no logical reason they shouldn't be.

"Shoeless" Joe Jackson: How does someone who hits .375 with 6 RBI's help throw a World Series

Check out this website: http://www.blackbetsy.com/joefacts.htm

Pete Rose--All time hits leader--may have gambled....may have gambled on baseball...never betted against his own team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rose)....not in the Hall of Fame

Mark McGwire--had the single season Home Run Record. Only substance he took...was legal when he took it. The only reason he's not in the Hall of Fame is Jose Canseco--an admitted steroid user.

Rafael Palmeiro--3000 hits, 500 HR's....only reason anyone considered him a steroid usier--was in Canseco's book. Only reason they found a positive steroid test--he told Congress that he never took steroids.

Why are these people not in the Hall of Fame!

Three of your four selections simply aren't eligible for the Hall of Fame so it's not as if the voters are keeping them out. As for McGwire, 2007 was his first election. You should expect his percentage of the vote to rise this coming January.

[psbaseballfan27]

I agree that joe jackson should be in the hof. However for that to happen the commish of baseball has to repeal his suspension. I think it should be done but it won't. AS for Mark i have never thought of him as a HOF.

[KCGHOST]

Joe Jackson, good grief. Anyone who believes he didn't agree to accept money to throw the WS probably believes Pete Rose didn't bet on his own team.

[PVNICK]

As for Palmeiro when he does become eligible but for the steroids he would not have had the ability to put up the numbers to be considered. He was a weak version of Keith Hernandez. Same goes for McGwire, who would have been latest version of Dave Kingman and Rob Deer.

[fenrir]

joe jacksons the biggest fraud ever. rose has hof stats, but lied about gambling for years. palmerio has hof stats but tested positive. mcgwire's only ticket to the hof was homeruns, and he cheated to hit those homeruns. none of these clowns belong imo.

[brett]

Mark McGwire--had the single season Home Run Record. Only substance he took...was legal when he took it. The only reason he's not in the Hall of Fame is Jose Canseco--an admitted steroid user.


McGwire refused to be forthcoming, and THEN he had either his lawyer or his agent (I can't recall) tell the press that Mark would someday be able to tell us all about the PED issue, he just wasn't ready yet. I will therefore wait until he is ready before considering him for the hall of fame. McGwire probably did use an illegal substance-testosterone. This is my best informed guess. If he didn't he needs to speak up. If he speaks up, I will give him a break whatever the truth may be. He was NOT on a hall of fame track before '95 when he started his run. He only had 5 pretty full good seasons, '87, '92, '97-'99.

Rose kept himself out. He could have done the things necessary to be put back on the eligible list right now but he has not tried. He has chosen not to go in and will probably make more money in the long run because of it.

What did Jackson have to say about the hall of fame in his lifetime? I have my own feelings on the WS but I believe that the commissioner should have only punished the 1-2 guys most responsible. If you feel like your teammates are throwing a game it puts you into a tough situation and I believe that some of those guys just didn't have the time to figure out what to do.

[jalbright]

What did Jackson have to say about the hall of fame in his lifetime? I have my own feelings on the WS but I believe that the commissioner should have only punished the 1-2 guys most responsible. If you feel like your teammates are throwing a game it puts you into a tough situation and I believe that some of those guys just didn't have the time to figure out what to do.

Jackson took $5k, and admitted doing so--and that kind of money was a great deal back then, when a car went for a couple of hundred. He kept silent through the Series and almost the entire next season as well. In short, at a bare minimum, he took money to keep his mouth shut and did so until the authorities turned up the heat. Thus, he knew of the conspiracy and took money to help further it--that's not the act of an innocent. That's about the most generous interpretation of the facts you can come up with--and that's enough to keep Joe rotting outside the Hall for eternity as far as I'm concerned. The Hall is to honor players--but those players need to have honored the game to qualify for being honored themselves. Joe Jackson cannot pass that very basic test.

Jim Albright

[Melottfan]

Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro shot themselves in the foot when they dummied up in front of congress. If they would have said something, I believe the fans along with the sportswriters probably would have forgive and forget them. Should they belong in the Hall of Fame? NO!

People who should be in the Hall, Babe Herman, yes him. .323 avg. for 12-14 seasons. Charlie Grimm, .290 avg. over 1,000 wins as manager, Jimmy Dykes, .280 avg., Milt Pappas, 224 wins, Gil Hodges, Jim Kaat, Tommy John.


