Robert Horry [Archive] - Baseball Fever

Cougar

08-13-2009, 03:47 PM

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/horryro01.html

Robert Horry won seven rings in 16 seasons, with three different NBA franchises: 2 with Houston, 3 with Los Angeles, and 2 with San Antonio.

Horry himself was a complementary player, albeit an excellent one. He was a superb defender at either the 3 or the 4, ranking in the top 100 in both steals and blocked shots. Offensively, he was a three-point shot specialist, usually lurking about beyond the arc. (This made him a good fit on teams with dominant big men like Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, and Tim Duncan; he gave them space in the lane.) His regular season offensive statistics are very ordinary: His career averages are 7.2 points, 4.9 rebounds and 2.2 assists per game.

Yet, Horry is considered by some to be a HOF candidate. Why? Because he was a significant part of 7 world championship teams, and notably raised his game during the playoffs. He holds a number of playoff records. Finally, he made a number of dramatic game-winning shots. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Horry for more details.)

Why am I posting this on a baseball site? (As you asked yourselves three paragraphs ago.)

Are there Robert Horry candidates in baseball? And what do you think of this non-traditional path to Springfield/Cooperstown?

I'll throw a couple out there.

Don Baylor: Baylor had a long, HOVG career absent any championships, getting 2135 hits and 338 home runs, and winning an MVP in 1979 (which should have gone to Bobby Grich or perhaps Fred Lynn, but never mind). However, he was noted not just for his offensive skills (er, and not at all for his defense), but for his leadership capabilities.

In his final three seasons, he was the clubhouse leader for three consecutive AL pennant winners: Boston in 1986, Minnesota in 1987, and Oakland in 1988. Only on Boston did he play a meaningful part on the field, hitting 31 HR in 160 games. But each team cited his inspiration and character in guiding their team to victory. He was long considered an unofficial team captain on any team he played for, going back to his tenure with California. Baylor himself credited his time playing with Frank Robinson under Earl Weaver as a very young man.

Baylor later managed the Rockies and the Cubs; his managerial resume was, um, mixed, but he did lead the Rockies to the first NL Wild Card in 1995.

Do Baylor's intangible contributions add enough ballast to his above average on-field career to make him a worthy HOFer? Do they add any ballast at all?

Lonnie Smith:

He's the guy that got me thinking about this. Smith played for WS winners in Philadelphia (1980), St. Louis (1982), and Kansas City: three in six years. He also played for the 1991 Braves, who lost to the Twins in seven games, and the 1992 Braves, who lost to the Blue Jays in six. In the 1991 series he hit home runs in three straight games (3, 4, 5), but in Game 7 famously failed to score from first on a double in the 8th inning; the Braves eventually lost 1-0 in 10 innings.

Smith was a much better offensive player than is generally remembered. He led the NL in runs in 1982 and OBP in 1989. In 1982 he finished second in the NL MVP balloting behind Dale Murphy; he had 8 first place votes to Murphy's 14 (and Bruce Sutter's 2). His career line was .288/.371/.420/.792, for a 118 OPS+ (underweighted for OBP). He stole 370 bases at a 73% rate. The guy could play.

Now, the negatives: His career was short: only 1488 hits. His career was short in no small part because he snorted everything but the foul lines for the first half of his career. His off-field activities undoubtedly played a part in the choice of the Phillies and Cardinals to trade him and the Royals to let him go. (He also got caught up in the collusion of the 1987 free agency period, although the drug abuse gave teams a good excuse in his case). He served a drug suspension in 1983, losing time during a prime season. When Kansas City chose not to resign him (again) after 1987, he deliriously plotted to kill KC's general manager John Schuerholz. The only word to describe his left field defense is cringeworthy, and he was notoriously prone to baserunning mistakes as well.

I cannot support Lonnie Smith for the Hall of Fame. But, I wonder, could I support a player like Lonnie Smith for the Hall, without the glaring deficiencies Smith struggled with? What would such a player look like, if he might hypothetically exist?

mwiggins

08-13-2009, 04:08 PM

Allie Reynolds? Though he certainly wasn't as marginal a regular season player that Horry was.

STLCards2

08-13-2009, 04:22 PM

I'll use postseason to push borderline guys in or keep borderline guys out - but I will not use postseason as the majority issue in baseball.

It is different in football, especially. Football is a lot about peak and/or playoffs - even with very little career success. If you have a handful of dominating years or an exceptional postseason record, you are set. If you have both (Kurt Warner) it is an easy selection. That doesn't mean stat accumulators won't get in, but it is less likely.

Basketball does focus more on postseason than others, which is why M.J. is cited as the greatest ever, and Russell is labeled as the "greatest team player ever." I am sure if Wilt had Cousy, Havelckeck, Jones, Jones, and Heinrich on his teams every year, it would be him with 11 championships and Russel with two. As great as Jordan was, he didn't face extremely stiff competition in the Eastern Conference, and never faced great teams in the finals until the Jazz teams challenged them a few times. I am sure Robertson could have won 5-6 Championships on stacked teams in weaker conferences too. Not taking anything away from Jordan, who probably is one of the 2-3 best ever - but is it really because he had more championships than Robertson or Wilt? If Jordan is #1 or #2 it is more because of his dominance on both sides of the ball.

In baseball, it is pretty rare to hear, "Williams, Cobb and Bonds aren't that good because they didn't win championships." Yet, people will put Elway ahead of Marino in a second (even though Elway almost always had better teams around him), and they will put Duncan ahead of Barkley or Malone without even considering the numbers.

