Who is the worst player who receives HOF consideration?

[Chickazoola]

This question is inspired by Bill James' "The Politics of Glory" in which he makes reference to one writer who demanded George Cutshaw (http://http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cutshge01.shtml)'s induction.

I don't think Cutshaw has ever received any consideration besides that, but plenty of mediocre players are the subject of serious discussion(I am looking at you Doc Cramer (http://http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cramedo01.shtml)).

I think Charlie Grimm (http://http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/grimmch01.shtml) is probably the worst for me. If you have ever read any old players from the 20's and 30's talking about the Hall of Fame, Grimm's name comes up alot usually with the tag: "if he isn't a Hall of Famer, I don't know who is". I mean he hit .290 in 20 seasons after all. But he was a first baseman with no power, who played in the 20's and 30's. His career OPS+ is 95.

[Gee Walker]

Casual fans always bring up the name Don Larsen for the Hall of Fame, assuming that his World Series perfect game was representative of his overall quality as a pitcher. Letting him into the HOF would be alright as long as you didn't mind adding about 200 more pitchers along with him who were better. Career ERA+ of 99, career W-L PCT of .471, even though over half of his career was spent with good teams.

Most of the other wild overshoots are from extremely biased home-team announcers and writers. At one point or the other the retired athlete will visit the announcer's booth, and, in a very transparent attempt to suck up, the announcer will say: "Why isn't Joe Carter/Kirk Gibson/Frank White/George Bell/Dave Stieb/Don Mattingly in the Hall of Fame?" I've even read an article touting Bobby Richardson (!) for the Hall of Fame ("you know, he's done such good since he retired").

And all of those guys had better careers than Don Larsen.

[jalbright]

It's hard to answer this question as I don't know the standard to be used. Should it be someone who got at least 10% of the BBWAA vote? 5%? 20%? I do know that the answer to this question has to start at least as low as George Kelly, who IMO is the worst in the Hall.

[Chickazoola]

I am not looking so much at past voting, although that can be a consideration. I am just looking for names that pop up that have no business being talked about, or the arguments that are so fragile and tenuous that they can be exposed and ridiculed here.

Don Larsen is a good one though.

[Dalkowski110]

I remember a movement to get Dave Kingman in the Hall...there either is or was one in NY. Dunno if it still exists. And unbelievably, a few people have written up cases and done Keltner Lists THAT THEY THINK JUSTIFY THE INDUCTION OF...Zoilo Versalles. I am not kidding.

[dgarza]

Casual fans always bring up the name Don Larsen for the Hall of Fame, assuming that his World Series perfect game was representative of his overall quality as a pitcher.

Add on Johnny Vander Meer to that as well.

I'm not liking the new HOF website. You used to be able to find players who received votes alphabetically...not any more. Now you can just find voting by years, and some years are missing (many in the 60s).
Plus they say some guy named Leo Smith has been getting votes lately. Too bad Lee Smith hasn't!

[hellborn]

It's hard to answer this question as I don't know the standard to be used. Should it be someone who got at least 10% of the BBWAA vote? 5%? 20%? I do know that the answer to this question has to start at least as low as George Kelly, who IMO is the worst in the Hall.

But, Frankie Frisch said that Kelly had such a great arm!!!

There was quite a furor when Buck O'Neill wasn't voted in before he died, and he wasn't one of the top Negro League players, from what I understand. I believe that he was a good, steady player with a long career, but not really a major star. But, people didn't want him in the Hall just because of his playing career.

[SBBL]

It's hard to answer this question as I don't know the standard to be used.

Assuming the standard is serious consideration, not the ocasional mention by a fan or writer, I vote for McGuire. Without the supplements, he was less of a hitter than Dave Kingman. Second vote is for Gossage. He just does'nt belong.

[538280]

Doc Cramer. He was just a terrible offensive player in the context of his era, yet I've read even here people think he's not all that far away from the HOF on the basis of his career hit total. Bill Buckner is another one. Buckner was basically an average offensive player over his career-from first base. He's not too far away from 3000 hits though so I've heard his name mentioned for the HOF.

[PVNICK]

Doc Cramer. He was just a terrible offensive player in the context of his era, yet I've read even here people think he's not all that far away from the HOF on the basis of his career hit total. Bill Buckner is another one. Buckner was basically an average offensive player over his career-from first base. He's not too far away from 3000 hits though so I've heard his name mentioned for the HOF. Buckner was, I think, well above average with the Cubs even winning the batting title in 1980, though he probably benefitted from Wrigley Field. I think the 100 RBI with a kazillion baserunners, 600 "empty" AB seasons with the Sox really drag down the career percentages. He went from being a fast corner OF with the Dodgers to what he became with the Sox. It's hard soemtimes to reconcile the image of the guy clambering towards the fence in LF when Hank Aaron hit his 715th HR with Game 6 in 1986.

