2020 BB HOF Candidates
SDSportsFan
Posts: 5,136 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Just saw this on ESPN.com:
The Modern-Era Committee will consider:
Thurman Munson
Don Mattingly
Tommy John
Dwight Evans
Lou Whitaker
Steve Garvey
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Ted Simmons
Marvin Miller
That is a packed lineup; in my view, ALL OF THEM should be elected/inducted!
Steve
0
Comments
I must say, I'm disappointed. I thought one more name would have appeared on that list. That's all I have to say on this matter. No further comment at this time. If you wish to speak to me, please contact my attorney.
Might as well let them all in and water down the Baseball HOF more than it already is
Honestly, I feel most strongly that Whitaker, Garvey, Murphy, Parker, Simmons & John should be elected/inducted; Munson, Mattingly, Evans & Miller, less so.
Steve
This is embarrassing and needs to stop. Evans and Whitaker are the only ones who would be in the top half at their position enshrined. Take Whitaker, though. Do we really need a do-over for a player who was only able to get 2.9% of the writers' vote in his only year on the ballot? He's clearly not a "barely missed". For whatever reasons, the writers who saw him play overwhelmingly decided he wasn't a HoFer. Naturally there are players the writers miss, and some they enshrine by mistakes, but many of these Veterans' committees' selections have been amazingly bad. We appear to be headed back to the Frankie Frisch days and, while no one on this list is as bad as Jack Morris or Harold Baines, I don't see anyone we can say the HoF is truly lacking.
Whitaker and Simmons are OK choices, but it's hardly a travesty that they aren't in yet. The rest are just very good players, randomly picked from the hundred or so equally good players they could have picked. Eventually, I suspect, all 100 of them will be in the HOF, but not until long after anyone cares anymore. The problem started, like him or not, when Jim Rice was inducted. He was the first, though far from the best, of this 100-man group randomly selected, and he opened the door for Harold Baines and the hundred others to follow. On the bright side, Gene Tenace is also in this group, so it looks like he'll eventually make the HOF, too.
In my mind, the top two names of this group would be Parker and Evans, although they weren't originlly selected for a reason. I don't believe that either is HOF worthy, but then again, I didn't think Baines was either.
Garvey, Parker, and Murphy are long overdue. Very talented players. All three were some of the most famous players in their era. After all, its called a Hall Of Fame isn't it?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Metric keeps moving apparently.
Never been a fan of the late stage appointments.
Jack Morris might be the exception for the agitation value.
I wouldn't mind Murphy, Whitaker, and Simmons getting in. Marvin Miller is way overdue, due to his contributions to the MLB players union. He should have been put in years ago.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
Of these nominees I would chose Evans and Murphy as the two most deserving.
Evans had the highest OPS and the most PA along with 8 Gold Glove awards. Long, consistent career. Only a 3 time All-Star though.
Murphy had a good OPS too, and just over 9,000 PA. 2 MVP's and 5 GG. stopped being a great player at 32. His last 4 full seasons he was an average player. Other than Munson and Mattingly, he had the shortest career.
Mattingly looks close, with a great OPS and 9GG, but 7000PA is low. Injuries seem to have ruined his chances, or he would have waltzed in, see Tony Oliva.
Simmons Caught at a high level for a long time, 9685 PA. 8 AS games hit a LOT of doubles. 1972-1980 he was amazing!
Garvey has a few things going for him, 1974-1982 he was great, but he was a bit low on the power numbers. He came close, but never slugged .500. 10X AS and 4 GG are very nice indeed.
Parker was a beast from 1975-80, dropped off, came back for two good years in 85-86 but he had a lot of average years.
None of these guys really jumps out at you. Maybe I missed it, but didn't see one 1.000 OPS season in the bunch. Not a lot of .900's either.
I would not consider Tommy John, he was an average pitcher for a long time. A very good pitcher for maybe 6 of his 26 seasons.
dallas is correct in comparing these players to Jim Rice who didn't have a 1.000 OPS year either and, like Evans, Murphy and Parker had the same number of .900 OPS years (4), to go along with a shorter career.
Whittaker is the most unusual in that he was getting better as a hitter his last 5 years!!!!
George Foster's peak was too brief, but I'd see him as a better candidate than most of this list. At least he had a 1.000 OPS season (I'm ignoring the other two where he didn't play much + a couple .900s and a couple just a shade away), 5xAS, MVP w/two other seasons top-5 in voting.
Murphy just didn't play long enough at a high level, and his skills declined almost overnight; the dropoff was just amazing. I don't remember him having any type of injury either.