Hockey is much more like baseball - get 1,000 point or get 300 wins, or score 500 goals and you're in - regardless of how easy it was to score 500 in your era. The Hockey HOF is majorly overrepresented.

Now that i have "dessrespected" every iconic national sports hero in Amercia...:hide:

Cougar

08-13-2009, 04:31 PM

Allie Reynolds? Though he certainly wasn't as marginal a regular season player that Horry was.

I was more thinking of guys who were on winners on multiple franchises.

That said, Allie Reynolds is a very good example of the "old" model of the "winner" HOF candidate.

Many guys like Allie Reynolds -- secondary stars on dynasties -- have been tapped pretty consistently over the years. Reynolds himself has a lot of support out there, albeit not enough to be enshrined in all likelihood. But these guys were closely associated with one team.

In the age of free agency virtually everyone changes teams two or three times. Unless you're Robin Yount or George Brett or somebody like that (Schmidt, Biggio & Bagwell, Jeter & Rivera? Albert Pujols?), you're going to be swapped, or permitted to test the free agent market, or DFA'ed, etc. The WS winner that keeps its core together for more than a year or two is very rare. (Exceptions are the Yankees and Red Sox, the couple of teams with the money to do it -- and even they've had notable turnover.)

I'm wondering if the "new", itinerant model, including Baylor, Smith, and no doubt some other guys I can't think of, represent a possible new HOF path.

David Cone might be a pitching example...

Los Bravos

08-13-2009, 04:31 PM

STLCards2

08-13-2009, 04:35 PM

Key membership on a perennial championship team, or a career that involves key membership on multiple championship level teams, should get you into the conversation.

I love Groove and Skates but I wouldn't vote for either man to get into the Hall.

Steve Kerr hit a whole lot of big shots for 3 championship teams, but nobody seriously would consider him a HOFer. His big shots could easily be replaced by any sharp-shooting 3-point guy. Jordan's 32 ppg with lock-down defense couldn't, nor could Pippens' 20-8-8 with 3 steals. Nor could Rodman'd 17 boards, 2 blocks and stiffeling defense vs. the other team's PF. We need to define "key membership."

Los Bravos

08-13-2009, 04:35 PM

I'm wondering if the "new", itinerant model, including Baylor, Smith, and no doubt some other guys I can't think of, represent a possible new HOF path.Moises Alou is a good example of the type. Moved a lot but always seemed to win wherever he went and was always a main reason for his team's success.

STLCards2

08-13-2009, 04:38 PM

Moises Alou is a good example of the type. Moved a lot but always seemed to win wherever he went and was always a main reason for his team's success.

But would those team have been any worse off or less successful if they got a similar player instead of Alou?

538280

08-13-2009, 04:38 PM

The playoffs should be a bigger factor in basketball as there are far more playoff games in comparison to the regular season. Horry played 1107 regular season games and 244 playoff games-18% of his total games were in the playoffs. Because more teams make the playoffs playoff play should hold more weight than in baseball which is much more regular season based. But I still wouldn't say Horry was a HOF player, he was an excellent complimentary piece but he wasn't a player who could create on his own and a basektball HOFer should be able to do this.

BTW, I've visited the Basketball HOF many times, it's very fun. It's about 10-15 minutes from where I live. It would be cool to see Jordan go in though I suspect I'll be busy at that time.

Cougar

08-13-2009, 04:38 PM

I'll use postseason to push borderline guys in or keep borderline guys out - but I will not use postseason as the majority issue in baseball.

I'm not sure I'm proposing that...Pennants are (setting aside the lower playoff rounds) decided in the regular season.

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with you.

I'm not espousing Baylor or Smith for Cooperstown...I think I'm just putting them out there as examples. There may be a better example out there...Cone, for one, has a far better case than either Groove or Skates. This is more a discussion topic than an argument.

STLCards2

08-13-2009, 04:40 PM

STLCards2

08-13-2009, 04:41 PM

I'm not sure I'm proposing that...Pennants are (setting aside the lower playoff rounds) decided in the regular season.

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with you.

I'm not espousing Baylor or Smith for Cooperstown...I think I'm just putting them out there as examples. There may be a better example out there...Cone, for one, has a far better case than either Groove or Skates. This is more a discussion topic than an argument.

When comparing Cone to guys like Faber, Willis, Lemon, Wynn, Clarkson, and others who most people have no problem being in the hOF, he stacks up very favorablt or better. I am not sure I can keep Cone out of my HOF anyway.

Cougar

08-13-2009, 04:42 PM

Cougar

08-13-2009, 04:44 PM

But would those team have been any worse off or less successful if they got a similar player instead of Alou?

A .300 hitter with power? Maybe not, but those don't grow on trees.

I'm not sure Alou has that "talisman" component that the others do, though. Obviously this is an awfully subjective, abstract and ethereal thing...

Los Bravos

08-13-2009, 04:46 PM

Steve Kerr hit a whole lot of big shots for 3 championship teams, but nobody seriously would consider him a HOFer.Especially since Craig Hodges and John Paxson did that same one dimensional job before he came along.

Parenthetically, I really despise those teams. Thay soured me on the NBA and I'm still recovering my interest.We need to define "key membership."At the risk of annoying CCN with an allusion to another non-baseball sport, guys like Jim Marshall or Bob Kuchenberg, who were mainstays in championship level NFL teams for years are who I'm thinking of. The main argument used against them is that there are too many other guys from those teams already in. There are Packers from the 60's (Dave Robinson, chiefly) and Steelers (and Raiders) from the '70's in that same boat.

