Hall of Fame Mistakes Redux (PLEASE READ FIRST POST)

[AstrosFan]

We all have our own definition of what makes a Hall of Famer. And many of us are simply appalled at what we see as terrible selections. I would like to start voting on the mistakes of the Hall of Fame.


Please Read These Rules Before Making Your Selections:


1. This is players only, which means players are to be judged on their playing career first. A player may receive a boost from a voter for other activities (managing, scouting, etc.), but those are only secondary considerations. But of course, do not judge a player solely by his numbers.

2. There are now 229 players in the Hall. I plan on putting a ballot of 25-26 each round, plus a none of the above option. You may vote for 0-15 players. If you think a player is close, but doesn't belong, and you have room on your ballot, check him as a mistake. A player needs to get 75+% of the vote to be dubbed a mistake. Since there will be much disagreement on who is a mistake, there is no need to limit yourself to the Rube Marquards and George Kellys of the Hall. Again, DO NOT JUST VOTE FOR THE BAD PICKS. VOTE FOR ANYONE YOU PERSONALLY WOULD NOT ELECT TO THE HALL.

3. Please do not be shy. In participating in this project, no one is necessarily advocating the removal of anyone from the Hall. It is just a way to see who we would identify as mistakes made by the various election committees.

4. All players are eligible. Do your best when it comes to players you may have a hard time judging, like Negro Leaguers and 19th century players. You don't have to read an encyclopedia, but at least some research should help.

5. If a player receives less than 5% of the vote as a mistake, he becomes permanently ineligible. No one wants to belabor the point that Willie Mays is not a Hall of Fame mistake.

6. A player must have crossed the 50% threshold by his 10th try, else he is dropped, unless he has been gaining noticeable momentum. What constitutes noticeable will be up to me, though I intend to do my best to define it in a way that will appease as many as I can. Think Jim Rice or Bert Blyleven in the real HOF voting.

7. At some point, we will reach a place where we just aren't going to identify any more mistakes. At that point, the project will shut down, and I will list the players alphabetically, and include some statistics for everyone's benefit.

8. Please be careful when voting. I do not have the power to edit ballots, and I do not wish to bother the mods constantly to ask them if they can change things. Because of this, ballots will not be changed, except in the case of honest mistakes. Please contact a mod about this if it happens, but please be very careful when voting, so the moderators do not have to be bothered more than necessary.

9. This is probably obvious, but the players are listed alphabetically.

10. Please post your ballot in the thread.

11. Voting is open for one week.


Have fun.

[AstrosFan]

Okay, I have the new poll up. As long as people are willing to follow the instructions, this should be a success, as people seem to consider it a good project. Otherwise, I cannot see a future for it.

[Cowtipper]

Bancroft
Boudreau

[AstrosFan]

Again, folks, sorry for the original errors. I hope everything is clear now, and this version is more successful.

Oh yeah,

Bancroft
Beckley
Bender
Bottomley
Bresnahan

[jjpm74]

I personally would not vote for the following players:

Cap Anson--because he was instrumental in instituting segregation in the game.
Dave Bancroft
Jake Beckley
Chief Bender
Jim Bottomley
Willard Brown

The glaring errors of this group for me are Dave Bancroft and Willard Brown. The rest are borderline guys and again, I like the project! ;)

[jjpm74]

Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan, it looks like you are a small hall guy, except for the fact that you didn't vote against Chief Bender. Why?

[DoubleX]

Cap Anson--because he was instrumental in instituting segregation in the game.

I've been very vocal on here about how segregation is the greatest stain on the game's history, but it likely would have persisted for decades with or without Anson. Segregation, unfortunately, was an ideology and practice that went well beyond one man.

[jjpm74]

I've been very vocal on here about how segregation is the greatest stain on the game's history, but it likely would have persisted for decades with or without Anson. Segregation, unfortunately, was an ideology and practice that went well beyond one man.

