Ranking the Hall of Fame Players - Election Three [Archive]

DoubleX

02-12-2008, 02:55 PM

Cobb pulled away in the last day to take the number 2 spot. I've decided to replace him with Rickey Henderson. I caved in and figured that Henderson is so likely to get in next year, we might as well include him on the poll. Otherwise, if this project is successful, by the time he's in we'd likely be past the point where we would have voted for him. This isn't as much a concern with someone like Jim Rice, who also seems likely to get in next year, because we likely won't be ready to vote for Rice anyway by next January.

Eligibility: In order to be eligible, a player must 1) Be in the Hall of Fame or considered to be extremely likely to be elected in the next election (i.e. Rickey Henderson); and 2) Be designated as a "player" by the Hall of Fame.

Voting Criteria: Voting is to be based on a player’s qualifications to be in the Hall of Fame. As such, subjective elements can factor into the evaluation, and this should not simply be an exercise in ranking players based on statistics. Jackie Robinson is probably the best example of this.

Election Format: Elections will last 5 days, with winner takes all. A tie will result in a 2 day runoff. For now the ballot will list 40 players, plus an “Other” option. If voting for “Other” please post and specify the player. Also, feel free to let me know if you feel I should expand/contract future ballots and/or add/subtract certain players from the future ballots.

Results
1) Babe Ruth
2) Ty Cobb

KCGHOST

02-12-2008, 03:03 PM

Sticking with the Dutchman.

ElHalo

02-12-2008, 07:33 PM

Ok; I think it's time for Jackie Robinson here. Hank Aaron would also be a good selection. I don't think Honus would be nearly as good a selection right now if not for his tobacco card; oddly, I think that the existence of that bumps him up a few notches in this voting.

philkid3

02-12-2008, 08:36 PM

Please change my vote to Willie Mays, from Jackie Robinson.

I mistakenly though Mays won the last round.

Captain Cold Nose

02-13-2008, 05:54 AM

Willieeeee.

Say hey say hey say hey.

DoubleX

02-13-2008, 07:46 AM

Please change my vote to Willie Mays, from Jackie Robinson.

I mistakenly though Mays won the last round.

Done.

As a general comment, with Wagner leading this election right now, I find it hard to believe that after three elections, we might have yet to elect a post-integration player. That just seems wrong to me. Perhaps those of us supporting post-integration players, namely Mays, Aaron, and Robinson, can't agree on which one to support. I definitely think all three fit the Hall of Fame better than Wagner at this point. For example, when the All Century team was selected in 1999, the fans did not even pick Wagner, he had to be added by a committee. I know that's not the most reliable of sources, but how can Wagner be considered the third most qualified player for the Hall of Fame when millions of everyday fans are not familiar enough with him to vote him on the All Century team? There isn't a fan out there who doesn't know about Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Jackie Robinson. These are names that resonate much greater today than Honus Wagner. Yes, part of that is due to the fact that Wagner played so long ago that his name has become more obscured, but that hasn't really affected guys like Ruth, Cobb, and Johnson that much, and while we can and should compensate for the general ignorance of Wagner's career, I think we're overcompensating if we believe he is more deserving of the Hall than all three of these important and extremely memorable post-integration figures.

jjpm74

02-13-2008, 08:13 AM

Done.

As a general comment, with Wagner leading this election right now, I find it hard to believe that after three elections, we might have yet to elect a post-integration player. That just seems wrong to me. Perhaps those of us supporting post-integration players, namely Mays, Aaron, and Robinson, can't agree on which one to support. I definitely think all three fit the Hall of Fame better than Wagner at this point. For example, when the All Century team was selected in 1999, the fans did not even pick Wagner, he had to be added by a committee. I know that's not the most reliable of sources, but how can Wagner be considered the third most qualified player for the Hall of Fame when millions of everyday fans are not familiar enough with him to vote him on the All Century team? There isn't a fan out there who doesn't know about Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Jackie Robinson. These are names that resonate much greater today than Honus Wagner. Yes, part of that is due to the fact that Wagner played so long ago that his name has become more obscured, but that hasn't really affected guys like Ruth, Cobb, and Johnson that much, and while we can and should compensate for the general ignorance of Wagner's career, I think we're overcompensating if we believe he is more deserving of the Hall than all three of these important and extremely memorable post-integration figures.

