Aren't you the guy who says just looking at batting average isn't enough?
Not only is BA "not enough", I never look at it at all. Looking at OPS+, which will do fine for contemporaries on the same team, I see:
Top season: Carew by 24
2nd best season: Carew by 7
3rd best season: Carew by 5
4th best season: Carew by 7
5th best season: Carew by 7
and so on through every season until Oliva is gone and Carew keeps on going. And you'll see the same thing if you look at batter runs, offensive Win Shares, or any other comprehensive measure of hitting. Carew was better, of that I am positive. If Oliva was more fun to watch at the plate, so be it, but that's not what I'm talking about. And again, once you add in running and fielding, Carew was a better player than Oliva by a rather large margin. In fact, he was almost as good as Killebrew.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Ah yes, the complete joke that OPS+ is in this (and most other) cases.
Both played in the same park at the same time yet the "geniuses" ad a bunch of imaginary numbers benefiting Carew. Why not just add a SLG+ and claim Carew was a better slugger as well.
ANYONE who saw those two guys hit would say Oliva was not only better, but significantly better, except maybe for average.
Carew was a better bunter, and got on base a little better, (but that's not hitting and didn't translate into more runs scored) that's about it. Of course Rod's much longer career adds a lot of "value" but Oliva was clearly the better hitter.
Let's look at a better number, Total Bases top 10 seasons;
Oliva +23
Oliva +43
Oliva +43
Oliva +45
Oliva +17
Oliva +17
Oliva +22
Oliva +15
Oliva +10
Carew +21
The only season out of 10 Carew was better was when Oliva couldn't run. Yes Carew was a much better player after that.
Carew did have the best single season overall in 1977.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Hodges doesn't have drastic home/road splits. Ebbets favored LH hitters a littler more than RH....so he gets penalized a little unfairly in the stadium adjustments.
Hodges had 321 Run Expectancy in the 24 base/out state.
Watson had 318.....so that isn't a far off comparison.
Rice had 277.
Hodges missed two years due to WWII. We don't know what he would have done in those age 20 and 21 seasons, but he would have been playing baseball and either getting better faster or contributing at the MLB level. One can say it cost him another season in 1946 at the MLB level too. Then he only played 28 games in 1947. That is a lot of playing time he missed.
He did earn a bronze star in WWII...so I guess in lieu of becoming a better baseball player or adding stats to his resume, that can go under his "character" criteria and give him a welcome nod to the HOF.
Considering all of that he has a better case than Watson and Rice.
First, I agree that Hodges has a better case than Watson and Rice, neither of whom has any case at all. I think Hodges case is extremely weak, but it exists.
With respect to Hodges home/road splits, I actually didn't look those up, so maybe I overstated my case when I said he wouldn't have ANY of those things. But, it's clear he wouldn't have MOST of these things, at least. No way does he drive in 100 runs seven times on a bad team, no way does he have World Series appearances, etc. I state with 100% confidence that, regardless of where we settle on how good a player he was, he would not be in the HOF had he played for a bad team, and not a single person here would think he belonged.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
Ah yes, the complete joke that OPS+ is in this (and most other) cases.
Both played in the same park at the same time yet the "geniuses" ad a bunch of imaginary numbers benefiting Carew. Why not just add a SLG+ and claim Carew was a better slugger as well.
ANYONE who saw those two guys hit would say Oliva was not only better, but significantly better, except maybe for average.
Carew was a better bunter, and got on base a little better, (but that's not hitting and didn't translate into more runs scored) that's about it. Of course Rod's much longer career adds a lot of "value" but Oliva was clearly the better hitter.
Let's look at a better number, Total Bases top 10 seasons;
Oliva +23
Oliva +43
Oliva +43
Oliva +45
Oliva +17
Oliva +17
Oliva +22
Oliva +15
Oliva +10
Carew +21
The only season out of 10 Carew was better was when Oliva couldn't run. Yes Carew was a much better player after that.
Carew did have the best single season overall in 1977.
I'm a big boy, and I'm not asking for sympathy, but you have to appreciate how hard it is to have these discussions with people who change their standards each time, depending on what they can find that favors the player they're advocating for.
Anyway, if that standard is to be total bases this time, let's start with that. Ask yourself what total bases measures, and then ask yourself why/if it matters whether a player gets on base with a single or a walk. By using total bases as your sole standard - and at least so far it is the sole standard you have advanced - you are saying that walks have no value whatsoever. Add in walks, and you'll get a much more even mix of Oliva and Carew in your top 10 list (Carew wins 4, Oliva 6).