I use to believe "Shoeless Joe" was worthy of inclusion into the Hall, but, not now. If you put him in, Pete Rose, Hal Chase, Eddie Cicotte(one of the 8 men out) are sure to follow.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro shot themselves in the foot when they dummied up in front of congress. If they would have said something, I believe the fans along with the sportswriters probably would have forgive and forget them. Should they belong in the Hall of Fame? NO!

People who should be in the Hall, Babe Herman, yes him. .323 avg. for 12-14 seasons. Charlie Grimm, .290 avg. over 1,000 wins as manager, Jimmy Dykes, .280 avg., Milt Pappas, 224 wins, Gil Hodges, Jim Kaat, Tommy John.


I use to believe "Shoeless Joe" was worthy of inclusion into the Hall, but, not now. If you put him in, Pete Rose, Hal Chase, Eddie Cicotte(one of the 8 men out) are sure to follow.

Milt Pappas? He takes a back seat to a couple pitchers who took over in the Orioles rotation after he was traded. And neither of them (McNally and Cuellar) are really worthy, themselves. And how is a .280 batting average a starting point for a HOF candidacy?

[PVNICK]

Didn't Pappas have soem sort of a gripe because he wasn't in while it I think it was Drysdale and maybe Catfish Hunter were despite similar won-loss records. I think Bill James did a whole piece on it in a Baseball Abstract in the mid-80s.

[Freakshow]

Didn't Pappas have soem sort of a gripe because he wasn't in while it I think it was Drysdale and maybe Catfish Hunter were despite similar won-loss records. I think Bill James did a whole piece on it in a Baseball Abstract in the mid-80s.
When Pappas was first eligible for the BBWAA ballot (prior to the 1979 voting) he was rejected by the ballot screening committee - they weren't even going to allow him on the ballot! Of course, he complained loudly about this (as was his character), pointing out that he had the same number of wins as Drysdale, at the time a well-supported candidate.

The BBWAA reacted, saying, OK, we'll get rid of the screening committee (which had been used for more than a decade) - every ten year player gets to be on the ballot. BUT - to continue you'll need to get 5% support from the voters.

Pappas fell well short of 5% in 1979 (1.2%) and hasn't been seen since in Hall voting; he was not among the players reinstated for the 1985 and 1986 BBWAA elections, and he has not appeared on the recent VC ballots.

The ballot screening committee was reinstated starting with the 1981 election. Also, unfortunately, the 5% rule was kept.

[SouthPaw77]

So many players just seem to have been left behind. I won't comment on "Shoeless" Joe or Pete Rose but I think that there are players at every position that are quite deserving.

Sort of like the team that Cooperstown forgot (http://bugsandcranks.com/the-clubhouse/the-team-cooperstown-forgot/).

[Fuzzy Bear]

Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro shot themselves in the foot when they dummied up in front of congress. If they would have said something, I believe the fans along with the sportswriters probably would have forgive and forget them. Should they belong in the Hall of Fame? NO!

People who should be in the Hall, Babe Herman, yes him. .323 avg. for 12-14 seasons. Charlie Grimm, .290 avg. over 1,000 wins as manager, Jimmy Dykes, .280 avg., Milt Pappas, 224 wins, Gil Hodges, Jim Kaat, Tommy John.


I use to believe "Shoeless Joe" was worthy of inclusion into the Hall, but, not now. If you put him in, Pete Rose, Hal Chase, Eddie Cicotte(one of the 8 men out) are sure to follow.


McGwire and Palmiero are far more deserving than Herman, Grimm, Dykes, Pappas, and Hodges.

I agree with John and Kaat, but four of the other five would challenge for the worst player in the HOF. Hodges is the only one of those five that has a case, but his case is a hybrid case; playing PLUS managing, and while I think it's applicable in HIS case, it's NOT applicable to Grimm, and it's a door I'd rather not see opened. Hodges is just below the borderline as a player, but, truthfully, so are Frank Howard, Rocky Colavito, Roy Sievers, and Norm Cash. Albert Belle is far better. Al Rosen is better. To open the HOF to those five would lower the bottom of the HOF, and that's pretty hard to do.

[honus14]

Pete Rose--All time hits leader--may have gambled....may have gambled on baseball...never betted against his own team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rose)....not in the Hall of Fame

Admitted gambling.
Admitted gambling on baseball.
Admitted betting on his own team.
Denies (so far) betting against his own team.