I voted for Honus Wagner because prior to Babe Ruth, there was no bigger star in baseball. Period. By your line of reasoning, we should be taking players like Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn and George Brett over your three post integration picks since they are more fresh on the minds of fans and therefore more "famous."

Everyone is going to have their own top five and all time ranking of players. Mine is as follows:

Babe Ruth
Honus Wagner
Josh Gibson
Ty Cobb
Willie Mays

Captain Cold Nose

02-13-2008, 08:19 AM

I voted for Honus Wagner because prior to Babe Ruth, there was no bigger star in baseball. Period. By your line of reasoning, we should be taking players like Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn and George Brett since they are more fresh on the minds of fans and therefore more "famous."

Does Cobb not count? His peak years were pre-Yankee Ruth. He did finish first in the very first HOF ballot. Wagner is certainly up there, but it could be argued about Matthewson and even Cy "split vote" Young.

If fame were that important, you'd think Ripken and Nolan Ryan would be coming up rather quickly, wouldn't you? I'm sure they'll get their votes, too.

Freakshow

02-13-2008, 08:32 AM

I have Mays over Wagner mainly for these reasons.

1) As was said, it was pre-integration.

2) It was pre farm system. There was no system of scouting and funneling the best players to the pros, then developing them to a major league standard.

3) The NL was the weaker league in Wagner's prime. It took the NL more than a decade after the 1903 peace accord to catch up in quality after the AL raids.

All of this made it much easier for Honus to dominate the competition, inflating his stats somewhat.

jalbright

02-13-2008, 09:08 AM

Done.

As a general comment, with Wagner leading this election right now, I find it hard to believe that after three elections, we might have yet to elect a post-integration player. That just seems wrong to me. Perhaps those of us supporting post-integration players, namely Mays, Aaron, and Robinson, can't agree on which one to support. I definitely think all three fit the Hall of Fame better than Wagner at this point. For example, when the All Century team was selected in 1999, the fans did not even pick Wagner, he had to be added by a committee. I know that's not the most reliable of sources, but how can Wagner be considered the third most qualified player for the Hall of Fame when millions of everyday fans are not familiar enough with him to vote him on the All Century team? There isn't a fan out there who doesn't know about Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Jackie Robinson. These are names that resonate much greater today than Honus Wagner. Yes, part of that is due to the fact that Wagner played so long ago that his name has become more obscured, but that hasn't really affected guys like Ruth, Cobb, and Johnson that much, and while we can and should compensate for the general ignorance of Wagner's career, I think we're overcompensating if we believe he is more deserving of the Hall than all three of these important and extremely memorable post-integration figures.

Wagner had far more defensive value due to his role as a shortstop than Mays, Aaron and F. Robinson. There's nothing that means that the best 3-4 players couldn't have played before 1945. I'm a great supporter of integrated ball and Negro Leaguers, but I don't have the aforementioned three in my top five, but I have Aaron, Mays, Charleston and Paige in my top 20. I'll add T. Williams and Musial in the top 20--so at least 20% of players are post-integration. Given that we've really got 60 years of integrated ball out of 140+ years total combined with the fact that there are some who are not yet eligible for the HOF yet, I don't think that's out of line. We don't need quotas.

MadHatter

02-13-2008, 09:15 AM

I'm still going with the "Say Hey Kid" on this one.

DoubleX

02-13-2008, 09:34 AM

Wagner had far more defensive value due to his role as a shortstop than Mays, Aaron and F. Robinson. There's nothing that means that the best 3-4 players couldn't have played before 1945. I'm a great supporter of integrated ball and Negro Leaguers, but I don't have the aforementioned three in my top five, but I have Aaron, Mays, Charleston and Paige in my top 20. I'll add T. Williams and Musial in the top 20--so at least 20% of players are post-integration. Given that we've really got 60 years of integrated ball out of 140+ years total combined with the fact that there are some who are not yet eligible for the HOF yet, I don't think that's out of line. We don't need quotas.

You bring up defensive value, this is not about ranking players solely based on performance and statistics. There is a more transcendent aspect to the Hall of Fame, it celebrates a lot more than just how a player performs, but also what that player means to the game, how that player is remembered. In that regard, I belive Robinson (Jackie not Frank), Mays, and Aaron, all arguably sit on slightly higher levels. Wagner, a truly great player and in my top 5 all time, is just not a name that resonates like Mays, Aaron, and Robinson, IMO.