[538280]

Buckner was, I think, well above average with the Cubs even winning the batting title in 1980, though he probably benefitted from Wrigley Field. I think the 100 RBI with a kazillion baserunners, 600 "empty" AB seasons with the Sox really drag down the career percentages. He went from being a fast corner OF with the Dodgers to what he became with the Sox. It's hard soemtimes to reconcile the image of the guy clambering towards the fence in LF when Hank Aaron hit his 715th HR with Game 6 in 1986.

Buckner certainly had hitting seasons in his career where he was well above average-1981 was probably his best and he did win a batting title, but overall over his career he wasn't much better than average, that's what I meant. You are correct that he had great longevity and at his best he certainly was better than average, but he still wasn't really anything all that special at any point in his career as a hitter from 1B or corner OF. His career high OPS+ was 130, which is very good but not great from 1B, and that's his highest by quite a bit, his next best is 119. Through 1983 his OPS+ was 104. Considering the average OPS+ from 1B is usually around 115 there was nothing special at all about his offense. 1984 on he was definitely a below average player IMO. I don't think he's worthy of HOF consideration and the only way you could is if all you look at is 2715 hits.

The thing is that if he played in another era he very well could have gotten to 3000. He still wouldn't be HOF worthy IMO, but he probably would have 3000 hits. He hit .289 vs. league average .266 so if the league average was around .290 which is often was in the 20s/30s his transported BA would be .315. In 9397 AB hitting .315 he'd have 2960 hits. He'd also get more PA in a higher run environment too though because more runners would be on base so he very well could get to 3000.

[KCGHOST]

Doc Cramer might be the champ in this category because despite 2700+ hits he had terrible production. A similar, but better player, is Vada Pinson.

[PVNICK]

I wouldn't put him in in a million lifetimes. He and Jim Rice were Bill James' pet targets along with Enos Cabell for the superficially impressive season that really wasn't back in the mid-80s. Thanks for the info and persepctive.

[Brad Harris]

Tommy John or Jack Morris come to mind. Looking at what they actually did in context and removing the "intangibles" people ascribe to them, I just don't see why so many people support their candidacies.

Marty Marion is another one I've seen mentioned on these boards in past years.

[Freakshow]

Buckner was, I think, well above average with the Cubs even winning the batting title in 1980, though he probably benefitted from Wrigley Field.
Actually, no. Home-Road splits in 1980:

I Split G GS PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO HBP SH SF ROE GDP SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS BAbip sOPS+ tOPS+ Split
+-+-------+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------------+
Home 75 72 312 292 33 89 22 1 3 33 15 7 10 0 0 4 5 4 1 1 .305 .334 .418 .752 .304 107 86 Home
Away 70 66 303 286 36 98 19 2 7 35 15 4 8 0 0 2 2 9 0 1 .343 .373 .497 .870 .333 146 114 Away

[jalbright]

Actually, no. Home-Road splits in 1980:

I Split G GS PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO HBP SH SF ROE GDP SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS BAbip sOPS+ tOPS+ Split
+-+-------+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------------+
Home 75 72 312 292 33 89 22 1 3 33 15 7 10 0 0 4 5 4 1 1 .305 .334 .418 .752 .304 107 86 Home
Away 70 66 303 286 36 98 19 2 7 35 15 4 8 0 0 2 2 9 0 1 .343 .373 .497 .870 .333 146 114 Away

Did that kind of split hold up over his career in Wrigley or was this a one season aberration?

[Freakshow]

Did that kind of split hold up over his career in Wrigley or was this a one season aberration?
An aberration. Here's Buckner's splits in OPS+ for his Wrigley years:

Home Road
OPS+ OPS+
1977 155 48
1978 129 106
1979 128 81
1980 107 146
1981 146 131
1982 118 120
1983 99 116

[Freakshow]

Who's the worst? It's all in how you take the question.

I look at it as "Who's the worst player to receive significant support (consistently +20%) in HOF voting?"

Marion is a good choice. Along the same lines is Maury Wills.

[RuthMayBond]

Who's the worst? It's all in how you take the question.

I look at it as "Who's the worst player to receive significant support (consistently +20%) in HOF voting?"

Marion is a good choice. Along the same lines is Maury Wills.Hank Gowdy?

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's almost impossible to answer this question. The worst players who get some fan support, however, are players who were famous for an event, but not that great as players.

Johnny Vander Meer and Don Larsen come to mind. There's no real bandwagon for either; it's just that some old-timers write letters to publications advocating for their cases.