Cap Anson was instrumental in establishing segregation in baseball. It was something that players were battling until Cap Anson; the voice of baseball went out of his way to make what was a "gentleman's agreement" the rule of the league. Landis would not have been able to continue such an atrocity had Anson not established it as well as he did many years earlier. Since the HOF is for players with integrity and Cap Anson lacked that integrity, I would not have voted for him when he became eligible.

[gman5431]

Guys i voted for and reasons below:

Dave Bancroft - never heard of him
Jake Beckley - heard of him but dont know much about him
Chief Bender - not a HOF, pretty clear to me
Jim Bottomley - know this guy and i'm shocked he is in HOF
Roger Bresnahan - never heard of him
Dan Brouthers - heard the name but thats about it
Ray Brown - never heard of him, i see i'm only person to vote for him so i must be an idiot
Willard Brown - never heard of him

G Rizzle

[mwiggins]

Dan Brouthers - heard the name but thats about it

G Rizzle

No offense, but you should do some research on Dan. He's a top tier HoF'er by any standard, unless you just completely discount 19th century players. Led the league in batting 5 times, OBP 5 times, slugging 7 times, OPS+ 8 times. Tied for 7th all-time with Joe Jackson & Pujols in OPS+.

[KCGHOST]

Aparicio
Bottomley
Bender

Gman, if players have to have better careers than Brouthers to get into the HoF the place would be a ghost town. The two Browns are Negro League players who were selected by the infamous 2006 Negro League Committee version of the Veteran's Committee.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Guys i voted for and reasons below:

Dave Bancroft - never heard of him
Jake Beckley - heard of him but dont know much about him
Chief Bender - not a HOF, pretty clear to me
Jim Bottomley - know this guy and i'm shocked he is in HOF
Roger Bresnahan - never heard of him
Dan Brouthers - heard the name but thats about it
Ray Brown - never heard of him, i see i'm only person to vote for him so i must be an idiot
Willard Brown - never heard of him

G Rizzle

Ray Brown is buried in Dayton.

[DoubleX]

Cap Anson was instrumental in establishing segregation in baseball. It was something that players were battling until Cap Anson; the voice of baseball went out of his way to make what was a "gentleman's agreement" the rule of the league. Landis would not have been able to continue such an atrocity had Anson not established it as well as he did many years earlier. Since the HOF is for players with integrity and Cap Anson lacked that integrity, I would not have voted for him when he became eligible.

If it wasn't Anson, it would have been someone else, especially given how Plessy v. Ferguson's Separate but Equal Doctrine seemed to make sense to a great deal of white America coupled with the burgeoning resentment towards African-Americans following the end of Reconstruction. If you think it was Anson and Anson alone, you underestimate just how pervasive racism and the perceived need to segregate was at the time. Anson wasn't acting alone, it took many, many, many others to create and enforce this "gentleman's agreement" and then perpetuate it for generations. One man alone is not the reason - it was institutional. And sadly, to all too many for all too long, Anson's segregationist attitude was perceived to be in the interest of promoting and preserving the integrity of the game. Anson, just like most of America, was proactively racist, and that's why it goes way beyond just one man.

This also very much describes America in 1936, when the Hall was first established and thus Anson first became eligible. A time when baseball and much of America remained segregated, and in the case of baseball, this is 40 years after Anson stopped playing. Given the prevailing social standards and mores of the day, I'd say it's more likely than not you would have voted for Anson back then and not held his racial attitudes against him the way you do with a 2008 perspective.

[gman5431]

No offense, but you should do some research on Dan. He's a top tier HoF'er by any standard, unless you just completely discount 19th century players. Led the league in batting 5 times, OBP 5 times, slugging 7 times, OPS+ 8 times. Tied for 7th all-time with Joe Jackson & Pujols in OPS+.

I dont really know much about 19 century, but i dont necessarily discount it. Seems like a HOFer to me, like is aid i just didnt know anything about him.