Moreover, it's my personal belief that the game in the pre-integration is tainted as we don't have a fully accurate picture of the game at that time. Where might Josh Gibson or Oscar Charleston rank if they had their shot? What my a role call of the stars of the game have been if the league was integrated? Imagine what a role call of the best players in the 50s and 60s would look like without integration, witout Mays, Aaron, Robinson, Clemente, McCovey, Gibson, Banks, and so on - we'd have a very different perception of the game's best from that era, and that's what we're left with in the pre-integration era. To celebrate first and foremost players only from that time, while delaying until later the great post-integration names in the game, just doesn't seem right to me.

Everyone knows who Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson, and Hank Aaron are, a lot of people don't know Honus Wagner. Now of course, we can make adjustments for the general ignorance about Wagner's career, but the gap in familiarity between Wagner and a guy like Mays, is huge, and that's why Mays, IMO, is slighlty more suited for the Hall. Now you might argue something like, "but Wagner played so long ago that it's no surprise that more recent names are more memorable," well that doesn't seem to have hurt Ruth and Cobb.

jalbright

02-13-2008, 09:50 AM

jjpm74

02-13-2008, 11:25 AM

Does Cobb not count? His peak years were pre-Yankee Ruth. He did finish first in the very first HOF ballot. Wagner is certainly up there, but it could be argued about Matthewson and even Cy "split vote" Young.

If fame were that important, you'd think Ripken and Nolan Ryan would be coming up rather quickly, wouldn't you? I'm sure they'll get their votes, too.

Both Cobb and Wagner were supertars in their day. The reason I take Wagner ahead of Cobb is because Wagner was a SS whereas Cobb as an outfielder, even though both were great defensively and Wagner was a better role model for kids in his day. Cobb had a reputation for being a real jerk both on and off the field.

Captain Cold Nose

02-13-2008, 12:35 PM

Both Cobb and Wagner were supertars in their day. The reason I take Wagner ahead of Cobb is because Wagner was a SS whereas Cobb as an outfielder, even though both were great defensively and Wagner was a better role model for kids in his day. Cobb had a reputation for being a real jerk both on and off the field.

While I won't say you've convinced me in regards to placement, your rationale is certainly sound. Thanks for that.

Brad Harris

02-13-2008, 01:02 PM

No love for Oscar?

jalbright

02-13-2008, 02:47 PM

No love for Oscar?

It may be conservative on my part, but I place Oscar halfway between Mays and Mantle. He has career length on Mantle, so I can go with putting him above Mickey, but the fact Oscar spent quite a few years at first while Willie was still in center make me tend to think Willie has him.

Paul Wendt

02-13-2008, 04:31 PM

Everyone knows who Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson, and Hank Aaron are, a lot of people don't know Honus Wagner. Now of course, we can make adjustments for the general ignorance about Wagner's career, but the gap in familiarity between Wagner and a guy like Mays, is huge, and that's why Mays, IMO, is slighlty more suited for the Hall.

By the same argument Robinson is a much better candidate than Mays. So does Satchel Paige. And what about Aaron? Mays resonates with baby-boomers and our parents but someone last week expressed astonishment that Mays was getting votes ahead of Aaron. Maybe a dozen players were more resonant than Aaron in the sixties but it appears that the home run record has loomed up and made a much bigger name of AARON than mays among younger baseball fans. Hard to believe, isn't it?

More resonant than Hank Aaron in the 1960s?
Sandy Koufax, Juan Marichal, Bob Gibson
Maury Wills, Lou Brock
Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle

Ernie Banks? ("ageless Ernie" - how's that for an upside down nickname; maybe the point was that he was old for a long time)

Brooks Robinson?
Willie McCovey?
Roberto Clemente?
The last three are No, I guess. They may have been at their best in the late 1960s but they resonated more in the early 1970s, when Hank Aaron was in the ascendant, suddenly the candidate (rather than Mays) to break Babe Ruth's record.

Pete Rose, Johnny Bench, and Tom Seaver may have been more resonant than Hank Aaron at the turn of the decade. They were superduperstars, as Aaron as not.
But that isn't fair, naming the meteors of 1968-69 for the decade. Koufax and Mantle were retired by then (still more resonant than Aaron).

I doubt that there were twelve at any time. Let me revise and resubmit. Aaron was never among baseball's five biggest stars, or most recognized names, until the end of his career when it appeared that he might break Babe Ruth's homerun record.

DoubleX

02-13-2008, 09:39 PM

I doubt that there were twelve at any time. Let me revise and resubmit. Aaron was never among baseball's five biggest stars, or most recognized names, until the end of his career when it appeared that he might break Babe Ruth's homerun record.