Gets into the Hall of Fame four days after hell freezes over.

Which is four hundred thousand years before Jackson gets in. :debate: Mr. Albright has his case pegged exactly right.

[RubeBaker]

I'm a big baseball fan--and I have a few problems with the voters of the Hall of Fame. I hope someone can come up with logical reasons for each of these people. Just kidding--these people should be in the Hall of Fame, there is no logical reason they shouldn't be.

"Shoeless" Joe Jackson: How does someone who hits .375 with 6 RBI's help throw a World Series

Check out this website: http://www.blackbetsy.com/joefacts.htm

Pete Rose--All time hits leader--may have gambled....may have gambled on baseball...never betted against his own team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rose)....not in the Hall of Fame

Mark McGwire--had the single season Home Run Record. Only substance he took...was legal when he took it. The only reason he's not in the Hall of Fame is Jose Canseco--an admitted steroid user.

Rafael Palmeiro--3000 hits, 500 HR's....only reason anyone considered him a steroid usier--was in Canseco's book. Only reason they found a positive steroid test--he told Congress that he never took steroids.

Why are these people not in the Hall of Fame!

Jackson- Hal Chase had a decent career BA too. It's not how you do it, it's when you do it that matters in cheating. By some accounts, he made some questionable plays in the field during the series.

Rose- Men have been banned from baseball since the 1800s for gambling on baseball. So there was a precedent well in place before Rose. The verdict handed down to him was the same for everyone who had been caught gambling on games over the past 100 years. He got caught, he got banned. End of story

McGwire- By refusing to testify, and saying that you don't to implicate your friends or yourself, you've pretty much but not exactly admitted guilt. The rest is media scrutiny. Besides, Maris had the record before him and he isn't in the hall either.

Palmeiro- Well, first of all, he's not eligible yet. Second, I think people tend to think he took steroids was the fact that he went from a 20 home run guy to a 40 home run guy out of nowhere. Oh, and testing positive for steroids has this weird way of making people think he took steroids. Unless Mitchell has this great conspiracy planned, or Conseco is tainting his urine, I doubt they had anything to do with the fact that he did test positive.

[Melottfan]

I never said a hitter with a .280 avg. should be a starting point for the HOF. Dykes imho, has better stats than the ones who pass as HOF's. Why isn't he in the HOF? In regards to Pappas, like Dykes, has better stats than those already in.

[jalbright]

I never said a hitter with a .280 avg. should be a starting point for the HOF. Dykes imho, has better stats than the ones who pass as HOF's. Why isn't he in the HOF? In regards to Pappas, like Dykes, has better stats than those already in.

Pappas and Dykes may be better than the worst the Hall has to offer, but that's not good enough to be worthy of the Hall. If we took everyone who's that good or better, we'd have at least 4 or 5 times as many HOFers as we already do, and that's too many IMO.

Pappas and Dykes benefit from playing in positions which were favored in their day (Pappas in a pitcher's era, Dykes in a hitter's one). If we look at these guys in some context, they lose a lot of luster.

Pappas had a nice career, 110 ERA+ in almost 3200 IP, but never really looked great (top season in win shares, 20, 19.42 win shares per 43 starts). Since 20 win shares is a minimal level HOFer most years back then, that's not impressive. Pappas is the 72nd best player of the 60's according to the Win Shares book, and the 11th best hurler of that decade. Pappas was only an All-Star 3 times, low for a HOFer. He's well below HOF standards for Cy Young Award shares and black ink, and rather below 70th place (about how many MLB pitchers are in the Hall) in HOF standards (101) and gray ink (128). Also, despite playing in a favorable era for pitchers, only three of his ten most similar are in the Hall, and at least two of them are mistakes: Drysdale, Hunter and Haines. (I like Drysdale, but not the others). So what is it that makes Pappas worthy, much less someone who should go to the head of the list?

Dykes was a manager, but it doesn't seem to me he deserves much boost for doing so with a losing record and never finishing higher than 3rd in his league. We really should ignore All-Star games and MVP shares, because those honors miss much of his career. He's hopelessly low in black ink and gray ink (710th in black, and 1048th in gray), and quite low (258th) in HOF standards. He only has a 95 OPS+, which only Ozzie Smith or Bill Mazeroski style gloves can hope to overcome. Dykes was more 3B than anything because he didn't field at such a level. Despite playing in an inflated offensive era, 7 of his 10 most similar aren't in the Hall, and none are in the top 5. He averaged 17.32 win shares per 162 games, which is nice, but not even low all-star quality. His 244 career win shares are 27th among 3B in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract (BJHA), and his peak performances are far worse: (82nd in top three, and 86th in best five consecutive). Seeing as it's hard to argue for more than 20 at any position, it's hard to argue for Dykes.