G Rizzle

[jjpm74]

If it wasn't Anson, it would have been someone else, especially given how Plessy v. Ferguson's Separate but Equal Doctrine seemed to make sense to a great deal of white America coupled with the burgeoning resentment towards African-Americans following the end of Reconstruction. If you think it was Anson and Anson alone, you underestimate just how pervasive racism and the perceived need to segregate was at the time. Anson wasn't acting alone, it took many, many, many others to create and enforce this "gentleman's agreement" and then perpetuate it for generations. One man alone is not the reason - it was institutional. And sadly, to all too many for all too long, Anson's segregationist attitude was perceived to be in the interest of promoting and preserving the integrity of the game. Anson, just like most of America, was proactively racist, and that's why it goes way beyond just one man.

This also very much describes America in 1936, when the Hall was first established and thus Anson first became eligible. A time when baseball and much of America remained segregated, and in the case of baseball, this is 40 years after Anson stopped playing. Given the prevailing social standards and mores of the day, I'd say it's more likely than not you would have voted for Anson back then and not held his racial attitudes against him the way you do with a 2008 perspective.

At the time Anson asserted his racist attitude, majority of baseball teams were in cities that were not and never would be segregated. The only notable exceptions being St. Louis and Kansas City. The idea of segregation was not one that was embraced by the average American. It was a notion pushed forth by a relatively small group of southern and western politicians. The average American living in the Americas at the end of reconstruction and into the dawn of the industrial age did not share this view.

[gman5431]

Ray Brown is buried in Dayton.

Interesting. Give me some info on him

G Rizzle

[Captain Cold Nose]

Interesting. Give me some info on him

G Rizzle

Here's an article I posted in the Negro League forum a while back.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/content/oh/story/sports/pro/2008/07/02/ddn070308sparch.html

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan, it looks like you are a small hall guy, except for the fact that you didn't vote against Chief Bender. Why?

Indeed I am a small hall guy. I readily admit I don't know too much about, and have not studied in-depth, players from that era. My selections on the poll were based on fairly limited knowledge of players from that generation. While Bender's ERA isn't drastically below League average, he did finish top ten 7 times & had a great winning percentage (although yes, thats more a reflection on team). He also was a versatile guy leading the NL in saves twice and finshing top 10 9 times. His 40 homeruns allowed in 3000IP are pretty low, even by dead ball standards.

This was the basis of my decision, and I readily admit it could be flawed since I haven't studied other pitchers in-depth during that time. I'll defer the final indictment of Chief Bender to other more knowledge history buffs.

Also, for the record, I may have been a bit too harsh checking off Home Run Baker as HOF mistake. He indeed had a excellent offensive career considering the era. My basis for exclusion had more to do with his truncated career than anything else, but he was a star player for a 6-7 year period.

[gman5431]

Here's an article I posted in the Negro League forum a while back.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/content/oh/story/sports/pro/2008/07/02/ddn070308sparch.html

O man, he was a Negro Leaguer. I wish i could change my vote. I generally vote anyone from the Negro Leagues into the HOF. Anyone.

G Rizzle

[Captain Cold Nose]

O man, he was a Negro Leaguer. I wish i could change my vote. I generally vote anyone from the Negro Leagues into the HOF. Anyone.

G Rizzle

Willard, too?

[DoubleX]

At the time Anson asserted his racist attitude, majority of baseball teams were in cities that were not and never would be segregated. The only notable exceptions being St. Louis and Kansas City. The idea of segregation was not one that was embraced by the average American. It was a notion pushed forth by a relatively small group of southern and western politicians. The average American living in the Americas at the end of reconstruction and into the dawn of the industrial age did not share this view.

I don't want to get into a lengthy history discussion here, but to blame one man on why baseball was segregated until 1947 is a tremendous oversimplication. I also think you give too much credit to the average American at that time. As Reconstruction ended and southern African-Americans migrated into northern cities, there was very much a strong and growing racial undercurrent in northern cities. It may not have been as overt as it was in the south, but it was definitely there, which finally came to a head in the many race riots in northern cities during the 20th Century. Moreover, there were several locations throughout the north that adhered to the Separate but Equal status, providing separate facilities for each race. My father grew up in the north, and he remembers separate facilities in his youth during the 1950s. The Separate but Equal doctrine came from the Supreme Court in an opinion written by a justice who grew up in Massachusetts and practiced in Michigan. In fact, six of the seven justices who joined in that that decision, effectively sanctioning institutionalizing segregation, were from the north, the historically liberal northeast in fact.