Riggs Stephenson, to me, is the worst player ever to have a bandwagon on his side. There have been many articles in various magazines trumpeting his case. Stephenson has a .335 lifetime BA, but he only had 3 years of full-time play; putting him in would be like putting Manny Mota in the HOF.

[Baseball Guru]

I think Charlie Grimm (http://http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/grimmch01.shtml) is probably the worst for me. If you have ever read any old players from the 20's and 30's talking about the Hall of Fame, Grimm's name comes up alot usually with the tag: "if he isn't a Hall of Famer, I don't know who is". I mean he hit .290 in 20 seasons after all. But he was a first baseman with no power, who played in the 20's and 30's. His career OPS+ is 95.


I think Grimm has a better claim to make the HOF as a manager opposed to as a player;)

[BoofBonser26]

Bob Tewksbury made the official HOF ballot.

[Chickazoola]

I remember Gary DiSarcina was on the ballot too.

[RuthMayBond]

I remeber Gary DiSarcina was on the ballot too.We need a barfing smilie :ughh :faint:

[TheStringIsOut_NC]

Assuming the standard is serious consideration, not the ocasional mention by a fan or writer, I vote for McGuire. Without the supplements, he was less of a hitter than Dave Kingman. Second vote is for Gossage. He just does'nt belong.

It is McGwire. Not McGuire. :)

And Gossage???!!!!! Are you serious?

On numbers alone, Gossage is arguably the third greatest closer in history (behind, IMO, Hoyt Wilhelm and Mariano Rivera. At the very least, he's every bit the equal of Rollie Fingers, Dennis Eckersley and Bruce Sutter, who are all in the Hall of Fame.)

Consider this. During Gossage's prime 10-year-run as a closer (1975,1977-1985; '76 is out because he was a starter), he only once posted an ERA+ of less than 150. Once. If you discount his year as a starter, Gossage ran off eight straight closing seasons where his ERA+ only once dipped below 170 (156 in 1979).

Sutter wasn't nearly as consistently dominating as Goose. Nor was Fingers. Although Eckersley had a few gaudy, brilliant, seasons he wasn't anywhere close to that good for such a stretch. If you try and cut out a 10-year-block for Wilhelm, he's awfully good (arguably better) in 1961-1970, but even he didn't quite maintain such a high level of performance. Trevor Hoffman didn't do it.

Only Mariano Rivera would seem (based on ERA+ alone) to have put up a more consistently dominant stretch as a primary closer.

And that was 10 years of dominance built almost entirely around raw heat. No trick pitches, no knee-buckling curve, no killer slider, knuckler or splitter. Like Sutter, Fingers and Wilhelm, Gossage was a pioneer of the closer's role (and I don't mean to discount guys like Roy Face, Firpo, Joe Page etc.) and put up several seasons of 100+ innings. He was a 100+ strikeout man as well. His saves numbers weren't gaudy, but he was usually among the top 1-3 closers in his league.

He never won an MVP or Cy Young Award, but he was consistently deserving of consideration.

Peter Gammons in 1980 wrote this:

George Brett, without whom the Royals were three games below .500, probably will end up winning the MVP, but Gossage ought to be at the top of the voting. When the Yankees found themselves in a race, he was the most dominating player in the league ("Teams are affected when he warms up," said Pittsburgh super scout Len Yochum.) When the Orioles spent one week a half-game back and were winning while the Yankees weren't hitting, this man stood in Baltimore's way.

Although Gammons would later back off and admit that Brett was probably deserving, he was among the first major voices insisting that relievers were valuable and important everyday players -- and Gossage was the best of them, capable of being the most dominating player in all of baseball when he was on and, most importantly, the kind of player Gammons said was "the difference between fourth place and first..."

Gossage was feared by opponents, respected by his peers, the kind of player who teams felt was the "difference maker" in building a pennant winner. His numbers are as good as any of the greatest relievers who've played the game, and arguably better than all but a very few of them.

That man belongs in the Hall of Fame. No doubt about it.

[PVNICK]

I watched Gossage on a regular basis with the Yankees and he was incredible. No music, just him his fastball and slider. I think that's why I hold Brett in such awe is seeing him beat the Yanks in 1980 by taking Gossage into the upper deck.

[philipthegreat]

one might say clete boyer... Many have made the argument that if brooksie wasn't around he might've monopolized the gold glove but that kind of arguement doesn't work in many cases. It's like saying Williams would've one the MVP if dimmagio didn't exist.

[Chickazoola]

And on the scale of baseball hardware Gold Gloves are worthless compared to MVP awards.

[philipthegreat]

gold gloves aren't worthless they just don't have that much value.

[538280]

Riggs Stephenson, to me, is the worst player ever to have a bandwagon on his side. There have been many articles in various magazines trumpeting his case. Stephenson has a .335 lifetime BA, but he only had 3 years of full-time play; putting him in would be like putting Manny Mota in the HOF.