For baseball, I would mention George Foster, Hal McRae, Al Oliver...guys who were strongly contributing regulars for teams that won or regularly contended over a long stretch of time. I'm not necessarily advocating any of those guys (I would have to consider each of them individually), but they shouldn't be either dismissed out of hand or judged solely by their cold stats on the page. Context is important, at least to me.

STLCards2

08-13-2009, 04:50 PM

A .300 hitter with power? Maybe not, but those don't grow on trees.

I'm not sure Alou has that "talisman" component that the others do, though. Obviously this is an awfully subjective, abstract and ethereal thing...

Right, but not every good hitter with power in this era is getting in the HOF. The question is, was Alou just in the right place at the right time, or did he do more than say a Luis Gonzales or a Brian Giles (just examples) that seems to be the debatable part.

STLCards2

08-13-2009, 04:53 PM

For baseball, I would mention George Foster, Hal McRae, Al Oliver...guys who were strongly contributing regulars for teams that won or regularly contended over a long stretch of time. I'm not necessarily advocating any of those guys (I would have to consider each of them individually), but they shouldn't be either dismissed out of hand or judged solely by their cold stats on the page. Context is important, at least to me.

I would agree with that- but I want to see dynamic postseaosn play (Lou Brock, for example, who would be short of the HOF without it) from these guys to be HOFers. Just being pretty darn good on teams with a bunch of great players isn't enough for me. Those guys could be replaced by other good players without missing a step.

Los Bravos

08-13-2009, 04:54 PM

But would those team have been any worse off or less successful if they got a similar player instead of Alou?He was a man who was held in fairly high regard by his teammates, wherever he went. I don't discount that. I know it's not something that's highly valued by a lot of the sabermetric community because it's largely ephemeral and unquantifiable, but team chemistry is important. I know that the Yankees and A's won with contentious lineups in the '70's, but that act has a very finite shelf life.

People would consider it an upgrade on paper if he had been replaced with, say, Jeff Kent, but as much as Kent would bring to the raw stat sheet, if many of the players wanted to cuff him upside the head, that might make the last little bit of difference between winning and losing.

mwiggins

08-13-2009, 04:55 PM

I was more thinking of guys who were on winners on multiple franchises.

That said, Allie Reynolds is a very good example of the "old" model of the "winner" HOF candidate.

Many guys like Allie Reynolds -- secondary stars on dynasties -- have been tapped pretty consistently over the years. Reynolds himself has a lot of support out there, albeit not enough to be enshrined in all likelihood. But these guys were closely associated with one team.

In the age of free agency virtually everyone changes teams two or three times. Unless you're Robin Yount or George Brett or somebody like that (Schmidt, Biggio & Bagwell, Jeter & Rivera? Albert Pujols?), you're going to be swapped, or permitted to test the free agent market, or DFA'ed, etc. The WS winner that keeps its core together for more than a year or two is very rare. (Exceptions are the Yankees and Red Sox, the couple of teams with the money to do it -- and even they've had notable turnover.)

I'm wondering if the "new", itinerant model, including Baylor, Smith, and no doubt some other guys I can't think of, represent a possible new HOF path.

David Cone might be a pitching example...

I was thinking more in terms of Reynods being a guy who wasn't a HoFer, in terms of his regular season stats, but win a lot of titles and consistnely stepped up his game in the post-season.

Maybe Orlando Hernandez? 4 World Titles with 2 different teams, and he was much better in the post-season than he was in the regular season.

Or how 'bout Paul O'Neill? Won a title in Cincy and won 4 in NY. Though he wasn't really a dominant post season performer.

Or if you want to go back further, how about Wally Schang. Won 3 titles, and 6 pennants, with 3 different teams. And in each World Series win, he was a key part of the victory.

1913 - Hits .357, drives in 7 runs, and posts the highest OPS of any of the A's hitters.
1918 - Drives in the the Sox first run in a 2-1 win in Game 3. In game 4, he leads off the bottom of the 8th with a pinch hit single, goes to 2nd on a passed ball, and then scores the go ahead run in a 3-2 Boston win.
1923 - Starts all 6 games, hitting .318. Starts the Yanks 5 run rally in the clinching game 6 in the top of the 8th inning with a base hit to left.

Cougar

08-13-2009, 05:01 PM

Alou's remembered for the wrong things.

From my perspective, I remember him getting hurt a LOT, being the guy standing under the ball Steve Bartman snatched, and for idiosyncratic personal hygiene. I also remember he could seriously rake, of course.

I forgot, until I looked him up, that he was on the '97 Marlins...I think of Sheffield, Conine, Bonilla, Devon White, Kevin Brown, Robb Nen from that team before I remember Alou. I also forgot he was on the Giants for a couple years batting behind Bonds.

I remember Alou better from the cursed '94 Expos and the millennial Astro teams, and since I'm a Met fan I remember his last seasons there, including the rehab assignment in Binghamton where, after sitting out like 8 weeks, he hurt himself running to first base in his first AB...he wasn't even running hard; it was mortifying.

Los Bravos

08-13-2009, 05:03 PM

I would agree with that- but I want to see dynamic postseaosn play (Lou Brock, for example, who would be short of the HOF without it) from these guys to be HOFers. Just being pretty darn good on teams with a bunch of great players isn't enough for me. Those guys could be replaced by other good players without missing a step.I just don't see it being that simple. That's one reason the whole idea of "replacement level" players seems so squirrely to me. McRae (and Amos Otis, who had a similar background) brought a very aggressive NLish attitude ot a young team on the cusp of developing into a powerhouse. He was exactly the right guy to take Brett and Frank White to the next level.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the latter option there in this thread. Having a great postseason resumé is it's own argument, seperate from what I'm advocating, which is that anyone who is a regular contributor to a championship level team over an extended period of time (or, to use the Alou paradigm, is a member of winning teams wherever he goes), should get a foot in the door of the discussion, at least. From there, it's up to them to have a case made. Most probably won't, but they deserve a good hearing on that basis, at least in my scheme of things.