Racism and segregation were facts throughout the country that pervaded all aspects of American life, and were most certainly not limited to a "relatively small group." So again, to blame baseball's segregation on one man, and believe baseball could have uniquely overcome attitudes that plagued all other aspects of society for generations (and still does in many ways) grossly oversimplifies history and is far too optimistic. Admittedly, right after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, there was something of a movement to bolster the status of African-Americans, particularly in the South, but this was spearheaded by a "relatively few," mostly the New England and New York elite who got caught up in the cause of the Civil War. To them though, the issue was far removed, in the South. Once Reconstruction ended, with more time elapsed from the Civil War, southern African-Americans migrating north, and economic problems wounding northern industrialists, the fervor of the northern elite's cause faded and the prevailing social attitudes of the day took over. These attitudes conquered baseball, just like they did everything else. Anson wasn't a great exception, he was byproduct. He may have played a role in baseball's segregation, but that role would have inevitably been played regardless of whether Anson existed or not. And again, it takes a lot more than one man to enforce and perpetuate segregation as baseball did. Society was permissive of it, that's why segregation occurred in baseball and lasted for generations.

If you want to say you wouldn't vote for Anson based on your 2008 view, that's fine, but to assume you wouldn't in a 1936 context, is very presumptuous, IMO. Perhaps you would have, but who knows how differently your thinking would have been given how different society's attitudes were. The assumption that your views would somehow be immune to historical context, is where I'm troubled here.

[jjpm74]

First off. I'm pretty sure we are supposed to be approaching this from a modern 2008 perspective. Secondly, it's rather presumptuous of you to assume that if it was 1936 I wouldn't have felt the same way since you have no idea what my ethnic background is. ;)

I don't think Anson single handedly was the reason for segregation continuing in baseball for as long as it did. Judge Landis was instrumental in keeping baseball segregated and formalizing the ban. Not Anson. Yes, there absolutely were others who were aligned with Anson's views. I wouldn't go out of my way to endorse any of them either. I blame Anson for forcing his views on others who did not agree with him and refusing to take the field against any team that had a non-white playing. For that, he would not have my vote. For the record, I do not discount anything when looking at Anson in other projects. Only here where we're encouraged to list anyone we personally wouldn't vote for.

[jjpm74]

Guys i voted for and reasons below:

Dave Bancroft - never heard of him
Jake Beckley - heard of him but dont know much about him
Chief Bender - not a HOF, pretty clear to me
Jim Bottomley - know this guy and i'm shocked he is in HOF
Roger Bresnahan - never heard of him
Dan Brouthers - heard the name but thats about it
Ray Brown - never heard of him, i see i'm only person to vote for him so i must be an idiot
Willard Brown - never heard of him

G Rizzle

See rule 4:

4. All players are eligible. Do your best when it comes to players you may have a hard time judging, like Negro Leaguers and 19th century players. You don't have to read an encyclopedia, but at least some research should help.

If you're going to participate here, please take 5 minutes to at least read their wiki bios before checking them off as a no. Especially if you never heard of a guy like Dan Brouthers who many put in their personal top 20s all time.

[DoubleX]

First off. I'm pretty sure we are supposed to be approaching this from a modern 2008 perspective. Secondly, it's rather presumptuous of you to assume that if it was 1936 I wouldn't have felt the same way since you have no idea what my ethnic background is. ;)

Touche. I have to admit, I was actually thinking the same thing, but somehow lost that thought while posting. I apologize for making that assumption, that's the last thing I'd want to do. As for the time perspective, you said you would not have voted for him when he became eligible, that's where I got 1936 from.