I agree. Stephenson was a very good BA hitter who played at a time when the league averages were usually in the .290s. He hit .335, in a very short career, and did't have great power or didn't walk a ton so as a hitter he was more good than great: 130 OPS+ in a very short career. Nothing HOF about him. He's in a boat with guys like Lefty O'Doul (as a player only) and Babe Herman as guys who get attention just due to playing a high offensive era.

I mentioned Doc Cramer earlier but I might actually take Cramer over Stephenson (meaning Stepehson deserves HOF consideration less). Cramer was at least a long term regular with good longevity, and while he wasn't nearly the hitter Stephenson was, he was legitimately an outstanding fielding CF. With his longevity, full time starting, and defense, I'd say he may be a better player than Stephenson.

[The Commissioner]

I have a problem with naming Cramer as anywhere near the worst. The most votes Cramer ever received was 12. I'd say that he was far more deserving of those than the 15 votes Harvey Haddix received in 1985.

[RuthMayBond]

one might say clete boyer... Many have made the argument that if brooksie wasn't around he might've monopolized the gold glove but that kind of arguement doesn't work in many cases. It's like saying Williams would've one the MVP if dimmagio didn't exist.Williams would've won the MVP if the voters weren't :grouchy

[Yankwood]

gold gloves aren't worthless they just don't have that much value.They're worth the price of gold.....

[ElHalo]

I mentioned Doc Cramer earlier but I might actually take Cramer over Stephenson (meaning Stepehson deserves HOF consideration less). Cramer was at least a long term regular with good longevity, and while he wasn't nearly the hitter Stephenson was, he was legitimately an outstanding fielding CF. With his longevity, full time starting, and defense, I'd say he may be a better player than Stephenson.

I really can't see that. Cramer might have been a great defensive center fielder, but as a hitter, he was about equal to Ray Schalk. Longevity, when you're really not that good, tends to hurt rather than help (what would you rather have... a pint of rancid milk or a gallon of rancid milk?). Riggs Stephenson, while he doesn't have a lot of longevity on his side, was an outstanding hitter... I'd say that, overall, he's easily as good a hitter as Carl Yastrzemski or Dave Winfield, say.

[Chickazoola]

I really can't see that. Cramer might have been a great defensive center fielder, but as a hitter, he was about equal to Ray Schalk. Longevity, when you're really not that good, tends to hurt rather than help (what would you rather have... a pint of rancid milk or a gallon of rancid milk?). Riggs Stephenson, while he doesn't have a lot of longevity on his side, was an outstanding hitter... I'd say that, overall, he's easily as good a hitter as Carl Yastrzemski or Dave Winfield, say.

How in the world is as good a hitter as either of those guys?

[penneyAA]

A couple years ago when Joe Carter became eligible there was some serious talk, at least up here in Canada, if he should go in.A national sports network even sent a reporter with camera to Carter's home to await the Hall's annual announcement.There were dozens of people there and Carter seemed genuinely surprised/disappointed with the results.Carter is revered a little bit up here because of his World Series exploits for the Blue Jays and he was a good RBI man throughout his career.A HoFer?No,not even close.

[Captain Cold Nose]

A couple years ago when Joe Carter became eligible there was some serious talk, at least up here in Canada, if he should go in.A national sports network even sent a reporter with camera to Carter's home to await the Hall's annual announcement.There were dozens of people there and Carter seemed genuinely surprised/disappointed with the results.Carter is revered a little bit up here because of his World Series exploits for the Blue Jays and he was a good RBI man throughout his career.A HoFer?No,not even close.

Carter received all of three votes and was dropped from the ballot. A HOF'er? No. Deserving a better fate from voters who kept Don Larsen and Hank Gowdy on the ballot for years? Do I really need to answer that? Carter does rank with Steve Garvey as one of the top artificial (surface value only) players of the last 25 years, but the man had plenty of moments on the field where it matters far more than anything else.

[WJackman]

I mentioned Doc Cramer earlier but I might actually take Cramer over Stephenson (meaning Stepehson deserves HOF consideration less). Cramer was at least a long term regular with good longevity, and while he wasn't nearly the hitter Stephenson was, he was legitimately an outstanding fielding CF. With his longevity, full time starting, and defense, I'd say he may be a better player than Stephenson.[/QUOTE]


Cramer did not go back on balls well and because of that he played deep. This did not sit well with many of his pitching teammates. This was well-known if one actually spends any time reviewing newspaper accounts from the 30s. I recall reading one Boston account of a game with Washington. Washington had the bases full, and a bounder that eluded both the Red Sox hurler and shortstop went for a bases-clearing double because Cramer was playing so deep.

