Worst Induction By The Writers

[SavoyBG]

There have been several really bad choices for the hall of fame, but most of them have come from the Veteran's Committee.

Which of these hall of famers do you think was the worst induction ever by the writers?

Lou Boudreau
Don Drysdale
Dennis Eckersley
Rollie Fingers
Catfish Hunter
Ralph Kiner
Rabbit Maranville
Herb Pennock
Tony Perez
Red Ruffing
Bruce Sutter
Don Sutton
Pie Traynor

[SavoyBG]

For me it came down to Pennock or Hunter and i went for Pennock by a hair.

[BlueBlood]

I went the opposite way....but it has to be either. You totally should have listed Aparicio though....he's in the four-some with Maranville. I wouldn't even begin to consider any of the other BBWAA choices as mistakes.

Although they'll soon be adding a fifth in Rice. :/

[Homestead Gray]

Which of these hall of famers do you think was the worst induction ever by the writers?


Great poll ! It had me thinking about each player and the criteria that is selectively used by the writers. Is the HOF about numbers, career highlights or contributions to the game.

After looking over your list I went with Catfish Hunter. Though I saw catfish during his career he was not what I would consider the dominant pitcher that a Don Drysdale was.

Good list and thanks for getting me to think about the HOF and criteria that is required to be inducted

[gman5431]

Sutter. Next vote would have been for Maranville.

G Man

[jjpm74]

I went the opposite way....but it has to be either. You totally should have listed Aparicio though....he's in the four-some with Maranville. I wouldn't even begin to consider any of the other BBWAA choices as mistakes.

Although they'll soon be adding a fifth in Rice. :/

I agree regarding Aparicio. Why are Boudreau and Maranville listed but not him?

I voted for Sutton. Longevity is the primary reason he was elected to the HOF.

Hunter and Pennock were close behind him for me.

[SavoyBG]

I agree regarding Aparicio. Why are Boudreau and Maranville listed but not him?

I voted for Sutton. Longevity is the primary reason he was elected to the HOF.

Hunter and Pennock were close behind him for me.

My mistake with Aparicio. If a moderator can add him to the survey I would appreciate it.

[curveball]

I agree regarding Aparicio. Why are Boudreau and Maranville listed but not him?

I voted for Sutton. Longevity is the primary reason he was elected to the HOF.

Hunter and Pennock were close behind him for me.


Just curious as to why you think Hunter was better than Sutton.


******************Hunter*******************Sutton

Top 3 era+ seasons***144, 140, 134 *************161, 160, 144
Career era+*********104*********************108 (1833 more inn)
Top 10 adj era+ finishes*3**********************7
Actual W/L********224-166 .574******************324-256 .559
Neutralized W/L****194-174 .527******************309-260 .543
Actual 20 win seasons**5**********************1
Neutralized 20 win seasons*3********************1

Just my opinion, but I think Hunter was a horrible selection. He has a mediocre career era+, and 7 of his 15 years he had an era+ of less than 100. He really only had 3 good years. In 1971, when he went 21-11, it was only 16-13 neutralized. In 1973, when he unbelievably went 21-5 with an era+ of just 107, it would have only been 14-13 neutralized.

Many people focus too much on wins, and that is how so many pitchers get overrated. The focus should be on era+, as a pitcher cannot control how many runs his team will score for him in any given start. It isn't a coincidence that when you neutralize stats to account for run support, that many of the overrated pitchers will suffer a serious downturn in their win totals, and win/loss %, whereas many of the pitchers who are underrated will show big gains in win totals, and win/loss %.

I don't think Sutton is a great selection either, but I still think he was a lot better pitcher than Hunter. In my opinion, Hunter has absolutely no business being in the HoF.

[KCGHOST]

Of this group I would choose Sutter. The fact he pitched less than 1050 innings is pretty damning in my mind. Maybe you can let a Rivera with his utter dominance slide with that small a resume but not a Sutter.