I don't think Anson single handedly was the reason for segregation continuing in baseball for as long as it did. Judge Landis was instrumental in keeping baseball segregated and formalizing the ban. Not Anson. Yes, there absolutely were others who were aligned with Anson's views. I wouldn't go out of my way to endorse any of them either. I blame Anson for forcing his views on others who did not agree with him and refusing to take the field against any team that had a non-white playing. For that, he would not have my vote. For the record, I do not discount anything when looking at Anson in other projects. Only here where we're encouraged to list anyone we personally wouldn't vote for.

Anson did all that, and given his stature, that likely did play a role in leading to baseball's segregation. But Anson was far from unique, and his views were likely and unfortunately much more in line with the average American of the time than not. If Anson never existed, baseball still would very likely have been segregated. In post-slavery America, that is unfortunately how things progressed. Society on the whole both permitted and embraced segregation, and that's why it endured for so long. Baseball was just another example, and it would have been regardless of Anson; baseball's segregationist origins just may have different. As I said before, Anson played a role, but the role would likely have been played regardless of whether Anson was ever born.

[leecemark]

--Cap Anson was not in a position to enforce his personal belief on baseball. Had his been a minority view it would have been Cap Anson that was banned from baseball and not African Americans. Anson was a big star and the manager of his team, but he didn't run the league.
--At most he was a combination of say Joe Torre (manager) and Alex Rodriguez (player). Had those two gentlemen declared that they would not take the field with Japanese players when they first started coming into MLB would that have resulted in the banning of Japanese players or of the two men opposed to them?
--If Anson was not expressing a widely held view he would have been dismissed as a bigotted blowhard and either gotten over it and found a new line of work. While his role in this area certainly is not a plus to his legacy, its wildly overstates the case to put the blame for baseball segregation soley - or even mostly - on his shoulders.

[AG2004]

At the time Anson asserted his racist attitude, majority of baseball teams were in cities that were not and never would be segregated. The only notable exceptions being St. Louis and Kansas City. The idea of segregation was not one that was embraced by the average American. It was a notion pushed forth by a relatively small group of southern and western politicians. The average American living in the Americas at the end of reconstruction and into the dawn of the industrial age did not share this view.

You are thinking about de jure segregation; de facto segregation spread much farther.

Shortly after the end of the Civil War, the African-American population was spreading throughout the entire nation. That includes the river valleys of rural Maine, the Idaho panhandle, Minnesota's forests, and other places that one thinks of as white. One writer during the early 1880s found it notable when he found a small Ohio town that didn't have any Black residents; most small towns had some.

This was beginning to change in the 1880s and early 1890s. The southerners instituted segregation: Blacks could live there, but only as second-class citizens. (It took until 1904 for the last southern Black in the U.S. House to be voted out, however; the process was slow.) In much of the North - especially the midwest - the "sundown town" was established. Blacks, either through direct violence or by social pressure, were driven out of many towns. Occasionally a token African-American family might be permitted to remain, but no new Blacks could move into such towns.

Northern Blacks were driven into the ghetto by Northern Whites. In Northern cities, the African-American population was just too large to be driven out; in the several days it would take to mobilize for an expulsion (and, in several cities, Whites did try to expel them), the state government could intervene to keep the ethnic cleansing from taking place. Within cities, however, private owners and real estate agents could, and did, collude to keep Blacks within certain defined limits.

Northerners did not write this segregation into law -- without such laws, Northern whites could still consider themselves more enlightened than Southern whites -- but they put it into practice. On the other hand, there were very few sundown towns in the South, since Southern whites did not want to get rid of their region's service class. A small-town white Southerner could argue that at least they let blacks live in small towns, while white Northerners kept them out.

Admittedly, right after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, there was something of a movement to bolster the status of African-Americans, particularly in the South, but this was spearheaded by a "relatively few," mostly the New England and New York elite who got caught up in the cause of the Civil War.