[ElHalo]

How in the world is as good a hitter as either of those guys?

Well, ok.

Relative BA:
Stephenson, 115; Winfield, 109; Yaz, 108

Relative OBP:
Stephenson, 115; Yaz, 113; Winfield, 108

Relative SLG:
Winfield, 121; Yaz, 116; Stephenson, 115

Offensive W%:
Stephenson, .690; Yaz, .685; Winfield, .624

RC/27:
Stephenson, 7.4; Yaz, 6.3; Winfield, 5.8

EQA:
Stephenson, .301; Winfield, .301; Yaz, .296

[538280]

I really can't see that. Cramer might have been a great defensive center fielder, but as a hitter, he was about equal to Ray Schalk. Longevity, when you're really not that good, tends to hurt rather than help (what would you rather have... a pint of rancid milk or a gallon of rancid milk?).

Baseball doesn't follow the same principles as rancid milk, EH, and even if it did, Cramer is not the baseball equivalent of rancid milk. He's more the equivalnet of milk that is a little old, but still fine to drink. He was probably a slightly below average player, in winning percentage terms maybe like a .490. Those players aren't going to win you a pennant on their own, but they're far better than what is usually available, and they're not going to bring you down. They're not freely available, and they're not easy to find. "Leauge average" in baseball isn't "average" in any sense, really, taking into account the whole universe of players.. There are far, far more players in the baseball universe who will play and be below league average than above leauge average (because depite being far lower in number, the above average players have just as much impact on the league average), so someone who is "league average" or close to it actually has quite a bit of value.

Riggs Stephenson, while he doesn't have a lot of longevity on his side, was an outstanding hitter... I'd say that, overall, he's easily as good a hitter as Carl Yastrzemski or Dave Winfield, say.

Only if you don't take into account the value of longevity or durability in any way, and that's just not an accurate model of reality, IMO.

[HDH]

I rarely agree with you... However, if anything, he's under-rated. Doc Cramer is my choice as the best leadoff hitter in the 1930s. Other top leadoff hitters included Lloyde Waner and Luke Appling, both in the HOF. In addition, Doc Cramer was a very close 2nd best defensive CF behind Sam West and lasted much longer than West.

[AstrosFan]

Yep, Cramer is definitely a better lead-off man than Ben Chapman. That sub-average OBP and poor base-stealing just dazzles. Cramer isn't within 20 miles of the Hall.

[HDH]

I assumed Ben Chapman was a #2 hitter with first Earle Combs then Red Rolfe as Yankee leadoff hitters of the 1930s then Doc Cramer leading off with the Red Sox. I could be wrong.

[ElHalo]

Baseball doesn't follow the same principles as rancid milk, EH, and even if it did, Cramer is not the baseball equivalent of rancid milk. He's more the equivalnet of milk that is a little old, but still fine to drink. He was probably a slightly below average player, in winning percentage terms maybe like a .490. Those players aren't going to win you a pennant on their own, but they're far better than what is usually available, and they're not going to bring you down. They're not freely available, and they're not easy to find. "Leauge average" in baseball isn't "average" in any sense, really, taking into account the whole universe of players.. There are far, far more players in the baseball universe who will play and be below league average than above leauge average (because depite being far lower in number, the above average players have just as much impact on the league average), so someone who is "league average" or close to it actually has quite a bit of value.


I agree with most of these points... however, I still think the rancid milk analogy is valid. This isn't kindergarten; you shouldn't get credit just for showing up. Does a guy have value if he can come to the ballpark every day and play C- ball? Sure. Does that make a guy better because he was able to play years of C- ball? No, it doesn't.

Only if you don't take into account the value of longevity or durability in any way, and that's just not an accurate model of reality, IMO.

See the answer above. Being good for 50 years doesn't make you any better than being good for 5, it just makes more of you.

[AstrosFan]

I assumed Ben Chapman was a #2 hitter with first Earle Combs then Red Rolfe as Yankee leadoff hitters of the 1930s then Doc Cramer leading off with the Red Sox. I could be wrong.

You may be right. But Cramer is a subpar leadoff man; if he's the best of the 1930s, that era must have been truly terrible at producing good leadoff men.

[ElHalo]

I gotta admit; I usually love guys who hit for average and don't draw walks, but I can't really find much redeeming in Doc Cramer.

[HDH]

I just looked it up: Ben Chapman batted #7 in the lineup after Bill Dickey. Combs and Sewll batted 1 and 2. Later, Frank Crosetti was the leadoff hitter followed by Red Rolfe.

The lineup wouldn't be the same in today's game. Chapman would likely be in the top of the order but, that era was pretty potent offensively; I'm not judging one era's leadoff hitters over another. It does appear to me that Doc Cramer compairs with the best leadoff hitters of that era which seem to be Lloyd Waner and Luke Appling.