Pennock and Hunter were the salutorians of my class.

[Buzzaldrin]

I voted for Drysdale just ahead of Pennock, but it was close. I've never understood Drysdale's place in the hall. Don't get me wrong, he was good, and he certainly had his moments, and he was a workhorse, but he seems to me like a perennial .500 pitcher on .600 teams. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but for all of his aggressiveness and supposed intensity, he just didn't win that often and never had the world's hottest ERA. And he didn't really stick around that long either.

And curveball, I would be careful before focusing entirely on ERA+, that's gonna mess you up by 1- skewing things toward pitcher's eras, 2- really hurting guys like Robin Roberts who ate up huge amounts of innings for crappy teams and still won heaps, and 3- hurting any pitcher who coasts when he has a big lead and bears down when he doesn't. This was a lot more common before the 40s, of course, but it's certainly unfair to many.

[jalbright]

Aparicio added to the poll. However, as a practical matter, such a late addition must be made to the end of the poll choices, so he is out of alphabetical order.

[leecemark]

--I voted for anyway so he wouldn't feel left out. Vizquel is better than Aparicio and I don't support Omar.

[SavoyBG]

And curveball, I would be careful before focusing entirely on ERA+, that's gonna mess you up by 1- skewing things toward pitcher's eras,

I don't think that ERA+ skews to pitcher's eras. There are many modern guys like Mussina who have great ERA+ numbers in this hitter's era. more than there were in the 1960s. When the league ERA is high there's more room for a pitcher to be more aboave average. How much better can a pitcher be in a league with an ERA of 2.80? It's almost impossible for him to have an ERA+ of 200 in that league, but guys like Pedro have been over 200 in leagues with an ERA of around 5.00.

I haven't done a study, but I think ERA+ skews towards real good pitchers who are pitching in a big hitter's era. The career leader before the 1990s was Lefty Grove, who pitched his entire acreer in a big hitter's era.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I voted for Maranville. The other guys, even Pennock, and certainly Hunter, have other guys who are comparable in the HOF that were selected by the writers.

Maranville had NO comparable player in the HOF at the time he was inducted. I don't believe that ANYONE believed Rabbit Maranville would ever be a HOFer when the HOF opened, or even well into the forties.

I'm not bent out of shape about Maranville. Someone has to be the worst player picked by the writers. Maranville was an excellent defensive SS with a long career; it's not like the writers picked Marty Marion. Maranville isn't the worst SS in the HOF, but I can't think of a worse selection by the writers.

[curveball]

I voted for Drysdale just ahead of Pennock, but it was close. I've never understood Drysdale's place in the hall. Don't get me wrong, he was good, and he certainly had his moments, and he was a workhorse, but he seems to me like a perennial .500 pitcher on .600 teams. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but for all of his aggressiveness and supposed intensity, he just didn't win that often and never had the world's hottest ERA. And he didn't really stick around that long either.

And curveball, I would be careful before focusing entirely on ERA+, that's gonna mess you up by 1- skewing things toward pitcher's eras, 2- really hurting guys like Robin Roberts who ate up huge amounts of innings for crappy teams and still won heaps, and 3- hurting any pitcher who coasts when he has a big lead and bears down when he doesn't. This was a lot more common before the 40s, of course, but it's certainly unfair to many.

1- I think era+ does a pretty good job regardless of which era a pitcher played in.

2- The neutralized stats at baseball-reference do a decent job of equalizing the playing field as far as the differences in run support pitchers receive is concerned. In my opinion, it doesn't matter if a pitcher pitches for a crappy team or not, the biggest influence on a pitcher's w/l record is how many runs his team scores for him when he starts. This can vary greatly even for starting pitchers on the same team. Of course, good teams usually outscore their opponents, so pitching for good teams somewhat dictates receiving good run support.