I wasn't alive then, but I find that hard to believe based on things I've seen and read from that time and from what I've heard from people that were alive then. Plus, Aaron won an MVP, was almost annually in the MVP discussion, and started the All Star game virtually every year and that's when people actually cared about the All Star. I'm sure in the mid 60s Mays was the bigger name, and perhaps Koufax and maybe Frank Robinson and Bob Gibson for periods, but I really find it hard to imagine that Aaron was considered around this time to not be among baseball 5 biggest stars.

Anyone else who can remember that time wish to chime in and give their recollection of what the perception was?

2Chance

02-13-2008, 09:43 PM

"I want my Maypo."

AstrosFan

02-13-2008, 10:01 PM

Went with Willie. Probably Jackie next, then Honus.

leecemark

02-13-2008, 10:29 PM

I wasn't alive then, but I find that hard to believe based on things I've seen and read from that time and from what I've heard from people that were alive then. Plus, Aaron won an MVP, was almost annually in the MVP discussion, and started the All Star game virtually every year and that's when people actually cared about the All Star. I'm sure in the mid 60s Mays was the bigger name, and perhaps Koufax and maybe Frank Robinson and Bob Gibson for periods, but I really find it hard to imagine that Aaron was considered around this time to not be among baseball 5 biggest stars.

Anyone else who can remember that time wish to chime in and give their recollection of what the perception was?

--I guess that depends on what you mean by "biggest stars". People definately appreciated what a great player Aaron was, but he was not a charismatic guy or a flashy player. People didn't rave about him the way they did Mays or Mantle or Koufax - or even Yaz in the late 60s. Frank Robinson was probably a bigger star from the time he got traded to the Orioles and won the Triple Crown until it became apparent that Aaron was going to break Ruth's record. That could push him out of the top 5 "stars" although only Mays was probably actually a better player over the course of the decade (Robinson was very close). There were other guys who got more attention for a season or two, but no who would have been considered great over an extended period.

Paul Wendt

02-13-2008, 11:14 PM

Aaron had more than 15 minutes of superduperfame but it was only about 15 months. Late in 1973 he was in countdown stage, one behind Ruth over the winter, then 1974 the glory year. He broke the record in April but I guess he was still one of the resonating stars all season. He was traded back to Milwaukee that fall to finish up mainly as a DH.

In September, Frank Robinson was traded to Cleveland where he was named player-manager for 1975. That was a big deal, much much bigger than Hank Aaron returning to Milwaukee. Nor was the interest in how Hank Aaron was closing out his playing career anything like so great as it had been for Willie Mays (also traded back to his city of early triumphs) or Mickey Mantle.

During the 1970s portion of Aaron's career overall (not the 15 months), I think Pete Rose, Johnny Bench, and Reggie Jackson were brighter stars. Maybe Tom Seaver. There we are getting into New York vs Atlanta, Milwaukee, and almost everywhere else; white vs black; and pretty wife who helps Tom Terrific consume commercial products.

Beginning in 1973 after his death, there was Roberto Clemente. Of course he wasn't celebrated simply as a baseball star. He made it into some school curriculum and every city, every town?, has a Roberto Clemente field.

ElHalo

02-14-2008, 08:54 PM

You bring up defensive value, this is not about ranking players solely based on performance and statistics. There is a more transcendent aspect to the Hall of Fame, it celebrates a lot more than just how a player performs, but also what that player means to the game, how that player is remembered. In that regard, I belive Robinson (Jackie not Frank), Mays, and Aaron, all arguably sit on slightly higher levels. Wagner, a truly great player and in my top 5 all time, is just not a name that resonates like Mays, Aaron, and Robinson, IMO.

I completely agree. Like I said last poll (and, no, I'm not kidding) the only reason I think Honus could be argued for in the top 10 is because of his tobacco card... it's a very famous bit of Americana that's taken on a life of its own, and it puts him a bit more in the public consciousness than other stars of his era. It's probably the single most famous piece of baseball memorabilia, and that gives him heft in HoF conversations. Compare that to, say, Tris Speaker -- a guy who's in most everybody's top 10 all time players but probably doesn't deserve to sniff the top 50 in this poll.

Somebody before mentioned Cal Ripken -- I think a lot less of Cal as a player than most do, but I could see a legit argument for him in the top 10 of this poll. Hall of Fame worthiness just doesn't translate into Greatest Playerness perfectly, and there are other things that need to be considered. I don't think anybody's a better choice here than Jackie Robinson.