[AstrosFan]

Where'd you get the info on Chapman? I kept looking for a place that would have it, but I couldn't find anything definitive. The Baseball Page said something about Chapman sparking the Yankees offense at the top of the order, which is where I got the idea he was a leadoff hitter.

Cramer was enough behind Waner that it's easy to see at a glance who would make the better leadoff hitter. Appling was way ahead of both. If we're looking for best leadoff hitter of the 1930s, in spite of Appling's slow start to the decade, he's still easily the best choice. Cramer, even if he is the third best leadoff man, is not anywhere near the top spot, relatively speaking.

[nerfan]

I rarely agree with you... However, if anything, he's under-rated. Doc Cramer is my choice as the best leadoff hitter in the 1930s. Other top leadoff hitters included Lloyde Waner and Luke Appling, both in the HOF. In addition, Doc Cramer was a very close 2nd best defensive CF behind Sam West and lasted much longer than West.

Lloyd Waner? He was in the same mold as Doc Cramer. Despite a .316 batting average, the 1931 hits champion also led the league in outs in that same year. He was basically like Richie Ashburn without the walks- which is to say- NOT a very good player. One person I once knew was obsessed with Cramer's BR page, because the Similarity Scores indicated his five most similar players were Ashburn, Nellie Fox, Harry Hooper, Max Carey, and Waner. All Hall of Famers. What this guy didn't understand is all five of these are questionable Hall of Famers. I would campaign for Ashburn in the lower tier of the Hall, but Fox, Hooper, Carey, and Waner, the rest of the guys? I don't think any of them are Hall of Famers. Cramer lost his team -18.7 Batting Wins. He led the league in outs 4 times. The only thing he was good at was not striking out. Put simply, Cramer was a terrible leadoff hitter because he didn't walk. He was also a poor base stealer. This is not saying that Cramer shouldn't be allowed to play in the big leagues-, this is just saying that he should not even sniff the Hall of Fame.

[HDH]

... all five of these are questionable Hall of Famers. I would campaign for Ashburn in the lower tier of the Hall, but Fox, Hooper, Carey, and Waner, the rest of the guys? I don't think any of them are Hall of Famers.

I agree with this. But, its not my choice and they don't remove HOF inductees either. I should've written in my 1st post that I don't think Doc Cramer is a HOF either but, not the worst player considered and if elected somehow, not a glaring bad choice. I do feel he's was one of the best CF and leadoff hitters in that era, regardless which order.

[AG2004]

I really can't see that. Cramer might have been a great defensive center fielder, but as a hitter, he was about equal to Ray Schalk. Longevity, when you're really not that good, tends to hurt rather than help (what would you rather have... a pint of rancid milk or a gallon of rancid milk?).

If you're not really that good, your major league experience is going to be limited to a cup of coffee at best. If you're not really that good, the team you are on is going to drop you and find someone in the minors to replace you.

El Halo, if you want to use the dairy analogy, major league players represent the cream. The rancid milk consists of those players who couldn't even get into the minors, let alone the majors. Low-quality milk might be compared to the players who played years and years in the low minors. In order to stay in the major leagues, one has to be a good baseball player.

Look at Doc Cramer between the ages of 35 and 37. He recorded OPS+ marks of 77, 72, and 94. That's not very good. By major league standards, that's a C- or D hitter. Compare him to Hack Wilson between the ages of 35 and 37. Wilson tried playing in Albany at the age of 35; he wasn't good enough to stay on the team. He played for Portland (OR) at the age of 36; he wasn't good enough to stick around there, either. Wilson wasn't even in the minors at the age of 37. Wilson wasn't even good enough to be an F in the major leagues.

Who was the better player - Cramer between the ages of 35 and 37, or Wilson between the ages of 35 and 37? Obviously, Cramer. Cramer was a major league player; Wilson wasn't.

Riggs Stephenson, while he doesn't have a lot of longevity on his side, was an outstanding hitter... I'd say that, overall, he's easily as good a hitter as Carl Yastrzemski or Dave Winfield, say.

Stephenson had only four seasons over the entire course of his career when he played in at least 75% of his team's games. If he was as good as Yaz or Winfield, Stephenson wouldn't have been sitting on the bench so often; his teams would have found a way to put him out on the field so that they could have his bat in the lineup.

Compare Stephenson's best years to those of Yaz or Winfield.

For Stephenson, we have
*1927: 152 games played; OPS+ of 142.
*1928: 137 games played; OPS+ of 131.
*1929: 136 games; OPS+ of 147.
*1932: 147 games; OPS+ of 122.
*1933: 97 games; OPS+ of 138.