3- I have never seen any evidence that proves that pitchers coast when they have big leads, and bear down when the game is tight. Baseball-reference has career splits for pitchers when the game is close, and when the margin is 1,2,3,4, or greater than 4 runs, and there is very little variance to be seen.

[STLCards2]

I voted for Drysdale just ahead of Pennock, but it was close. I've never understood Drysdale's place in the hall. Don't get me wrong, he was good, and he certainly had his moments, and he was a workhorse, but he seems to me like a perennial .500 pitcher on .600 teams. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but for all of his aggressiveness and supposed intensity, he just didn't win that often and never had the world's hottest ERA. And he didn't really stick around that long either.

.

Actually, Drysdale's Dodgers teams had a .517 winning% when he and Koufax did not pitch (far from .600), compared to Drysdale's .557 W% (far from .500). That puts him at a + .040 clip compared to teamtates not named Koufax. Certainly no tom Seaver, but well in the range of the average HOFer.

Even though he didn't have tons of longevity, Drysdale finished in the top 10 in IP eleven times- leading twice and finishing second 2/3 other times. Fewer than 20 pitchers in MLB history can claim that. A solid 3,400 IP is way more than Koufax, Dean, Gomez, and Pedro, and about the same as Hubbell Marichal, Ford. I am not saying that he is as good as some of these guys - but lack of longevity isn't a very strong reason to keep him out either.

As far as his "not having the hottest ERAs" - he did finish in the top 10 in ERA+ six times. By itself -still somewhat impressive, considering that is a similar total to Niekro, Jenkins, and several dozen other HOF pitchers. But when like Drysdale, you are finishing in the top couple in IP every year - those top 10 ERA+ seasons are more meaningful. Think about your boy Roberts - finishing 10th or so in the league in ERA isn't spectacular...unless you lead your league in IP by 40 innings. Drysdale didn't have any of those, but he ran up top 12 ERA+ with top 12 IP years almost every year for 12 years. That puts him in elite company.

Drysdale was an all-time elite hitter for a pitcher. A 45 OPS+ in that era is among the very best. How benefital was his offense? Take his 121 ERA+ and boost it to 124( pretnding runs created above average = runs saved above average). That is huge. Keep a 124 ERA+ 3,400 IP guy out of Cooperstown? Good luck. Biggest mistake in voting history? I don't see the case at all.

My biggest question is: if you don't like Drysdale for the HOF, fine...you aren't alone. But why is he a worse pick than Hunter? Drysdale and Hunter are about even in IP, and Drysdale blows him away in ERA+ (121 to 105 :crazy). Hunter had only 3 top ten ERA+ finishes and six top 10 IP finishes. None of your isues with ERA+ as a stat can close that kind of gap. Drysdale was a far greater hitter, and played with teams that didn't create him as many runs or play as good defense behind him as Hunter had. The one advantage he has is w% - and Hunter's .570 is not much better than Drysdale's - and can be fully explained by Hunters teamates.

Pennock is an even more embarassing choice - as he put up similar mediocre numbers to Hunter and gets his but kicked in terms of LQ on top of it.

[jalbright]

3- I have never seen any evidence that proves that pitchers coast when they have big leads, and bear down when the game is tight. Baseball-reference has career splits for pitchers when the game is close, and when the margin is 1,2,3,4, or greater than 4 runs, and there is very little variance to be seen.

For pitchers since Babe Ruth popularized the home run, this is true. However, there are many historical accounts from the deadball era which indicates this was a significant part of pitching strategy in those days. This also helps account for the high IP totals of the time, which gives additional credence to the existence of this phenomenon back then. It also makes sense--if you're up by 4 or more runs and it takes at least two hits to produce a run, a pitcher can throw strikes, daring hitters to get a hit, and save his best for times when he's actually threatened with a run scoring. That way, a pitcher could pitch a lot of innings and finish almost everything he started, like they did back then--those easy innings make it possible. Today, you ease off with a four run lead and let a guy on, if the next guy jacks it out of the park, you're down to a two run lead just like that, and now it's a dogfight. Thus, pitchers since the homer became a significant weapon really can't coast all that much if at all.