Jim Albright

[CTaka]

Rose agreed to a lifetime ban. He should be in the Hall of Fame - if he would just drop dead and wait about 60+ years (Joe Jackson has been dead 56 years but his "lifetime" ban is still in effect). If we're still around then, say around the year 2090 (I certainly won't be), then we should resume the debate on whether Rose should be in the Hall.

Palmeiro isn't even eligible yet, and I expect him to get as warm a reception in his first year of eligibility as Big Mac got...or less. Big Mac insisted he did not want to talk about the past. Please respect his wishes and don't bring up the past. Since that means we can't consider his baseball accomplishments as they all occurred in the past, let's just consider the present. Big Mac hasn't accomplished a thing now, probably since he's retired. Without discussing the past, there is no chance for Big Mac since his entire career is in the past.

Some who I think should be in and are eligible: Dick Allen, Ron Santo, Bert Blyleven. Bill Dahlgren, Pete Browning and Harry Stovey all deserve due consideration as well.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I never said a hitter with a .280 avg. should be a starting point for the HOF. Dykes imho, has better stats than the ones who pass as HOF's. Why isn't he in the HOF? In regards to Pappas, like Dykes, has better stats than those already in.

The problem, though, is there are many players with better stats than Dykes and Pappas. Especially Pappas, such as the two pitchers I mentioned previously. They don't have better stats than the majority of those who are in, and most people who pay attention to those things don't think the few that have worse numbers than Dykes and Pappas belong.

Bottom line, there are better players outside the Hall than Dykes or Pappas, far more than the lesser players in.

A caveat, don't use Wikipedia as your source for why a player should be in, like the thread started did. Outdated and poorly edited "articles" based on little more than Anyjoe Schmo's view should be taken at less than face value, not historical fact.

[Melottfan]

First of all, I never use the Wilkapedia for any kind of research. Too many errors. I use either the MacMillian(sic), or the 2006 ESPN BB Encyclopedia for my research. They're good books for my money.

Second, Players like Dizzy dean and Ray Schalk shouldn't be in. I still feel after researching Dykes and Pappas, that both should be in. I know politics always have played a factor in who gets in, sad to say.

[natsnsoxfan]

Jim Kaat should be in, plain and simple.

[Captain Cold Nose]

First of all, I never use the Wilkapedia for any kind of research. Too many errors. I use either the MacMillian(sic), or the 2006 ESPN BB Encyclopedia for my research. They're good books for my money.

Second, Players like Dizzy dean and Ray Schalk shouldn't be in. I still feel after researching Dykes and Pappas, that both should be in. I know politics always have played a factor in who gets in, sad to say.

Sorry, I was referring to the thread starter about wikipedia. I may respectfully disagree with some of your choices, but I'm not going to give you a label you don't deserve. ;)

The thing about Dean and Schalk lies within the actual name of the place, Hall of Fame. Dean's career was very short and his numbers are not much compared to so many others, but it can be argued he was the most famous player of his time, next to Babe Ruth, and he put up some big numbers for the few seasons he was able to.

As for Schalk, he had the reputation for being the best defensive catcher ever at the time he got in, and he was one of the Clean Sox. Without his teammates throwing that series, he probably would just be part of the discussion on how much defense should go into play when selecting HOF'ers.

Dykes is not a bad choice if you look at the whole of his baseball career, like with Rick Ferrell or Red Schoendiist. I just see too many pitchers ahead of Pappas, like McNally and Cuellar, for me to take his case seriously.

[Freakshow]

The thing about Dean and Schalk lies within the actual name of the place, Hall of Fame. This isn't so much a rant at you, CCN, but at this general notion.

Too often, I see unqualified players excused with this, something like, "Well, it is the Hall of FAME, you know." However, this is getting it exactly backwards.

It's not that being famous gets you points for the HOF; rather, that being chosen for the HOF confers fame upon you. IOW, being famous isn't a qualifier to earn your place with the immortals; earning your place with the immortals makes you famous.