STLCards2

08-13-2009, 05:07 PM

I just don't see it being that simple. That's one reason the whole idea of "replacement level" players seems so squirrely to me. McRae (and Amos Otis, who had a similar background) brought a very aggressive NLish attitude ot a young team on the cusp of developing into a powerhouse. He was exactly the right guy to take Brett and Frank White to the next level.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the latter option there in this thread. Having a great postseason resumé is it's own argument, seperate from what I'm advocating, which is that anyone who is a regular contributor to a championship level team over an extended period of time (or, to use the Alou paradigm, is a member of winning teams wherever he goes), should get a foot in the door of the discussion, at least. From there, it's up to them to have a case made. Most probably won't, but they deserve a good hearing on that basis, at least in my scheme of things.

I see what you are saying, but some guys are just in the right place at the right time (see Lonnie Smith). It is hard to know which came first.

Fuzzy Bear

08-13-2009, 05:11 PM

The Pro Football HOF in Canton has two interesting picks: Paul Hornung and Joe Namath.

If Namath were a baseball player, he would be a Definition D HOFer, based on peak value. Most guys who do in baseball what Namath did in football are NOT in the HOF, but Namath went into Canton without much debate. Namath would be analagous to, say, Rocky Colavito or Frank Howard making the HOF. Allie Reynolds would be, perhaps, an even better "Joe Namath of Baseball". The difference between Reynolds and Namath is that Namath was famous from day one of his career, while Reynolds' fame derived solely from being part of a famous (and successful) team.

Hornung isn't even up to Namath's level. Putting Hornung in Canton is the moral equivilent of putting Gil McDougald in Cooperstown. Now McDougald was a fine multi-position regular, much better than he is remembered, but there is simply no precedent for putting a guy like McDougald in the HOF. Hornung was like McDougald; his stats weren't eye-popping, but he was versatile, played on famous teams, and, as Namath, was famous from the beginning of his career.

Getting enshrined in Canton is sometimes a matter of having fame to begin with. There are some here who hold to that line of thinking; the idea that it's ridiculous to consider a HOF candidate if he isn't really famous to begin with. That's what, to me, is different about Cooperstown. Cooperstown doesn't RATIFY existing fame; it BESTOWS fame and PRESERVES fame on the enshrinee. The relationship between fame and enshrinement in baseball is different than in football and basketball.

This is, in no small measure, because of the different nature of baseball. Football and Basketball are faster moving sports, which are more spectacular; displays of athleticism often elevate guys who are athletic (Bob Hayes) over guys who were more complete football players who did more for their teams to win. Everyone remembers Bob Hayes, but Charlie Joiner seems to be forgotten, yet Hayes was NOT a good pattern runner, and he didn't always have the best hands.

Los Bravos

08-13-2009, 06:00 PM

I was a Hayes skeptic until I read that he still holds the Cowboys' record for career receiving TDs. That convinced me.

Having said that, give me Charlie Joiner (or Nat Moore, or Art Monk) any day. I want a guy who can run patterns and catch the ball.

I've always wondered if Terry Pendleton ragged Lonnie (and Leibrandt, for that matter) over the '85 Series. Also, having been on the bad end of it's effects twice in October, I'm betting that the only man alive who is more ready than me to see the Metrodome reduced to a smoking pile of rubble is Terry Pendleton.

STLCards2

08-13-2009, 06:07 PM

mwiggins

08-13-2009, 07:31 PM

I was a Hayes skeptic until I read that he still holds the Cowboys' record for career receiving TDs. That convinced me.

Having said that, give me Charlie Joiner (or Nat Moore, or Art Monk) any day. I want a guy who can run patterns and catch the ball.

There's lot of players like that, though certainly not at the level of Monk or Joiner. Players who can break a game open from any point on the field, and change how a team defends you, those guys are special.

In baseball terms, Joiner was an Al Kaline while Hayes was a Harmon Killebrew.

SavoyBG

08-13-2009, 09:02 PM

In the NBA a team may play 25 games in the post season in one year, which is almost 1/3 as many games as they play in the regular season. In baseball up until 1969 the most post season games that a team could play was 7, or less than 5% as many as they played during the regular season. Even now, a team can only play a maximum of of 19 post season games in a year. It's just not as significant as it is in basketball or hockey. Those other sports allow a ton of teams into the post season every year. Baseball, even now, only allows 8 out of 30 teams into the post season. That's just 27%.

Los Bravos

08-14-2009, 01:37 AM

Don't forget about me - that place screwed up both of my favorite teams!:laugh

When the big day is announced, I'll see if I can line up TP and Todd Worrell, call you, and we'll all go up and eat popcorn and laugh while getting dirty looks from the locals.

Another guy who falls under this rubric is David Justice. Granted, he had some luck on his side to arrive in Atlanta and find Smoltz, Glavine, Ron Gant and Steve Avery there or on the immediate horizon, but the Indians and Yankees each wanted him for his October experience and performance.

Captain Cold Nose

08-14-2009, 04:39 AM

Especially since Craig Hodges and John Paxson did that same one dimensional job before he came along.

Parenthetically, I really despise those teams. Thay soured me on the NBA and I'm still recovering my interest.At the risk of annoying CCN with an allusion to another non-baseball sport, guys like Jim Marshall or Bob Kuchenberg, who were mainstays in championship level NFL teams for years are who I'm thinking of. The main argument used against them is that there are too many other guys from those teams already in. There are Packers from the 60's (Dave Robinson, chiefly) and Steelers (and Raiders) from the '70's in that same boat.