[curveball]

For pitchers since Babe Ruth popularized the home run, this is true. However, there are many historical accounts from the deadball era which indicates this was a significant part of pitching strategy in those days. This also helps account for the high IP totals of the time, which gives additional credence to the existence of this phenomenon back then. It also makes sense--if you're up by 4 or more runs and it takes at least two hits to produce a run, a pitcher can throw strikes, daring hitters to get a hit, and save his best for times when he's actually threatened with a run scoring. That way, a pitcher could pitch a lot of innings and finish almost everything he started, like they did back then--those easy innings make it possible. Today, you ease off with a four run lead and let a guy on, if the next guy jacks it out of the park, you're down to a two run lead just like that, and now it's a dogfight. Thus, pitchers since the homer became a significant weapon really can't coast all that much if at all.


I'll take your word for it as far as the dead ball era is concerned, as the argument you presented does make some sense, but in saying that, every argument can be bolstered with statistical data, and sadly we don't have enough of it from the early years of baseball.

I hear the arguments all the time, "he knew how to win", "he pitched to the score", "he had grit, and mental toughness", and these are all fallacies, as it applies today. Pitchers who had high eras, and good w/l records did so because they received good run support. I only checked a handful of pitchers at baseball-reference, and I saw nothing to indicate that pitchers pitched any worse when they had big leads. In fact, I saw very little variance at all regardless of game situations as far as the score was concerned.

[CROM]

I voted for Maranville. The other guys, even Pennock, and certainly Hunter, have other guys who are comparable in the HOF that were selected by the writers.

Maranville had NO comparable player in the HOF at the time he was inducted. I don't believe that ANYONE believed Rabbit Maranville would ever be a HOFer when the HOF opened, or even well into the forties.



I agree! I voted for Maranville also for this very reason. Thank you for putting my thoughts into words.

[STLCards2]

I'll take your word for it as far as the dead ball era is concerned, as the argument you presented does make some sense, but in saying that, every argument can be bolstered with statistical data, and sadly we don't have enough of it from the early years of baseball.

I hear the arguments all the time, "he knew how to win", "he pitched to the score", "he had grit, and mental toughness", and these are all fallacies, as it applies today. Pitchers who had high eras, and good w/l records did so because they received good run support. I only checked a handful of pitchers at baseball-reference, and I saw nothing to indicate that pitchers pitched any worse when they had big leads. In fact, I saw very little variance at all regardless of game situations as far as the score was concerned.

I have looked at dozens and dozens of pitchers across eras and how they did with leads/deficits of +/- 4 runs. Very few had any noticable difference beyond norm. Even so, a pitcher with a long career may get 150 of those starts in his life (if he is lucky) - not enough sample size to determine much. If sample size is not important to you, here are two who actually did perform abnormaly worse with huge leads/deficits: Tom Glavine and Warren Spahn. Here are two who despite legend, performed (BABIP, OPS, SLUGA, ERA) the same with big leads/deficits: Jim Hunter and Jack Morris. Sorry Fuzzy! I know you hate to hear that!;)

[Mike90]

I have looked at dozens and dozens of pitchers across eras and how they did with leads/deficits of +/- 4 runs. Very few had any noticable difference beyond norm. Even so, a pitcher with a long career may get 150 of those starts in his life (if he is lucky) - not enough sample size to determine much. If sample size is not important to you, here are two who actually did perform abnormaly worse with huge leads/deficits: Tom Glavine and Warren Spahn. Here are two who despite legend, performed (BABIP, OPS, SLUGA, ERA) the same with big leads/deficits: Jim Hunter and Jack Morris. Sorry Fuzzy! I know you hate to hear that!;)

Did anyone perform abnormally worse in clutch situations. Blyleven and Stieb are two pitchers who are criticized for supposedly not winning as many games as they should have.