For Yaz, we have
*1963: 151 games; OPS+ of 148.
*1965: 133 games; OPS+ of 156.
*1967: 161 games; OPS+ of 195.
*1968: 157 games; OPS+ of 171.
*1970: 161 games; OPS+ of 178.

For Winfield, we have
*1978: 158 games; OPS+ of 149.
*1979: 159 games; OPS+ of 165.
*1982: 140 games; OPS+ of 142.
*1984: 141 games; OPS+ of 154.
*1988: 149 games; OPS+ of 159.

Stephenson was no Yaz or Winfield.

Compare the best years of the three players; Stephenson's is easily the worst. Compare the second best years; Stephenson's is the worst again. Keep doing this all the way down to the tenth best years of the three players. Stephenson will finish last, ten times out of ten. If you do this, it's obvious that Stephenson was nowhere near as good as Yaz or Winfield as a hitter.

ElHalo, as you point out earlier, "This isn't kindergarten; you shouldn't get credit just for showing up." But you are giving Stephenson loads of credit just for showing up and sitting on the bench. When you posted your rate stats above, you gave Stephenson as much credit for sitting on the bench and contributing nothing as you did for going up to the plate and playing.

If you were to cut off the last five years of Yaz' or Winfield's careers, their career rate stats would certainly have been higher than they actually are. Had Stephenson been forced to go out and play regularly in the majors during his late 30s, his rate stats would have taken a nosedive. Stephenson recorded an OPS+ of 40 at the age of 36, and couldn't play after that.

So take their rate stats up to the age of 36. Yaz and Winfield were better hitters than Stephenson. Look at what they did from the age of 36 onwards. Yaz and Winfield kept hitting; Stephenson wasn't even a good enough hitter to play in the majors. So if Yaz and Winfield were better hitters than Stephenson up to the age of 36, and if they were better hitters from the age of 36 onwards, how does Stephenson become the equal of Yaz and Winfield? Only by giving Stephenson plenty of credit for not playing in the majors during his late 30s.

Giving someone credit for not playing in the majors because they aren't good enough to play in the majors is utterly ridiculous. If they weren't good enough to play in the majors, players of that era would keep playing in the minors if they were still good enough to play pro ball at some level. If someone is good enough to keep playing in the majors during his late 30s, it seems to me that he should be credited for his major league play, and not penalized for not playing as well as he previously did.

The way you do things, ElHalo, you penalize people for playing in the majors during their late 30s, but you don't penalize them at all if they keep playing in the minors during their late 30s because they are no longer good enough for the majors, nor do you penalize them if, like Hack Wilson, they can't even play minor league ball during their late 30s. Doing that makes no sense whatsoever.

I'd like to see you compare Stephenson, Yaz, and Winfield to replacement level major leaguers instead of average major leaguers. Then tell us if Stephenson is still the equal of Yaz or Winfield.

[ElHalo]

The way you do things, ElHalo, you penalize people for playing in the majors during their late 30s, but you don't penalize them at all if they keep playing in the minors during their late 30s because they are no longer good enough for the majors, nor do you penalize them if, like Hack Wilson, they can't even play minor league ball during their late 30s. Doing that makes no sense whatsoever.

You're absolutely right, up until the last sentence. I think it makes all the sense in the world.

Since I'm a Yankee fan, I have a perfect example to run with of what I mean. Bernie Williams didn't stay in the majors particularly long; he was gone the second of his 38th birthday. However... if he had retired the second of his 34th birthday, he'd have a much, much greater reputation. He probably would be considered a Yankee legend, instead of his current status (unbelievably unfairly) as something of a Yankee embarassment. He was good enough to be a C- player in the majors, but his playing there left such a poor taste in the mouths of Yankee fans that it sullied and spoiled the brilliant career that preceeded it. Would have been much better for him and for everyone else if he hadn't been good enough to stick in the majors.

This isn't a phenomenon peculiar to baseball. Think of literature; Joseph Heller with Catch 22 came out with one of the greatest novels ever written, but he doesn't have the greatest reputation as an author, since his subsequent books weren't really great. Somebody like JD Salinger writes Catcher in the Rye, which wasn't nearly as good, and gets this legendary reputation because he becomes a hermit and refuses to publish anything else. Or in other sports; Knicks' fans think of Patrick Ewing (one of the greatest players of all time) as a guy who wasn't ever as good as his initial billing, couldn't get the Knicks over the hump, and hung around waaaay too long. Knicks fans think of Bernard King as one of the most exciting and phenomenal players ever, who was the saviour of the Knicks and would have been better than Michael Jordan if he hadn't gotten hurt (this probably isn't true). Luckily, I'm not a Knicks fan.