This wasn't spearheaded by a relative few; it was a widely held position among Northern whites. There were also Southern whites who believed that, since the war was lost, it was necessary to embrace racial equality. (Former CSA General Longstreet was the most notable.) However, there were a lot of Southern whites who resorted to mass violence in order to keep the races separate and unequal. White schoolteachers who taught blacks were a favorite target of these terrorists; to go down to Louisiana and teach ex-slaves how to read and white was extremely dangerous.

It was this violence that wore the federal government out. There were conflicting returns from several states in the 1876 election, partly because not all polling places were recognized by both Reconstruction governments and the White supremecists. The GOP agreed to remove federal troops from the South in return for winning the White House, thus letting these supremecists gain power in the South by non-peaceful means.

This led to some soul-searching in the North: how could we consider ourselves good when we backed down from protecting equality? There was a way to resolve this cognitive dissonance: persuade oneself that Blacks were not fundamentally equal to Whites. This reasoning would have its consequences; once enough people persuaded themselves of it, they could "justify" driving African-Americans out of small towns on the grounds that they were just protecting themselves.

(One might be interested in reading James Loewen's Sundown Towns for a full exploration of this phenomenon and how it affects American life today.)

[gman5431]

Willard, too?

Yeah i should have done a little research. I got lazy. I would vote both these guys in. I'm in favor of adpoting the entire Negro League era into the HOF.

G Rizzle

[brett]

Basically, I think the hall is a little too large at this point.
I think there are more mistakes of players in than players out.
229 is a lot. I basically include players who fall into one of two categories:

1) Player is somewhere around the top 100 most valuable position players or top 50 pitchers of all time. May be 120 to 60, but at least I could see myself moving the player up to around 100/50.

This would be roughly one position player per position per decade since 1900 plus 1-2 for the 1800s and 1-2 for the NeLeagues (that would make 120 position players)

2) Player was valuable, had a hall of fame peak, but not length, or had length but was never quite dominant, but in either case brings something extra to the table. This would either be a place in history, or an accomplishment which is difficult, but not necessarily valuable, or may have been considered valuable at the time. I would probably not put in more than 1-2 players per decade on average for that.


So for one century I would have about 80 position players, and up to 20 history-makers MAX.

1900-2008 about 88 position players based on value and 11-22 history makers who were still great

1800s: 10-20 players for greatness plus 2-4 type II

NeLeague: 10-20 plus 2-4 type II

So about 108-128 players for value, and 15-30 type II would be 123-158 players, probably in the middle of that range or 140

Anyway, the following players were not great enough to make it even as a type II hall of famer:

Bunning, Bottomley, Bender, Beckley, Bancroft

The following were probably not roughly around the top 100 position players of top 50 pitchers:

Brock, Bresnahan, Boudreau, Averill, Ashburn, Aparicio but were still darn good (say in the 150-200 range) and had enough history factor though if you want to get technical, the only guy I would probably vote for would be Brock because of the record, and 3000 hits. Maybe Ashburn for being near the all time defensive team. Maybe Aparicio. I don't know, some days I don't want Brock either.

[willshad]

Why no love for Bottomley? Sure he didnt do much in his 30s, but for the first 10 years or so of his career he was basically a more durable version of George Brett. Also an RBI machine...120 + RBI 5 years in a row. There might be a few others in line before him, but that doesnt make him a 'bad pick'. A lot of people think Will Clark deserves to be in the hall, and he looks a lot like Clark, but with more RBI. I know a lot of people here dont like RBI, but for first basemen that is usually their primary role on the team, so I always give them a little extra credit if they put those runs on the board. Also similiar to Mattingly, but with a longer peak. A lot of people say Mattingly's problem is his peak wasnt long enough...so there you go, if he has a couple more good seasons he would basically be Jim Bottomley. Remember, they didnt have OPS+ as a tool when he was voted in.