For baseball, I would mention George Foster, Hal McRae, Al Oliver...guys who were strongly contributing regulars for teams that won or regularly contended over a long stretch of time. I'm not necessarily advocating any of those guys (I would have to consider each of them individually), but they shouldn't be either dismissed out of hand or judged solely by their cold stats on the page. Context is important, at least to me.

It's not so much the other sports mention as it is the mention of Dave Robinson. :grouchy

There probably are people out there who think a guy like David Eckstein has a HOF argument. Likely not here, but I'm sure some blogger will take it upon himself ala the Sklar Brothers semi-serious joke about Jose Oquendo.

I don't think a player's chances should suffer because of more famous teammates. Gil Hodges advocates are quick to point out that's a reason he hasn't made it. But Tony Perez rode the more famous player wave toward RBIs and a clutch tag and made it. I won't even go there about certain Yankee HOFers.

Fuzzy Bear

08-14-2009, 09:25 AM

It's not so much the other sports mention as it is the mention of Dave Robinson. :grouchy

There probably are people out there who think a guy like David Eckstein has a HOF argument. Likely not here, but I'm sure some blogger will take it upon himself ala the Sklar Brothers semi-serious joke about Jose Oquendo.

I don't think a player's chances should suffer because of more famous teammates. Gil Hodges advocates are quick to point out that's a reason he hasn't made it. But Tony Perez rode the more famous player wave toward RBIs and a clutch tag and made it. I won't even go there about certain Yankee HOFers.

The idea that being a Yankee is some kind of magic ticket to Cooperstown is overblown.

It is true that the Yankees of the Ruth era are somewhat over-honored. Herb Pennock, Waite Hoyt, Earle Combs, and Tony Lazzeri are not the top of the HOF to be sure. Still, all of them are, at a minimum, gray area HOFers; none of them are at the level of Frankie Frisch Cabal mistakes, with the possible exception of Combs (who was elected by the Frisch VC).

On the other hand, the Yankees of the 1947-64 era were the most dominant franchise in the history of sports, bar none. During that period, the Yankees won 15 AL pennants and 10 World Championships in 18 seasons. These Yankee teams were the most dominant of all YANKEE teams; it was the post-WWII Yankees that created the conception of Yankee invincibility. I can't think of a team in any sport that was so dominant.

And yet, how many HOFers are from the postwar Yankees? DiMaggio, Mantle, Berra, and Ford, yes, but they would be HOFers in any era. Who else? No one, that's who. And I'm not advocating for anyone else. But if the "Yankee" label evoked such Cooperstown magic, Roger Maris would be in the HOF already. Bobby Richardson would have been a viable (albeit undeserving) candidate in the Bill Mazeroski tradition. Elston Howard would be in already, perhaps in the semi-Monte Irvin tradition. If we want to go further along, and include the Reggie-era Yankees, than a "Yankee Automatic" mentality would have Reggie joined by Ron Guidry, Thurman Munson, and Graig Nettles. (Goose Gossage is in there, but look how long it took, and notice that Sutter went in first.)

What is astonishing to me is that the Yankees won 19 pennants and 12 World Championships in 35 years (1947-81), yet can only boast six HOFers from that era. The Big Red Machine boasts four HOFers. The 1960s Cardinals boast Musial (who didn't play on their pennant winners), Gibson, Brock, and Carlton (who started the 1969 ASG). The late 1960s O's boast Frank Robinson, Brooks Robinson, Jim Palmer. The 1950s Dodgers can boast Robinson, Snyder, Campanella, and Reese; if you extend this through 1966, you can include Drysdale and Koufax. I fail to understand how folks can say that the HOF election process has been unfairly biased in favor of Yankees.

Brad Harris

08-14-2009, 11:22 AM

The Robert Horry's of the world are to be congratulated, even admired, but they are not to be honored amongst the sport's greatest players in its shrine of eternals, regardless of how often they were a compliment to greater players on championship teams. Robert Horry: great trivia, terrible Hall candidate.

Captain Cold Nose

08-14-2009, 11:26 AM

The idea that being a Yankee is some kind of magic ticket to Cooperstown is overblown.

It is true that the Yankees of the Ruth era are somewhat over-honored. Herb Pennock, Waite Hoyt, Earle Combs, and Tony Lazzeri are not the top of the HOF to be sure. Still, all of them are, at a minimum, gray area HOFers; none of them are at the level of Frankie Frisch Cabal mistakes, with the possible exception of Combs (who was elected by the Frisch VC).

On the other hand, the Yankees of the 1947-64 era were the most dominant franchise in the history of sports, bar none. During that period, the Yankees won 15 AL pennants and 10 World Championships in 18 seasons. These Yankee teams were the most dominant of all YANKEE teams; it was the post-WWII Yankees that created the conception of Yankee invincibility. I can't think of a team in any sport that was so dominant.

And yet, how many HOFers are from the postwar Yankees? DiMaggio, Mantle, Berra, and Ford, yes, but they would be HOFers in any era. Who else? No one, that's who. And I'm not advocating for anyone else. But if the "Yankee" label evoked such Cooperstown magic, Roger Maris would be in the HOF already. Bobby Richardson would have been a viable (albeit undeserving) candidate in the Bill Mazeroski tradition. Elston Howard would be in already, perhaps in the semi-Monte Irvin tradition. If we want to go further along, and include the Reggie-era Yankees, than a "Yankee Automatic" mentality would have Reggie joined by Ron Guidry, Thurman Munson, and Graig Nettles. (Goose Gossage is in there, but look how long it took, and notice that Sutter went in first.)