I voted for Rollie Fingers. He pitched 1701 innings with a 119 ERA+. I realize ERA is not a great indicator of value for relievers, but that is so far from HOF standards. He pitched less than half as many innings as Drysdale with a worse ERA in relation to the league (119 to 121), and he provided no value with his bat while Drysdale was an excellent hitter (for a pitcher). Fingers got in because of an MVP he never should have won and his status as the all-time leader in saves (he's 10th now).

[STLCards2]

Did anyone perform abnormally worse in clutch situations. Blyleven and Stieb are two pitchers who are criticized for supposedly not winning as many games as they should have.
.

If by clutch you mean pitching record with run differentials +/- than 4 (as we were before), then yes, Stieb and Blyleven are by far some of the "worst" at pitching their best when the games are "out of hand." Blyleven's less-than-expected record is partialy due to this-but still more to do with the weak offenses behind him. Stieb's statistical anomoly is more severe, and pitched far fewer games - so this might have a substantial part in his suprising W-L record.

That is a small knock on their credentials - one of the reasons I don't endorse Stieb for the HOF, but it isn't nearly enough to override Blyleven's overwhelming credentials.

Again - you are talking 100-150 starts where this is a factor. That is 3-4 seasons worth. Is that enough sample size to consider the results valid? To some degree, but unless you are looking for something small to support or reject a bordeline guy (Stieb), it is only margianly important.

[STLCards2]

Along with Glavine and Spahn - Maddux and Clemens have a disproportionate amount of their allowed runs in garbage time as well. It is scary to think that Maddux and Clemens are even better than their "numbers" suggest.

Of course legend tells of Maddux intentionaly giving up homeruns in blowout games in order to set up hitters for future games. I seriously doubt those rumours, but Maddux was significantly worse in garbage time.

Nolan Ryan? Dead on with league average.

Most of you probably know - but if you want to see, just go to BR and look at any player's career splits. It will be under "Clutch Stats."

[Buzzaldrin]

Actually, Drysdale's Dodgers teams had a .517 winning% when he and Koufax did not pitch (far from .600), compared to Drysdale's .557 W% (far from .500). That puts him at a + .040 clip compared to teamtates not named Koufax. Certainly no tom Seaver, but well in the range of the average HOFer.

Even though he didn't have tons of longevity, Drysdale finished in the top 10 in IP eleven times- leading twice and finishing second 2/3 other times. Fewer than 20 pitchers in MLB history can claim that. A solid 3,400 IP is way more than Koufax, Dean, Gomez, and Pedro, and about the same as Hubbell Marichal, Ford. I am not saying that he is as good as some of these guys - but lack of longevity isn't a very strong reason to keep him out either.

As far as his "not having the hottest ERAs" - he did finish in the top 10 in ERA+ six times. By itself -still somewhat impressive, considering that is a similar total to Niekro, Jenkins, and several dozen other HOF pitchers. But when like Drysdale, you are finishing in the top couple in IP every year - those top 10 ERA+ seasons are more meaningful. Think about your boy Roberts - finishing 10th or so in the league in ERA isn't spectacular...unless you lead your league in IP by 40 innings. Drysdale didn't have any of those, but he ran up top 12 ERA+ with top 12 IP years almost every year for 12 years. That puts him in elite company.

Drysdale was an all-time elite hitter for a pitcher. A 45 OPS+ in that era is among the very best. How benefital was his offense? Take his 121 ERA+ and boost it to 124( pretnding runs created above average = runs saved above average). That is huge. Keep a 124 ERA+ 3,400 IP guy out of Cooperstown? Good luck. Biggest mistake in voting history? I don't see the case at all.