ElHalo

02-14-2008, 09:00 PM

Double X:

We can all vote for the Hall as we see fit. I don't happen to fully agree with your approach, nor you with mine. That's fine. However, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with supporting Wagner for #3 over Aaron, Mays, or Frank or Jackie Robinson. The Negro Leaguers are likely to be underestimated here due to the difficulties with the data plus at least some cases of generalized ignorance on the subject. We will not resolve all those problems here today nor in the foreseeable future, unfortunately. But that doesn't require skewing my thoughts on the subject to try to counterbalance those factors. To me, that's politicking, and I'm getting plenty of that in 2008 without doing my own.

Well, anybody arguing in favor of any point is engaged in "politicking," so you're involved in it just by nature of being here. You're right in saying that anybody can vote for the Hall as they see fit, but do you really believe that who gets voted into the Hall should be based solely on who was the best player? I mean, I suppose that that is a valid line of reasoning, but it's just not one I thought anybody espoused.

It really doesn't have anything to do with race or integration -- there's just a lot more to being HoF worthy than simply being the better player. Sandy Koufax, in my opinion, isn't a tenth the pitcher Pete Alexander was, but he's about a hundred times more deserving of the Hall of Fame.

jalbright

02-16-2008, 05:35 AM

You're right in saying that anybody can vote for the Hall as they see fit, but do you really believe that who gets voted into the Hall should be based solely on who was the best player? I mean, I suppose that that is a valid line of reasoning, but it's just not one I thought anybody espoused.

It really doesn't have anything to do with race or integration -- there's just a lot more to being HoF worthy than simply being the better player. Sandy Koufax, in my opinion, isn't a tenth the pitcher Pete Alexander was, but he's about a hundred times more deserving of the Hall of Fame.

I think the main thing I am objecting to is not the consideration of "fame", as ephemeral a concept as it is, but that we're talking about fame now rather than what I regard as a far more relevant standard, which is "fame" among baseball fans at the time he played. Make no mistake, Honus was quite "famous" among baseball fans of his day, and deservedly so. The fact he isn't quite as famous today is more due to the combination of the passage of time with Honus' unassuming nature plus our society's generalized ignorance of history, whatever the topic.

yanks0714

02-16-2008, 07:35 AM

I voted for Honus Wagner because prior to Babe Ruth, there was no bigger star in baseball. Period.

Uh, there was this guy Ty Cobb that started prior to Ruth. He was considered a pretty big star before Ruth came along.

yanks0714

02-16-2008, 07:41 AM

3) The NL was the weaker league in Wagner's prime. It took the NL more than a decade after the 1903 peace accord to catch up in quality after the AL raids.

All of this made it much easier for Honus to dominate the competition, inflating his stats somewhat.

Man I really get steamed when I read this kind of thing. Every player in the NL in those days had the same opportunity! Did they give Honus some extra breaks? Did they have to get 4 strikes on him to strike him out? Were they able to add another fielder or two? Did he have to use a smaller bat? Swing one-handed? Play Hop-Scotch to first base after hitting the ball? Did he have to field bare-handed when others used goves? No, of course not! All the other players had the same opportunity and couldn't achieve what Honus did. Why hold it against Wagner that he had more talent and was so much better than the others?

yanks0714

02-16-2008, 07:55 AM

Moreover, it's my personal belief that the game in the pre-integration is tainted as we don't have a fully accurate picture of the game at that time. Where might Josh Gibson or Oscar Charleston rank if they had their shot? What my a role call of the stars of the game have been if the league was integrated?

And here is another viewpoint: If someone says the pre-integration players should not rank as high because black players were not allowed to compete in MLB...then how can someone rank those black players so high in their rankings who didn't even face the caliber of MLB competition?

It should go both ways. If pre-integration MLB players are penalized then the NeL players need to be penalized as well.

I KNOW, I KNOW, the Negro Leaguers have been penalized enough as it is for the shameful act that was perpetuated. But we can't do anything about changing history. I personally feel Charleston, Gibson, Lloyd, Paige, and other NeL players probably should be at or near the top in rankings. But I cannot 'prove' it to myself. I can't rank Charleston over Speaker for example, because I can't comapre the two adequately. Is that unfiar to Oscar? Yes. Bit is it also unfair to Speaker that I may rank Charleston over him? Yes again.