What is astonishing to me is that the Yankees won 19 pennants and 12 World Championships in 35 years (1947-81), yet can only boast six HOFers from that era. The Big Red Machine boasts four HOFers. The 1960s Cardinals boast Musial (who didn't play on their pennant winners), Gibson, Brock, and Carlton (who started the 1969 ASG). The late 1960s O's boast Frank Robinson, Brooks Robinson, Jim Palmer. The 1950s Dodgers can boast Robinson, Snyder, Campanella, and Reese; if you extend this through 1966, you can include Drysdale and Koufax. I fail to understand how folks can say that the HOF election process has been unfairly biased in favor of Yankees.

In my defense, I said certain Yankees, I didn't say the Yankees were overrepresented. There was no need for the history lesson, Fuzzy.

SavoyBG

08-14-2009, 11:40 AM

On the other hand, the Yankees of the 1947-64 era were the most dominant franchise in the history of sports, bar none. During that period, the Yankees won 15 AL pennants and 10 World Championships in 18 seasons. These Yankee teams were the most dominant of all YANKEE teams; it was the post-WWII Yankees that created the conception of Yankee invincibility. I can't think of a team in any sport that was so dominant.

And yet, how many HOFers are from the postwar Yankees? DiMaggio, Mantle, Berra, and Ford, yes, but they would be HOFers in any era. Who else? No one, that's who.

You forgot Rizzuto.

Brad Harris

08-14-2009, 11:57 AM

You forgot Rizzuto.

Throw Stengel and Weiss in there also. :nod:

Cougar

08-14-2009, 12:51 PM

Someone mentioned Herb Pennock...Pennock may be a Robert Horry candidate.

The hook with Horry is not just that he won championships with three different teams, but that he did it with three dynasties: The Rockets of the Jordan interregnum, the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, and the Duncan/Popovich Spurs.

Pennock broke in with Mack's $100,000 infield A's teams, then went to the great Red Sox squads of the WWI era, and then found his way to Babe Ruth's Yankees. His stats are good but not obviously great, but his association with these elite squads -- and the 240 wins they helped him pile up -- must have pushed him over the top. (Staying in baseball as an executive did too.)

What would Pennock's Hall case be if he split his career between the Browns in the teens, the Phillies in the 20's, and the Senators in the 30's?

David Justice is also an interesting case...he was sort of universally declared an "almost"; would he have had the reputation he had starting his career with the Brewers, then finishing up with the Royals and Pirates?

mwiggins

08-14-2009, 01:17 PM

Pennock was really only a key member of 2 World Champion's - both the Ruth Yankees. He pitched 3 innings for the A's in the Series, and missed the Sox title in 1918 due to WW1.

DoubleX

08-14-2009, 01:34 PM

Many guys like Allie Reynolds -- secondary stars on dynasties -- have been tapped pretty consistently over the years. Reynolds himself has a lot of support out there, albeit not enough to be enshrined in all likelihood.

I believe Reynolds came just 1 vote away on this year's VC from being elected.

Cougar

08-14-2009, 01:38 PM

I believe Reynolds came just 1 vote away on this year's VC from being elected.

That's my recollection too.

Cougar

08-14-2009, 01:45 PM

Pennock was really only a key member of 2 World Champion's - both the Ruth Yankees. He pitched 3 innings for the A's in the Series, and missed the Sox title in 1918 due to WW1.

True, although I want to reiterate again -- I'm not talking about postseason play, per se; I'm talking about being an integral part of dynasties.

That said, one can really only call Pennock integral to the Yankee dynasty; he was tertiary at best to the A's and Red Sox teams he won with.

CircleChange11

08-14-2009, 02:03 PM

There probably are people out there who think a guy like David Eckstein has a HOF argument.

That's what name popped into my mind as a "good luck charm" (Scott Spezio too), but those guys are just good/role players that did well in a small sample.

Nothing Hall of Fame about them.

The idea that being a Yankee is some kind of magic ticket to Cooperstown is overblown.

The market helps tremendously. Johnny Damon in KC is David DeJesus. Who knows how Derek Jeter's career goes if he's in Milwaukee or Seattle.

It's not so much about the Yankee's, but the market, the exposure, the natural sports resources.

While not attributing all of the success to the market, one has to at least, ackwoledge the value of the exposure. When the KNicks are bad, everyone knows about it because of the media/market/attention, when the Kings are bad, nobody notices.

People everyone across the country are turned into NY sports because that's what we get on the news. Good or Bad, the NY sports teams get a lot of attention. That's where the market is.

mwiggins

08-14-2009, 02:20 PM

True, although I want to reiterate again -- I'm not talking about postseason play, per se; I'm talking about being an integral part of dynasties.

That said, one can really only call Pennock integral to the Yankee dynasty; he was tertiary at best to the A's and Red Sox teams he won with.

That's where I think the Horry comparison breaks down. He wasn't an integral part of dynasties, he was a role player on a number of dynasties who was a consistently very good post-season perfomer who made a number of clutch plays in the post-season.

Pennock, by comparision, was a star on those Yankees teams. He was an MVP candidate 3 times (twice in the top 5) and had numerous appearances in the league leader boards. Horry was never even an All-Star, much less being a factor for the MVP.

Horry was more of a Bucky Dent.

Cougar

08-14-2009, 02:51 PM

That's where I think the Horry comparison breaks down. He wasn't an integral part of dynasties, he was a role player on a number of dynasties who was a consistently very good post-season perfomer who made a number of clutch plays in the post-season.