The phrase "Hall of Fame" long predates the establishment of that museum in Cooperstown. It was meant to honor great achievement, timeless contributions. Nowadays, our Culture of Fame often perverts this ideal by honoring people because they are famous. That's not how it was originally intended.

Being famous should never be used to make a case for deserving the Hall of Fame. In fact, a famous player can just as easily detract from his team by being a distraction, drawing focus away from the effort to win.I just see too many pitchers ahead of Pappas, like McNally and Cuellar, for me to take his case seriously.
Absolutely. A couple months back I compared Pappas closely to his exact contemporary, the long forgotten Larry Jackson. From that, I have no doubt that Jackson was better than Pappas.

[jalbright]

This isn't so much a rant at you, CCN, but at this general notion.

Too often, I see unqualified players excused with this, something like, "Well, it is the Hall of FAME, you know." However, this is getting it exactly backwards.

It's not that being famous gets you points for the HOF; rather, that being chosen for the HOF confers fame upon you. IOW, being famous isn't a qualifier to earn your place with the immortals; earning your place with the immortals makes you famous.

The phrase "Hall of Fame" long predates the establishment of that museum in Cooperstown. It was meant to honor great achievement, timeless contributions. Nowadays, our Culture of Fame often perverts this ideal by honoring people because they are famous. That's not how it was originally intended.

Being famous should never be used to make a case for deserving the Hall of Fame.

If you separate fame from being "highly regarded as a player by his contemporaries", I can agree wholeheartedly. However, in the discussion of this issue with respect to Jim Rice, my thought was that the regard that his contemporaries had for him is a factor, though by no means the sole determinant (after all, Eddie Gaedel, Don Larsen, Roger Maris are all famous, but not in the Hall, and only Maris of those three has a legitimate reason to be discussed). That regard by contemporaries, while sometimes misguided, cannot be totally dismissed because they knew more about the player than those of us who watch a few old clips and/or look at the record books can possibly know. The trick is to decide how much weight to give such regard by contemporaries and whether that pushes a candidate over the top. In general, I'm inclined to save this issue for the guys on or very near the fence--but I don't dismiss it entirely.

Jim Albright

[Freakshow]

If you separate fame from being "highly regarded as a player by his contemporaries", I can agree wholeheartedly. However, in the discussion of this issue with respect to Jim Rice, my thought was that the regard that his contemporaries had for him is a factor, though by no means the sole determinant (after all, Eddie Gaedel, Don Larsen, Roger Maris are all famous, but not in the Hall, and only Maris of those three has a legitimate reason to be discussed). That regard by contemporaries, while sometimes misguided, cannot be totally dismissed because they knew more about the player than those of us who watch a few old clips and/or look at the record books can possibly know. The trick is to decide how much weight to give such regard by contemporaries and whether that pushes a candidate over the top. In general, I'm inclined to save this issue for the guys on or very near the fence--but I don't dismiss it entirely.

Jim Albright
Oh, definitely, contemporary opinion is necessary to a comprehensive analysis of players' merits. Of course, anecdotal evidence, like statistical evidence, is subject to bias and illusions which you have to be aware of. This is all a part of the Fame issue.

Personality is the larger part of the Fame issue. Timing is also an important element. These are huge factors in the general perception of a player and can often be the reasons players are underrated or overrated.

[THE OX]

....A couple months back I compared Pappas closely to his exact contemporary, the long forgotten Larry Jackson. From that, I have no doubt that Jackson was better than Pappas.

Put both Jackson and Pappas on a HOF ballot and I'd be delighted to vote for BOTH of them!

[Captain Cold Nose]

Put both Jackson and Pappas on a HOF ballot and I'd be delighted to vote for BOTH of them!

Ah, yes, the Hall of the Good. Not even very.

[Imapotato]

I'm a big baseball fan--and I have a few problems with the voters of the Hall of Fame. I hope someone can come up with logical reasons for each of these people. Just kidding--these people should be in the Hall of Fame, there is no logical reason they shouldn't be.

"Shoeless" Joe Jackson: How does someone who hits .375 with 6 RBI's help throw a World Series



Stats are like women in a bikini, they show a lot, but not the important parts

What that line shows is Joe wasn't as dumb as some are led to believe

Sherry Magee belongs in the Hall if one compares him to his peers. There was Honus Wagner and Magee...then a bunch of one year, 2 year wonders, defensive guys in the NL

If Magee played in the 20's, 50's, 60's until now he wouldn't be a HOF guy