The best way for me to rank a NeL player is by 'ghost' ranking him. Unfair? Perhaps. But aren't you penalizing pre-integration players for something they may well not have had anything to do with?

leecemark

02-16-2008, 08:03 AM

yanks0714

02-16-2008, 08:17 AM

I doubt that there were twelve at any time. Let me revise and resubmit. Aaron was never among baseball's five biggest stars, or most recognized names, until the end of his career when it appeared that he might break Babe Ruth's homerun record.

Well, I was alive then. You are drastically underestimating Hank Aaron's career and name recognition.

Hank Aaron was long regarded as a complete and outstanding ball player. It certianly wasn't when he was on the tail end of his quest of Ruth's record that he became a recognized name. It did kind of explode at that time but before that he was clearly recognized as a top tier player.

Aaron's biggest problem was his lack of flair. Playing at the same time as Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle will do that to you. Aaron was recognized as a top player in the late 50's and through the 60's...but he wasn't Mays or Mantle.

Frank Robinson suffered as well because he wasn't Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle, he wasn't even Hank Aaron, but he was plenty good.

yanks0714

02-16-2008, 08:29 AM

--Isn't the answer to your question supplied in the post you are respomding to? Nobody else in the NL was able to dominate at Wagner's level because nobody else in the NL was that good. The AL raided most of the best talent leaving Wagner and only a few other stars behind. Most of those who did stay were concentrated on a few teams - mostly Wagner's Pirates in the first few years. Wagner would have been a great player in the AL too. Probably deserving of the MVP half the time and a contender most years. He just wouldn't have dominated to the extent he did in the NL>

I know all that. But what was left in the NL did have the same opportunity as did Honus. He excelled over them. We penalize Honus for dominating a weak NL. Is that his fault? Did he somehow transfer most of the good players to the AL. No. He dominated because of his talent over the rest of the NL. I am not about to penalize anybody due to their talent.
Yes, it is a fact that his primary competition from previous years found themselves in the AL. Not his fault. Ban Johnson wanted to upset the balance of power in the NL. Raid from other NL teams but leave the Pirates alone (strange ain't it? How did the Pirates get their name in the first place? By stealing players in earlier years and are now to be left alone).

My whole point is this: When you dismiss Wagner's greatness and dominatin by blowing it off saying, 'well, it was a weak league', you are in fact stating a fact but then penalizing Wagner's own individual talent.

DoubleX

02-16-2008, 09:13 AM

And here is another viewpoint: If someone says the pre-integration players should not rank as high because black players were not allowed to compete in MLB...then how can someone rank those black players so high in their rankings who didn't even face the caliber of MLB competition?

It should go both ways. If pre-integration MLB players are penalized then the NeL players need to be penalized as well. with?

They are penalized. We have no idea how to accurately rank them. When starting this project I actually considered excluding Negro League players as well as 19th Century players because of the difficulty in assessing them and comparing them to 20th Century Major Leaguers.

Plus, my point is not to say rank Charleston over Speaker. My point is to say that when two players are close, but one is pre-integration and one is post, the post will get the benefit of the doubt. I'm penalizing the pre-integration player for playing in a weaker league that very deliberately decided to not make itself a composition of the best talent available, and instead decided to deliberately exclude an enitre group of qualified players. As I said above, imagine what the game in the 50s and 60s would have been like without integration. Imagine who the stars of the day would have been? Of course guys like Mantle and Musial still would have been up there, but without integration, suddenly a group of the second tier white stars may have risen to the top. This is what I believe happened in the pre-integration era. I think the baseball landscape, particularly a view of the stars of the game would have been drastically different in say the 1920s and 1930s if that era's equivalents of Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Jackie Robinson, Frank Robinson, Ernie Banks, Roberto Clemente, Willie McCovey, Bob Gibson, Orlando Cepeda, Larry Doby, Juan Marichal, Billy Williams, Roy Campanella, Minnie Minoso, Dick Allen, and so on were allowed to play. Again, imagine what the game in the 1950s and 1960s would have looked like without these players? That's what we get in say the 1930s.

EDIT: Also, your own point cuts against you. You can't rank Negro Leaguers accruately because they played in a weaker league, right? So why shouldn't that cut against someone like Wagner when comparing him to someone in a stronger league? You know Wagner could dominate in a weaker league, but you don't know how he'd fair in a league as competitive as the one Willie Mays played in, for example. You now Willie can dominate that level of competition, but Wagner you have only supposition, same as you do for how Negro Leaguers would play in the Majors. So why do you excuse Wagner from circumstance and give him the benefit of the doubt but not the Negro Leaguers?