My biggest question is: if you don't like Drysdale for the HOF, fine...you aren't alone. But why is he a worse pick than Hunter? Drysdale and Hunter are about even in IP, and Drysdale blows him away in ERA+ (121 to 105 :crazy). Hunter had only 3 top ten ERA+ finishes and six top 10 IP finishes. None of your isues with ERA+ as a stat can close that kind of gap. Drysdale was a far greater hitter, and played with teams that didn't create him as many runs or play as good defense behind him as Hunter had. The one advantage he has is w% - and Hunter's .570 is not much better than Drysdale's - and can be fully explained by Hunters teamates.

Pennock is an even more embarassing choice - as he put up similar mediocre numbers to Hunter and gets his but kicked in terms of LQ on top of it.

Good argument. I stand corrected. I'll join the Pennock army.

To other issues- SavoyBG wrote: I think ERA+ skews towards real good pitchers who are pitching in a big hitter's era.

Actually it seems to me it's just the opposite- look at the top single season ERA+ of all time. There have been 35 seasons with an ERA+ of over 200- 15 of them between 1901 and 1920. The large majority of league ERAs during that period were under 3.00 (13 NL, 14 AL). Only Walter Johnson in 1912 and 1918 had a 200 ERA+ with a league ERA over 3.00

Pedro Martinez with 5, Greg Maddux with 2, Roger Clemens with 3, and Kevin Brown with 1 really just show the enormous gap between the great and the average that's been created the past 20 years with "win with one swing" and "omigosh, there's a man on second in the fourth, we need a reliever" philosohpies.

That's 26 of the top 35 between 1901-1920, or post 1990. That leaves nine from the other nearly 100 years, of whom only Gooden, Grove, Guidry, Luque, and Pierce topped 200 when the league ERA was over 3.00, (which it was every other season but 1968 in the 20th c for both leagues, and about half the time in th 19th c), and only Lefty Grove when it was over 4.00

[Mike90]

Actually it seems to me it's just the opposite- look at the top single season ERA+ of all time. There have been 35 seasons with an ERA+ of over 200- 15 of them between 1901 and 1920. The large majority of league ERAs during that period were under 3.00 (13 NL, 14 AL). Only Walter Johnson in 1912 and 1918 had a 200 ERA+ with a league ERA over 3.00

That's 26 of the top 35 between 1901-1920, or post 1990. That leaves nine from the other nearly 100 years, of whom only Gooden, Grove, Guidry, Luque, and Pierce topped 200 when the league ERA was over 3.00, (which it was every other season but 1968 in the 20th c for both leagues, and about half the time in th 19th c), and only Lefty Grove when it was over 4.00

The unusually high number of 200 ERA+ figures in the 1901-1920 period might be attributed to the relatively weak competition. Blacks weren't allowed and the recruiting and developing of talented players was haphazard at best.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

I voted for Sutton. Longevity is the primary reason he was elected to the HOF.

It's not Sutton. That much is clear to me. While Sutton was a compiler, he was a compiler of the absolute highest order. Did he have a HOF peak? Eh, it's close - depends on who you ask. But did he retire with HOF counting numbers? Absolutely. His 300 wins were achieved in much the same way as Eddie Murray's 500 home runs. He's not an inner-circle HOFer, not by a long shot, but he's deserving of the honor, unlike some of the other choices. My vote would go to Bruce Sutter. He wasn't significantly better than John Wetteland.

[Dalkowski110]

I agree with the above post, literally word for word, with regards to Sutter and Sutton.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's not Sutton. That much is clear to me. While Sutton was a compiler, he was a compiler of the absolute highest order. Did he have a HOF peak? Eh, it's close - depends on who you ask. But did he retire with HOF counting numbers? Absolutely. His 300 wins were achieved in much the same way as Eddie Murray's 500 home runs. He's not an inner-circle HOFer, not by a long shot, but he's deserving of the honor, unlike some of the other choices. My vote would go to Bruce Sutter. He wasn't significantly better than John Wetteland.