Pennock, by comparision, was a star on those Yankees teams. He was an MVP candidate 3 times (twice in the top 5) and had numerous appearances in the league leader boards. Horry was never even an All-Star, much less being a factor for the MVP.

Horry was more of a Bucky Dent.

Bucky Dent came in 2nd in the ROY vote in 1974, was a three time All-Star, won the 1978 WS MVP, earned a pungent middle name from Greater New England, and made a movie with the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders.

Horry was a great defensive forward with three-point shooting range. One of the differences between baseball and basketball is that much in basketball is hard to quantify. Horry didn't do much on offense because he expended his energy on the defensive end of the floor, and just hung around the arc as a kickout option for penetrating guards or post-up centers.

Pennock was a very good pitcher for a long time that played for many, many winning teams and built up a lot of gray ink (and a little black ink).

Dent was a good shortstop for a middling amount of time who had a great hot streak in the 1978 postseason (including the one-game playoff).

Horry was a very good forward for a long time (16 seasons is a very long NBA career), albeit the type of player (defensive specialist) that doesn't make All-Star teams. He won titles in 7 of his 16 seasons, during which he posted a number of exceptional performances in the postseason, including sinking several dramatic game-winning shots.

CircleChange11

08-14-2009, 02:52 PM

Also, a key difference in basketball is that the coach can "design" who is going to be in the 'clutch moment', wheras baseball, you have the preset batting order.

For the situation to be analogous, Robert Horry would be a really good "pinch hitter or platoon player", that the coach put in as a PH at the end of thegame and he came through with big/gw hits 5 or 6 times.

Cougar

08-14-2009, 02:56 PM

Many, if not most, of the plays a basketball coach designs are abandoned after the inbounds pass. Much depends on what the defense does in response.

Opportunities are distributed unevenly in all sports, but some make more of the opportunities they have than others.

mwiggins

08-14-2009, 03:03 PM

I think you're overrating Horry somewhat. He was a good defender, and big time clutch shooter, but it's a stretch to call him a "great" defender. He wasn't Rodman or Garnett or Artest.

Despite playing on contending teams pretty much his whole career, and being a fairly well known player his whole career, he never once made the 1st or 2nd All-Defensive Team.

Fuzzy Bear

08-14-2009, 03:15 PM

You forgot Rizzuto.

I did, didn't I. Rizzuto is the only really poor pick of the postwar Yankees, and his selection came about not so much because of his status as a Yankee, but because of (A) his position as a broadcaster and (B) the earlier selection of Pee Wee Reese to the HOF, which breathed life into what had been a pretty dead HOF candidacy with the "If Pee Wee, then the Scooter!" argument (which made sense to many folks who failed to look at the HUGE difference in power between Reese and Rizzuto).

In response to Captain Cold Nose: I think the history lesson IS needed because there is an assumption on the part of many (although, to be fair, not on the part of the more knowledgeable in this forum) that the HOF is packed with Yankees, and that being a prominent Yankee boosts one's HOF chances. That's simply not the case. Here's a list of Yankees NOT in the HOF that one would assume would be viable HOF candidates if there were a major pro-Yankee bias:

Tommy John
Thurman Munson
Graig Nettles
Ron Guidry
Willie Randolph
Roger Maris
Elston Howard
Sparky Lyle
Bobby Richardson
Allie Reynolds
Urban Shocker
Bob Shawkey
Bob Meusel

Only the top 7 on that list even merit discussion, and only the top 4 are, IMO, truly viable candidates. Nonetheless, none of these guys would be the worst player in the HOF. Indeed, if there were such a bias in favor of ex-Yankees, not only would a number of these guys be in the HOF, but it would be very likely that a Yankee was the worst player in the HOF.

CircleChange11

08-14-2009, 03:32 PM

Many, if not most, of the plays a basketball coach designs are abandoned after the inbounds pass. Much depends on what the defense does in response.

Perhaps, but not in Horry's situation. He was going to stand behind the 3-point line regardless, and if other options were not available it was coming to him. Teams were not trying to "stop him".

What I am saying is that the coach can tell the star, "If XYZ doesn't happen Big Shot Bob will be in the corner", and that's whathappenned. They didn't sit down and design a play specifically for Horry to take the last shot.

Most inbounds plays have 'contingency plans' ... that have contingency plans" ... we call them 2nd and 3rd options. :D

Horry's coach knew that [1] either the star was going to have a clear look at an easier basket or [2] Horry would be somewhat open in the corner. That's more control than a baseball manger has. That's all I was essentially getting at.

I think one of Horry's game winners was on a long rebound that came right to him and nobody was around.

Los Bravos

08-14-2009, 11:14 PM

I think you're overrating Horry somewhat. He was a good defender, and big time clutch shooter, but it's a stretch to call him a "great" defender. He wasn't Rodman or Garnett or Artest.Bobby Jones. His absence from the Springfield Hall is a travishamockery of the worst sort.I think one of Horry's game winners was on a long rebound that came right to him and nobody was around.:hissyfit: I saw the ball hit the rim, go careening out and I thought "That's it!' Then...the camera panned to the left and there was Horry, looking like he had the ball on a string, with no one in his vicinity. I didn't even need to see him take the shot. I knew it was going in.