Paul Wendt

02-16-2008, 10:00 AM

Hank Aaron was long regarded as a complete and outstanding ball player. It certainly wasn't when he was on the tail end of his quest of Ruth's record that he became a recognized name. It did kind of explode at that time but before that he was clearly recognized as a top tier player.

All true.
But he wasn't a superstar.
He was never included in conversations about the greatest players of all time.

Who might break up the trinities? greatest outfield: Ruth, Cobb, Speaker. greatest living outfield: DiMaggio, Musial, Williams.

Mays and Mantle were in those conversations and I believe everyone thought that Mays would belong in one of those slots when he retired.

Already in 1967, when he was in the minors, some people thought Johnny Bench would be in the conversation at catcher. After two seasons (end of the 1960s, before his first MVP), I believe a majority expected that he would be in those conversations and some already said, essentially, "he is better now than anyone has ever been." As some probably said of Koufax at the end of the 1963 World Series (many said it of Koufax when he retired).

I suppose that Wagner and Speaker were bigger stars in the aughts and teens than Aaron was in the sixties. I may be wrong about that. But here the point is: Argument that a vote for Wagner, or a vote for Speaker in a few months, must be a vote for his statistics pertains to Aaron as well.

DoubleX

02-16-2008, 10:36 AM

All true.
But he wasn't a superstar.
He was never included in conversations about the greatest players of all time.

Who might break up the trinities? greatest outfield: Ruth, Cobb, Speaker. greatest living outfield: DiMaggio, Musial, Williams.

Mays and Mantle were in those conversations and I believe everyone thought that Mays would belong in one of those slots when he retired.

Already in 1967, when he was in the minors, some people thought Johnny Bench would be in the conversation at catcher. After two seasons (end of the 1960s, before his first MVP), I believe a majority expected that he would be in those conversations and some already said, essentially, "he is better now than anyone has ever been." As some probably said of Koufax at the end of the 1963 World Series (many said it of Koufax when he retired).

I suppose that Wagner and Speaker were bigger stars in the aughts and teens than Aaron was in the sixties. I may be wrong about that. But here the point is: Argument that a vote for Wagner, or a vote for Speaker in a few months, must be a vote for his statistics pertains to Aaron as well.

I'm following you, and I'm just raising this next point for the sake of argument. I think it's entirely possible that because of circumstances, Aaron was not fully appreciated during his time and that he faced an uphill battle towards being in the best ever conversations you mentioned (same as Mays and Frank Robinson). Aaron during most of his career was a lot like Stan Musial - consisently very good to great numbers, except Aaron had lower BA but with more power and better defense and baserunning. So why would Musial be so highly regarded but not Aaron? I think there are three explanations:

1) Race. It has to be said. The black stars back then faced a much more difficult experience towards acceptance, let alone praise and adulation. Now I realize you might be asking, "well why was Mays able to overcome that?" It's a fair question. Mays played with more flair at a more important defensive position, started in NY playing for a historically rich franchise where he won over fans with his flair and by winning (you win in NY, you're usually golden), then I believe Mays was the face of expansion into California at a time when the population of California was dramatically expanding and was generally more accepting of race than much of the rest of the country; plus Mays was a better player. Aaron on the other hand, while playing in the World Series spotlight himself, played on a team without nearly the historic cache as the Giants and in much greater obscurity at the time in the industrial and population declining midwest. In the age before national broadcasts and 24 hour sports networks, Mays, because of the markets he was in and the team he played for, likely had much greater exposure than Aaron.

2) Batting Average. Historically, I think there's been a greater fascination with batting average than with any other statistic. I think high BA is why we have a lot of questionable players from the 1920s and 1930s in the Hall (as well as Frankie Frisch). Musial had a very impressive BA. Aaron, while putting up good batting averages, played at a time where batting averages were generally supressed throughout the league, and I think given the over-emphasis on high BA, people tended to underrate players at the time based on BA without realizing that it was more difficult to attain a high BA.