This thread started before Sutter's induction. I think Sutter tops Maranville. Maranville was a nonpareil defensive shortstop for a long time. Sutter was a nonpareil releiver for a much lesser time. I can argue Maranville's case, however unenthusiastically, on the basis of some comparable selections. Sutter's induction, to me, set a terrible precedent, which will be built on with the induction of more relievers who posted gaudy save totals, but were relieving because they weren't good enough to start.

[philkid3]

I'll go with Aparicio, though I'm doing this mostly from memory of past research than sitting down and looking at anything this second.

But I think most of that list is reasonable additions at worst.

[Paul Wendt]

My biggest question is: if you don't like Drysdale for the HOF, fine...you aren't alone. But why is he a worse pick than Hunter? Drysdale and Hunter are about even in IP, and Drysdale blows him away in ERA+ (121 to 105 :crazy). Hunter had only 3 top ten ERA+ finishes and six top 10 IP finishes. None of your isues with ERA+ as a stat can close that kind of gap. Drysdale was a far greater hitter, and played with teams that didn't create him as many runs or play as good defense behind him as Hunter had. The one advantage he has is w% - and Hunter's .570 is not much better than Drysdale's - and can be fully explained by Hunters teamates.
Ahem. Catfish Hunter was an outstanding batter, stronger than Drysdale by OPS+.

In a desktop data table I have career data for more than 800 pitchers including 55 with debuts in the 1960s and at least 500 plate appearances.
Among those 55 pitchers,
Jim Hunter is the leader with OPS+ = 52, just ahead of Rick Wise.

Down to 1500 innings pitched I find two pitchers who were stronger batters: Ken Brett (94) and Hunter's teammate Blue Moon Odom (62).

Among 56 pitchers with debuts in the 1950s (and 500 PA),
Don Drysdale ranks number eight with OPS+ = 45.

Pennock is an even more embarassing choice - as he put up similar mediocre numbers to Hunter and gets his but kicked in terms of LQ on top of it.
I voted for Pennock, too.
He may have been elected partly because he was dying.

[jjpm74]

It'd be interesting to see this poll reset with Jim Rice added to the mix.

[STLCards2]

Ahem. Catfish Hunter was an outstanding batter, stronger than Drysdale by OPS+.
.


Yes, but Hunter had nearly half of the PA's that Drysdale did. Drysdale's bat had a much bigger impact on run creation than Hunter's. Maybe saying he was a "far greater hitter" was hyperbole - but he did have a lot more impact with his bat. Drysdale created 80 runs and Hunter about 50.

[leecemark]

--That was strictly due to the introduction of the DH that took the bat out of Hunter's hands the last third of his career.

[brett]

I went the opposite way....but it has to be either. You totally should have listed Aparicio though....he's in the four-some with Maranville. I wouldn't even begin to consider any of the other BBWAA choices as mistakes.

Although they'll soon be adding a fifth in Rice. :/

Rice is the worst. I voted for Hunter, but I'd take Hunter's '71-'75 over Rice's best 5 consecutive years, and outside of his top 5, Rice was a below average player.

[SABR Matt]

Jim Rice. Not listed on the poll so I did not vote.

[Calif_Eagle]

I voted for Maranville. Just as an observation, it appears there is little love on the Fever in general for players who make their name solely with their glovework. One often sees here the names Aparicio, Mazeroski, even Ozzie Smith along with Maranville named as not being legit HOF-ers. Im surprised that at this writing Pie Traynor has no votes at all.

My vote for Maranville was because (like Fuzzy Bear stated earlier on this thread) I just dont believe, despite his glove and longevity, that he was the type of player the Hall was founded intending to honor. I also think I recall reading years ago in Baseball Digest that like Pennock, the writers were influenced by Maranville's recent (recent to the next BBWAA HOF election) death. Dying close to an election shouldnt propel into a place that you hadnt been close to otherwise.