[jalbright]

Why no love for Bottomley? Sure he didnt do much in his 30s, but for the first 10 years or so of his career he was basically a more durable version of George Brett. Also an RBI machine...120 + RBI 5 years in a row. There might be a few others in line before him, but that doesnt make him a 'bad pick'. A lot of people think Will Clark deserves to be in the hall, and he looks a lot like Clark, but with more RBI. I know a lot of people here dont like RBI, but for first basemen that is usually their primary role on the team, so I always give them a little extra credit if they put those runs on the board. Also similiar to Mattingly, but with a longer peak. A lot of people say Mattingly's problem is his peak wasnt long enough...so there you go, if he has a couple more good seasons he would basically be Jim Bottomley. Remember, they didnt have OPS+ as a tool when he was voted in.

We don't care why they may have made their mistakes, but that they made them. There are a number of things I look at for players:

MVP voting: 125th in MVP shares given that the award wasn't given during a portion of his career is acceptable.

All-Star selections: not applicable

black ink: 97th all time is good enough for a HOFer

gray ink: 98th all time is good enough for a HOFer

HOF standards: 121st among position players is close to good enough for a HOFer, though the method probably works in favor of hitting positions like 1B and OF and against C, SS and 2B.

So far, Bottomley has some modest but not overwhelming positives as I see it. Now we get to win shares, and I want to see guys in the top 20 in their position at a minimum.

career: 33rd among first basemen

top 3 seasons: 35th among first basemen

best 5 consecutive seasons: 29th among first basemen.

Those three marks are not even close to what I want to see. I think they overwhelm the positives and drag the whole case for him below the waterline.

[willshad]

We don't care why they may have made their mistakes, but that they made them. There are a number of things I look at for players:

MVP voting: 125th in MVP shares given that the award wasn't given during a portion of his career is acceptable.

All-Star selections: not applicable

black ink: 97th all time is good enough for a HOFer

gray ink: 98th all time is good enough for a HOFer

HOF standards: 121st among position players is close to good enough for a HOFer, though the method probably works in favor of hitting positions like 1B and OF and against C, SS and 2B.

So far, Bottomley has some modest but not overwhelming positives as I see it. Now we get to win shares, and I want to see guys in the top 20 in their position at a minimum.

career: 33rd among first basemen

top 3 seasons: 35th among first basemen

best 5 consecutive seasons: 29th among first basemen.

Those three marks are not even close to what I want to see. I think they overwhelm the positives and drag the whole case for him below the waterline.


Ive seen enough bad results made by 'win shares' that i dont really put much (if any at all) importance in it. To me it is just an experimental stat that was made subjectively by one guy. I mean isn't Will Clark like number 4 or 5 among first basemen using win shares? I know one of his seasons is ranked ridiculously among the best seasons ever, and that he's gotta be in the top 20 somehow. Certainly is a player is consistently among the leaders in various categories, and has the stats of a hall of famer that is much more important to me. I mean, if I devise some formula that determines that Jim Bottomley was the fifth best first baseman ever does that mean he really is?

[jalbright]

You would prefer RBI to win shares? That's your privilege. Look, all statistical systems have their less than glorious moments. So what?

I will point out that OPS+ isn't exactly overwhelmed with Bottomley, either, at 125. Maybe, just maybe, win shares is on to something here. 125 is, according to Baseball-reference.com, no better than 223rd all-time. As the HOF has less position players than that, he'd have to make up ground. As a 1B, he really can't do that with his glove, which leaves longevity. But 8355 PA is 189th, which again is short of where you'd like to see a HOFer. So longevity doesn't do the trick for him, either.

So, what exactly beyond several seasons of knocking in 100 RBI with some over .300 averages in a time when .300 wasn't all that special and runs came in comparative floods, is the case for making Bottomley one of the 140 or so best position players of all time? Seems to me that's all there is, and IMHO, it ain't enough.

[Paul Wendt]

The special committees elected Jake Beckley and the Peerless Leader Frank Chance. They and the BBWAA and the famous Committee on Veterans all passed on the later deadball era firstbasemen Hal Chase, Ed Konetchy, and Jake Daubert. Among them Daubert played in the National League only; he played a little closer in time to hofers George Kelly, Jim Bottomley, and Bill Terry; he played on both of Uncle Robby's champions. He seems to be a reasonably good match for the honored few.