3) Nostalgia. Baseball has a rich tradition founded upon nostalgia. For anyone in the 1960s, and minority players in particular, they were fighting against the romanticized accounts and memories of the players from earlier generations, moreso than players today I believe because 1) In the 1960s, there were still a lot of people alive that played or watched the game earlier in the century to keep up the romanticized accounts and memories of earlier players; and 2) Most of those people are dead now and I don't believe players of the past 40 years or so have been nearly as romanticized as players from earlier in the century. The romanticization of covering the game was a hallmark I believe of the early 20th century. We've become more jaded since then and have a much larger frame of reference.

Paul Wendt

02-16-2008, 10:44 AM

I think the main thing I am objecting to is not the consideration of "fame", as ephemeral a concept as it is, but that we're talking about fame now rather than what I regard as a far more relevant standard, which is "fame" among baseball fans at the time he played. Make no mistake, Honus was quite "famous" among baseball fans of his day, and deservedly so. The fact he isn't quite as famous today is more due to the combination of the passage of time with Honus' unassuming nature plus our society's generalized ignorance of history, whatever the topic.

There is also the children's book "Honus and Me", and a feature movie version from about four years ago.

Isn't Wagner today still the good superstar to Cobb's bad superstar?
The 1909 World Series is the baseball focus of Honus and Me. It is also featured in one bad guy story about Cobb. "Hey, Krauthead, I'm comin' on down." Then he gets caught stealing, putout Wagner.

yanks0714

02-17-2008, 02:48 AM

EDIT: Also, your own point cuts against you. You can't rank Negro Leaguers accruately because they played in a weaker league, right? So why shouldn't that cut against someone like Wagner when comparing him to someone in a stronger league? You know Wagner could dominate in a weaker league, but you don't know how he'd fair in a league as competitive as the one Willie Mays played in, for example. You now Willie can dominate that level of competition, but Wagner you have only supposition, same as you do for how Negro Leaguers would play in the Majors. So why do you excuse Wagner from circumstance and give him the benefit of the doubt but not the Negro Leaguers?

No my post doesn't cut against me. I've heard all too often that Wagner's domination was due to the weak league he played in. I simply disagree with that assessment. All players had the same opportunity. Wagner excelled and dominated because he had more talent.

However, I see Oscar Charleston, for example, rated up there with Willie Mays as among the best ever. Why? He played in weaker leagues as well PLUS we don't have sufficient statistical data to really assess his performance.

I don't disagree with you at all on the pre / post integration comment. It's one reason why I rank Willie Mays over Ty Cobb for instance.

yanks0714

02-17-2008, 02:56 AM

1) Race.
2) Batting Average.
3) Nostalgia.

Very good overall assessment. I couldn't find anything I disagreed with.

Despite poster Paul Wendt's assertion that Hank Aaron wasn't considered a superstar or whatever, I can remember as a kid talking baseball with my friends (something we did all the time). Aaron's name always came up in the discussion. Hey, maybe us South Central Pennsylvania kids were on to something, we knew Hank Aaron was truly a superstar. I will admit his name came up after Willie and Mickey's though.

DoubleX

02-17-2008, 07:45 AM

Very good overall assessment. I couldn't find anything I disagreed with.

Despite poster Paul Wendt's assertion that Hank Aaron wasn't considered a superstar or whatever, I can remember as a kid talking baseball with my friends (something we did all the time). Aaron's name always came up in the discussion. Hey, maybe us South Central Pennsylvania kids were on to something, we knew Hank Aaron was truly a superstar. I will admit his name came up after Willie and Mickey's though.

Like I said earlier, I wasn't alive then, but my impression from talking to my father and others, and from reading and watching things from that time, is that there was Mantle and Mays at the top, but that Aaron was firmly on that next tier. I guess in a given year, the ordering of that next tier may have changed, and I think Paul Wendt touched on that, but I imagine from year to year, Aaron would have usually been in the conversation of the five best players.

Anyway, the Hall celebrates silly things like counting numbers and records, and Aaron has those in spades, and that's why I feel he is one of the most worthy of the Hall, even if he was underappreciated in his own time. This last point brings me back to Musial. Aaron and Musial were very similar, but with Aaron being a better all around player, IMO, and attaining more impressive numbers, despite playing in a more pitcher-friendly era (as well as park in Milwaukee). So why was Musial so revered in his time but not Aaron? That brings me back to those three points - 1) Race, 2) Batting Average, and 3) Nostalgia. Team cache is probably a subpoint as well. In regards to nostalgia, I think Musial came around at the very end of that golden age - that period you see in all those documentaries that sometimes air on HBO that try to capture how great and pure the game was from the 30s-50s.