I ignored his first two years and came up with the number of games he played per year at 122. From 1975-80 he was a tremendous player.
Yes that's very true. He was very good 1980-87, excluding 1981. 10 straight years (11 out of 12) almost not missing a game is something not a lot of guys can claim.
Going strictly from an emotional basis here. I'm not considering individual statistics, just the memories of these guys playing when I was growing up. There were few hitters feared more than Parker and Murphy for several years. Garvey, while not a huge power threat was always going to give you a solid at bat and be near .300 every year. Being a Cubs fan, didn't hear a lot about the American League outside of the Yankees when I was young in the 70's so Dwight Evens didn't get much play with me. But, was a big fan of Munson and liked Sweet Lou. Hated Ted Simmons, always thought he was over rated(even though maybe he wasn't but he played for the Cardinals). How can you not induct the guy they named Tommy John surgery after?!?!? Mattingly, just a NY icon. Great career cut short by injuries but had a super solid stache. I won't say who should or should not get inducted from this list but the one and only person I haven't touched on was Marvin Miller. There is absolutely NO reason he shouldn't be in for what he did for baseball. Unfortunately most people don't even know the name. If you don't know who he is or what he did, look him up.
Of these the only ones I think should be in are Miller and possibly John (only as a builder of the game). I wouldn't argue against Evans, Whitaker, or Simmons, but there are other players more worthy.
That's one of the biggest problems.....the mindset that there are "other players more worthy" of induction.
There is always someone else who is "more worthy". The problem is, no one can come to a consensus as to who that is. To determine that, you'd have to open the field to absolutely everyone, making the process too time-consuming and cumbersome. The only way to make progress on it, is to begin to determine who the players are, that are simply "worthy", and induct them. Then, after a period of time, you begin to cover all of them.
This mindset that "Player A" can't be inducted until "Player B" is, needs to end; because "Player B" won't be inducted, until "Player C" is, and on and on and on.................... It's a never-ending nightmare.
Steve
whitaker and simmons are best of the group.
Number of years in top ten MVP voting...
Parker - 6
Garvey - 5
Murphy - 4
Whitaker - 1
Munson - 3
Evans - 4
Simmons - 3
Mattingly - 4
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
I mentioned Parker in my earlier posts. I have vivid memories of the many times he just killed the Phillies during his 5 year run as one of the top players in the game. There are many very good players mentioned, but no great ones.
Surprised Will Clark isn't on this list. I don't think any of these guys are HOFers but I do see Clark in their talent pool.
Clark is too young. He'll likely be on one of the "Today's Game" ballots like the one which elected Baines and Smith.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Clark was a rookie a few years after Mattingly. Same era pretty much.
Clark hasn't been out long enough to qualify....last played in 2000, while Mattingly was 1995
IMO, it is a testament to the baseball writers that these were the players that didn't make it on their ballots. I think none of these players are obvious oversights by the writers. None of them are obvious HOF'ers. either, and it is possible that the Modern-Era Committee will settle on none of them. If you forced me at gunpoint to pick one of them I would go with Parker. A great player who would've made it into the Hall long ago if he hadn't sabotaged his own career in his prime years with his drug usage.
Honestly, Dave Parker has pretty good career stats. 2 batting titles, 1 MVP, 7 time AS, 3 GG, 3 SS. Over 2700 hits, almost 1500 rbi, .290 avg, 500+ doubles, 300+ homers, 1200+ runs. He was on 2 world series winning teams. Overall he struggled a bit in the postseason for his career, but in the 79 WS he hit .345 with 10 hits, 3 doubles and 4 rbi.
After looking him over again, I wouldn't be upset if he made the hall at all.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
Having written the above, I just realized what an ingrate I am. In my baseball autograph collection, I have the signatures of virtually all of these guys, most of which I obtained by writing directly to the players themselves.
The problem is most of these guys had a few really good (but rarely great) years and enough of the rest of a career to build respectable "counting numbers". John is the clearest example of that. If he had had 288 wins and 2245 strikeouts in 16 or even 18 seasons rather than 26, he looks a lot better.
None of these guys is missing from the HoF, excepting Miller. None would be the worst, even at his position, if he were admitted.