I used to really like him, but he lost every bit of my regard with that premeditated cheap shot on Nash in the playoffs a couple of years ago. If he were ever a candidate that came close, that one incident might (and should) cost him a couple of votes.Bucky Dent came in 2nd in the ROY vote in 1974, was a three time All-Star, won the 1978 WS MVP, earned a pungent middle name from Greater New England, and made a movie with the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders.Which was teh awesome :laugh
Tommy John
Thurman Munson
Graig Nettles
Ron Guidry
Willie Randolph
Roger Maris
Elston Howard
Sparky Lyle
Bobby Richardson
Allie Reynolds
Urban Shocker
Bob Shawkey
Bob Meusel

Only the top 7 on that list even merit discussion, and only the top 4 are, IMO, truly viable candidates.I would vote for the top 3 and I despised Munson and Nettles when they played.

Cougar

08-15-2009, 03:50 AM

Top scores! I'd assumed Bobby Jones was in already. He was awesome!

I'm more forgiving on the Nash play. It was intentional, but not so premeditated...he wasn't fast enough to get position, so he thumped him. It was only a big deal because Staudimire got up and triggered the automatic 1 game penalty. That's not on Horry; it's on the dumb rule.

I'd take Munson, Howard, Nettles, Guidry, Lyle, Shocker, and John. Randolph, Maris, and Reynolds are maybes.

Los Bravos

08-15-2009, 04:26 AM

Top scores! I'd assumed Bobby Jones was in already. He was awesome!I liked the Sixers teams of that era, a lot. Bobby was the perfect partner, temperamentally and stylistically, for Julius Erving.I'm more forgiving on the Nash play. It was intentional, but not so premeditated...he wasn't fast enough to get position, so he thumped him. It was only a big deal because Staudimire got up and triggered the automatic 1 game penalty. That's not on Horry; it's on the dumb rule.It's a horrible rule, one that Stern should quietly snuff, and it's made a farce of a couple of great, close playoff series now (the Suns-Spurs series we're talking about and also the Charge of the Knicks Brigade a few years ago that had them playing with a roster of @ 7 in the last game), but I still think Horry accomplished exactly what he meant to. He made a Scott Stevens* beeline right for Steve as the clock ran down. I truly feel that was premeditated to hurt Nash and to cause a brawl to get Suns players suspended. Not the actions of anybody I care to support in any way, shape or form.

*Yes, that's right...I just dragged yet another professional sport into this :nod:

jalbright

08-15-2009, 05:59 AM

Fuzzy Bear

08-15-2009, 05:35 PM

Guys:

I like hoops too, but this is a baseball-only site. If I see any more basketball only posts, they will be deleted. Soon, I may start deleting extraneous basketball comments. This thread is on the edge of what I will accept, and any more push in a non-baseball direction is likely to get me to push back. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

What I DO think is relevant to baseball is the discussion of the difference between HOF criteria in basketball (and hockey and football, for that matter) and HOF criteria in baseball. There is a REAL difference between evaluating a candidate for the HOF in baseball, and evaluating a candidate for the HOF in those other sports.

These differences have been touched on by other posters in this thread, so I'm restating some things, but note the differences in the sports:

1. Baseball has the longest regular season; approximately double the length of the NBA and NHL and TEN TIMES the length of the NFL.

2. Baseball has the most valuable regular season. A smaller percentage of teams go to the postseason than in any other sport.

3. Baseball puts more emphasis on finishing first. Until 1995, second place netted you nothing. Even now, there is only one 2nd place wild card team from each league.

4. Baseball has no clock factor. There is no time limit to a game, and no time limit to an inning, whereas quarters in football and basketball and periods in hockey have defined time limits. Using timeouts, playing "beat the clock", etc. are important strategies in other sports.

5. Baseball is a less spectacular sport than the other sports. Other sports are far more often decided on spectaular plays. Spectacular dunks/shots/catches, etc. Displays of athleticism are far more memorable in these other sports because athleticism is far more a factor in those sports (especially football).

Baseball is a much different sport than football, basketball, or hockey; in many ways it has less in common with any of those other sports than the other sports have in common with each other. In addition, the long season makes baseball a sport that it is not only WATCHED; it is FOLLOWED. There is no movement in these other sports comparable to sabermetrics, for example, to evaluate players in terms of contemporaries and in terms of players of past eras as there is with baseball.

With this in mind, it is small wonder that making the HOF in baseball requires meeting different criteria. Bobby Thomson would be a borderline HOFer if Cooperstown used Canton's criteria. Maury Wills would have been a stronger candidate. Gil Hodges would have been in a long time ago if Canton went on Springfield's criteria. When one thinks of the differences between the sports, it shouldn't surprise anyone that there are differences between the criterias for the different Halls of Fame.

Los Bravos

08-15-2009, 07:02 PM

I think I've written this before here, but it bears repeating. As much as we carp about the procedures for election to Cooperstown, the sheer number of voters who are asked to vote make it a fairer and more open contest than at least one other one I can think of, where a small group of determined malcontents can hold up a deserving enshrinee. 25.1% of the baseball writers isn't a small group of anything, malcontents though they might be.

jalbright

08-15-2009, 08:05 PM

What I DO think is relevant to baseball is the discussion of the difference between HOF criteria in basketball (and hockey and football, for that matter) and HOF criteria in baseball. There is a REAL difference between evaluating a candidate for the HOF in baseball, and evaluating a candidate for the HOF in those other sports.

My complaint is not directed at that element of the discussion in the thread. I agree with you on that. That's why this thread wasn't closed posthaste. However, some of the previous discussion had little or nothing to do with baseball--and that's not acceptable. I wish to remind people that while issues like you mention above can certainly be relevant here, they're not creating an open door to making basketball discussion appropriate here. Whatever discussion there is about basketball had better come back to a relevant point on baseball in this site, or it's in danger of being deleted.