[AG2004]

The way you do things, ElHalo, you penalize people for playing in the majors during their late 30s, but you don't penalize them at all if they keep playing in the minors during their late 30s because they are no longer good enough for the majors, nor do you penalize them if, like Hack Wilson, they can't even play minor league ball during their late 30s. Doing that makes no sense whatsoever.

You're absolutely right, up until the last sentence. I think it makes all the sense in the world.

Since I'm a Yankee fan, I have a perfect example to run with of what I mean. Bernie Williams didn't stay in the majors particularly long; he was gone the second of his 38th birthday. However... if he had retired the second of his 34th birthday, he'd have a much, much greater reputation. He probably would be considered a Yankee legend, instead of his current status (unbelievably unfairly) as something of a Yankee embarassment. He was good enough to be a C- player in the majors, but his playing there left such a poor taste in the mouths of Yankee fans that it sullied and spoiled the brilliant career that preceeded it. Would have been much better for him and for everyone else if he hadn't been good enough to stick in the majors.



Here, you're discussing how people perceived Bernie Williams, and avoiding the key point I'm trying to make. I will admit that Williams' reputation would have been better had he retired when he turned 34. But when we consider the actual value of a player, and not just how people thought about him, he shouldn't be penalized for continuing to play. His total value prior to 34 would remain the same whether he retired at 34 or not. His peak value would not have changed; the number of seasons with 20+ win shares he had would not have changed.

You do have to admit that Williams did have some value in his final four seasons. It wasn't nearly as much as he had during his peak, but there was some value there. Furthermore, this value, while still low, would have been positive; he was still able to contribute to a major league team. (If he hadn't, but still refused to retire, he would have been playing for minor league teams, like Rickey Henderson actually did in 2004 and 2005.) So when you consider Williams' overall value, you have the part he earned prior to his 34th birthday (a lot) plus what he earned after his 34th birthday (a little, but still positive). Thus, he gained a little career value by continuing to play. As noted above, it's value, not reputation, that I'm primarily interested in.

This isn't a phenomenon peculiar to baseball. Think of literature; Joseph Heller with Catch 22 came out with one of the greatest novels ever written, but he doesn't have the greatest reputation as an author, since his subsequent books weren't really great. Somebody like JD Salinger writes Catcher in the Rye, which wasn't nearly as good, and gets this legendary reputation because he becomes a hermit and refuses to publish anything else. Or in other sports; Knicks' fans think of Patrick Ewing (one of the greatest players of all time) as a guy who wasn't ever as good as his initial billing, couldn't get the Knicks over the hump, and hung around waaaay too long. Knicks fans think of Bernard King as one of the most exciting and phenomenal players ever, who was the saviour of the Knicks and would have been better than Michael Jordan if he hadn't gotten hurt (this probably isn't true). Luckily, I'm not a Knicks fan.

Your examples demonstrate that, while people do penalize others for hanging around too long, they are mistaken instead of correct when they apply this penalty. You admit that, when Knicks fans penalize Ewing for continuing to play past his prime, even though he was still able to contribute something, they are wrong when they evaluate him. Likewise, you admit that, when they praise King, partially due to the fact that he couldn't contribute anything to an NBA team past his prime, they are also mistaken in their evaluations; King really wasn't as good as they say he was.

It is clear that these Knicks fans and these literary critics are doing the same thing you are doing in your evaluation of baseball players. I also get the impression that you believe what the Knicks fans and literary critics are doing leads them to the wrong conclusion; in other words, you believe that what they are doing does not make sense. Therefore, what you are doing when you penalize baseball players for continuing to play in the majors while they can still do so, and rewarding them for not playing when they are no longer able to play in the minors anyway, does not make sense either.

This phenomenon you describe may be common, but that common use still cannot make an example of logical reasoning. The examples you gave only strengthen the argument that the last sentence I gave above - that what you are doing doesn't make sense - is right instead of wrong.

[ElHalo]

Here, you're discussing how people perceived Bernie Williams, and avoiding the key point I'm trying to make. I will admit that Williams' reputation would have been better had he retired when he turned 34. But when we consider the actual value of a player, and not just how people thought about him, he shouldn't be penalized for continuing to play.

I don't necessarily believe there has to be a dissonance here. I would say that upwards of 90% of a player's value has to do with how he's perceived. Whether people like you or not will lead to whether they'll spend money on you. This is an old argument; a team's w/l record doesn't necessarily correlate to how succesful their franchises are.

[Chickazoola]

I don't necessarily believe there has to be a dissonance here. I would say that upwards of 90% of a player's value has to do with how he's perceived. Whether people like you or not will lead to whether they'll spend money on you. This is an old argument; a team's w/l record doesn't necessarily correlate to how succesful their franchises are.

But I think you'll find it is the factor the has the strongest impact upon attendance.