Here's the writers' ballot for this year:
Bobby Abreu
Josh Beckett
Heath Bell
Barry Bonds
Eric Chavez
Roger Clemens
Adam Dunn
Chone Figgins
Rafael Furcal
Jason Giambi
Todd Helton
Raul Ibanez
Derek Jeter
Andruw Jones
Jeff Kent
Paul Konerko
Cliff Lee
Carlos Pena
Brad Penny
Andy Pettitte
J.J. Putz
Manny Ramirez
Brian Roberts
Scott Rolen
Curt Schilling
Gary Sheffield
Alfonso Soriano
Sammy Sosa
Jose Valverde
Omar Vizquel
Billy Wagner
Larry Walker
Steve
Off that list I like Abreu, Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Jeter, Jones, Kent, Rolen, Schilling, Vizquel, Wagner, Walker.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Derek Jeter
Andruw Jones
Jeff Kent
Manny Ramirez
Curt Schilling
Sammy Sosa
Billy Wagner
Ask me again in 5 minutes and this list might change.
Schilling and Jeter.
I bet the writer from Miami doesn't vote for Jeter...
My picks:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Derek Jeter
Andy Pettitte
Manny Ramirez
Curt Schilling
Gary Sheffield
Sammy Sosa
Larry Walker
Steve
There are a couple of others that might deserve it, and won't bother me if/when they do get in, but Schilling and Jeter are a clear cut above all of the other non-cheaters on the ballot and the only two I'd vote for on this ballot.
For best Incredible Hulk impersonation the nominees are:
Barry Bonds
Mark McGwire
Derek Jeter would be by only pick for HOF.
These are the only 2 from that group who I’d ever vote for.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
well ted simmons is the only player from the modern era committee. when is the next time that the modern committee voting. which committee meets next year?
Wasnt the voting today? Who got in?
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Ok I just found out. Wow what a joke. Munson, Murphy, and Mattingly only got 3 votes. Its nothing but a popularity contest.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2019/12/08/marvin-miller-ted-simmons-elected-baseball-hall-fame/4378946002/
Pretty sure that proves it is not a popularity contest. Munson and Mattingly were probably the 2 most popular players on the list, and they didn't get in, therefore not making it a popularity contest at all.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
So here's my question. First, let me say that Miller is absolutely a no-doubt HoFer, easily in the top 10% of HoFers in significance to MLB. My issue is with Simmons. Very good player, no doubt about that. IMO he's below average for a HoF catcher, but also the best available catcher. My question is what happened to him since 1996. He was 26th on the ballot that year with just 16 votes, less than half of those of Rusty Staub to pick one example. Not saying he's a horrible choice, but why was the Veterans Committee and the Writers' opinion so divergent?
It's partly a byproduct of this new voting system. We've now got multiple groups of voters looking at multiple groups of players that had previously been rejected by the sportswriters. There is no reason to have these groups if they reject the same players, so to justify their own existence, they have to elect people. Simmons was the most HOF-worthy of the names they were given, so they elected him.
And it's partly a byproduct of the constant lowering of the bar that reached an absolutely absurd level with the admission of Harold Baines. The number of people more worthy of the HOF than Baines stretches to the moon and back, and Ted Simmons is very clearly on that list.
Ted Simmons making the HOF doesn't bother me; he fits comfortably in the lower tier of deserving players. But I'd prefer they stop this new process before they do any more Baines-level damage, which they surely will.
On the other hand, Simmons and Munson are the top 2 catchers on the JAWS list for eligible catchers not already in the HOF. Simmons got in this time, maybe Munson will get in next time. You know who's next? Gene Tenace!
How about Bill Freehan? Many would argue that he was better than Tenace.
Steve
And they'd be right, but if the HOF Committee is just working its way down the JAWS list then ol' Fury has a chance.
As the years go by I have become less interested in who gets in of is kept out of the HOF. Started with all the steroid issue coverage. Having been to the HOF 5 times, the last 3 years ago, I find myself gravitating more to the memorabilia side of the HOF. The baseballs,trophy's,photos,bats,uniforms etc. are what interests me now. The last time I was there I started to read all the info. on the plaques. The old timers nicknames were of particular interest. The aura of who gets in has been dimmed.
Yup, that’s what I was going to say.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
But the sad part is it's not a new voting system. There have always been problems with Veterans Committees. Look at the selections of ~45-50 years ago where we had the likes of Jim Bottomley and High Pockets Kelly inducted. They didn't redefine what it meant to be a HoFer, and Baines-Morris-Smith won't, either.
I submit that there are no glaring omissions among the players eligible to be elected by various Veterans Committees. There are some players who could go in, but it's really not about putting everyone in who is better than Rick Ferrell, for the simple reason that if we tried to do that, we'd end up making more mistakes, and soon we'd have to put Tom Pagnozzi in. I'd be happy if we restricted the voting to the Writers, with a committee to meet every five or ten years to consider builders. That should cover it at this point.