I could have easily voted for any one-inning closer, Eckersley or Sutter... neither belongs. In my view of things, if 1 inning closers are going in, pinch hitters deserve consideration also. Just a personal opinion that the one inning closer is far and away the most overrated role in baseball today.

[Calif_Eagle]

Rice is the worst. I voted for Hunter, but I'd take Hunter's '71-'75 over Rice's best 5 consecutive years, and...

**** outside of his top 5, Rice was a below average player.****

I have no opinion re: Rice. Rice "seemed like a HOF-er" during his career, and I seem to recall it was generally felt thats where he was going. Same applies to Hunter. If todays sabrmetricians want to deconstruct their numbers, and make a case that neither belongs, well... I have no strong feelings either way. In or Out... I have no dog in the fight. I just thought I would point out that the above closing argument against Rice is also true for Dizzy Dean and Sandy Koufax. Probably for Hack Wilson and Ralph Kiner. Its true for almost any relatively short career HOF-er. (Take away Rabbit Maranville or Bill Mazeroski's 5 best batting years and what do you have ? (Said tongue in cheek) :happy:

[STLCards2]

--That was strictly due to the introduction of the DH that took the bat out of Hunter's hands the last third of his career.

Of ouse, but I will not give him credit for something he didn't do. Drysdale did do it. The production is real, and it really affected his teams.

[brett]

I have no opinion re: Rice. Rice "seemed like a HOF-er" during his career, and I seem to recall it was generally felt thats where he was going. Same applies to Hunter. If todays sabrmetricians want to deconstruct their numbers, and make a case that neither belongs, well... I have no strong feelings either way. In or Out... I have no dog in the fight. I just thought I would point out that the above closing argument against Rice is also true for Dizzy Dean and Sandy Koufax. Probably for Hack Wilson and Ralph Kiner. Its true for almost any relatively short career HOF-er. (Take away Rabbit Maranville or Bill Mazeroski's 5 best batting years and what do you have ? (Said tongue in cheek) :happy:

Rice did "seem" like a hall of famer to me as well. The problem is not the short career. It is that he racked up total bases and RBI with few walks.

If he had walked 90 times a year and lost 10% of his counting numbers he'd be in for me.

[ol' aches and pains]

It's not Sutton. That much is clear to me. While Sutton was a compiler, he was a compiler of the absolute highest order. Did he have a HOF peak? Eh, it's close - depends on who you ask. But did he retire with HOF counting numbers? Absolutely. His 300 wins were achieved in much the same way as Eddie Murray's 500 home runs. He's not an inner-circle HOFer, not by a long shot, but he's deserving of the honor, unlike some of the other choices. My vote would go to Bruce Sutter. He wasn't significantly better than John Wetteland.

What in the world is "an inner-circle HOF'r"? I've been to the Hall of Fame, and trust me, there's no "inner circle". You're either in or you're not. That's how diluted the Hall has become, that we have to make artificial delineations between its members.

I voted for Ralph Kiner, who was a DH born too soon. Enos Slaughter used to say he could score from 3rd base on a pop-up to Kiner 20 feet behind the bag.

[whoisonit]

I voted for Ralph Kiner

RALPH KINER is NOT a HoF'er ????:laugh:laugh:laugh:laugh

[Brad Harris]

Of the inductions I followed as a contemporary, I had the most ire for Perez, primarily because of the line of "reasoning" employed by his supporters.

Sutter was a horrible choice with Gossage on the same ballot.

I voted for Pennock.

[ol' aches and pains]

RALPH KINER is NOT a HoF'er ????:laugh:laugh:laugh:laugh

:lookitup Er, yes he is actually.

[whoisonit]

:lookitup Er, yes he is actually.

"Er", you voted him as "Worst Induction".

[ol' aches and pains]

"Er", you voted him as "Worst Induction".

My point is, he was a one dimensional player. If he was playing in the present day, he'd be a DH. He was considered the worst defensive OF in the game during his career. Kind of an early Dave Kingman type.