More importantly, what you're missing by relying 100% on a single counting stat is the outs each of them made accumulating their bases. A much better stat than total bases (even adjusted to include walks) is the number of bases they accumulated per out used. Using the same 10 seasons you did (so it's possible I'm cheating Carew a little bit), Carew wins that stat 7 times to Oliva's 3. Carew in 1977 spanks Oliva's best season (1964) ten ways to Sunday, but after that they're pretty close every year.
From all of this I conclude the same thing any reasonable person is forced to conclude: as hitters, Oliva and Carew were pretty close, but Carew's best years were better - in the case of 1977 MUCH better - than any season Oliva ever had. If only I'd said that from the beginning. Oh wait, I did say that from the beginning.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
Ah yes, the complete joke that OPS+ is in this (and most other) cases.
Both played in the same park at the same time yet the "geniuses" ad a bunch of imaginary numbers benefiting Carew. Why not just add a SLG+ and claim Carew was a better slugger as well.
ANYONE who saw those two guys hit would say Oliva was not only better, but significantly better, except maybe for average.
Carew was a better bunter, and got on base a little better, (but that's not hitting and didn't translate into more runs scored) that's about it. Of course Rod's much longer career adds a lot of "value" but Oliva was clearly the better hitter.
Let's look at a better number, Total Bases top 10 seasons;
Oliva +23
Oliva +43
Oliva +43
Oliva +45
Oliva +17
Oliva +17
Oliva +22
Oliva +15
Oliva +10
Carew +21
The only season out of 10 Carew was better was when Oliva couldn't run. Yes Carew was a much better player after that.
Carew did have the best single season overall in 1977.
I'm a big boy, and I'm not asking for sympathy, but you have to appreciate how hard it is to have these discussions with people who change their standards each time, depending on what they can find that favors the player they're advocating for.
Anyway, if that standard is to be total bases this time, let's start with that. Ask yourself what total bases measures, and then ask yourself why/if it matters whether a player gets on base with a single or a walk. By using total bases as your sole standard - and at least so far it is the sole standard you have advanced - you are saying that walks have no value whatsoever. Add in walks, and you'll get a much more even mix of Oliva and Carew in your top 10 list (Carew wins 4, Oliva 6).
More importantly, what you're missing by relying 100% on a single counting stat is the outs each of them made accumulating their bases. A much better stat than total bases (even adjusted to include walks) is the number of bases they accumulated per out used. Using the same 10 seasons you did (so it's possible I'm cheating Carew a little bit), Carew wins that stat 7 times to Oliva's 3. Carew in 1977 spanks Oliva's best season (1964) ten ways to Sunday, but after that they're pretty close every year.
From all of this I conclude the same thing any reasonable person is forced to conclude: as hitters, Oliva and Carew were pretty close, but Carew's best years were better - in the case of 1977 MUCH better - than any season Oliva ever had. If only I'd said that from the beginning. Oh wait, I did say that from the beginning.
I'm not the one relying on a single stat, you are with O_BS_+.
Oliva had MUCH better SLG numbers, better RBI numbers and even better Runs Scored totals.
Carew hit more Triples, but Oliva dwarfed him in Doubles and obliterated Rod in HR.
Carew's OB% and BA were higher, but he scored less runs, meaning his OPS (and therefor his OBS+) didn't really produce as much, so to be accurate, Carew's OBS+ should get reduced instead of increased.
Rod got on base more often, but his hits were much less effective in driving in runs or getting in position to score them.
Before he got hurt, Oliva was a VASTLY superior hitter. Carew's very good hitting for a longer period of time makes it appear they were "equal", but in fact Tony was much better, he just got hurt and that's unfortunate.
The years 1973,4,5 Oliva played on one leg and THAT's where Tony's numbers are diminished.
Carew on two legs was better than Oliva on one, that's as far as it goes. Both healthy (other than 1977 for Rod) it's Oliva hands down.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Eventually all 250 game winners will probably be in the HOF. We are likely to barely see anymore. AS for hitters. 3000 base hits for guys that play about 140 games per year will probably never happen after Miggy, or hardly ever. To many games off. Cano is decently close if he can stay on the field.
But overall, the HOF is really Hall of good players. HOGP.
By stats only (and maybe another variable or two) let's look at the 70's rookies and who should be in the Hall:
I'm sure I left a couple out. But these guys were the main dudes. Marichal, Oliva, Kaat, Tammell, Whitaker, Rice, Billy W, Santo, etc. these guys were very good players, definitely above average. But not household names like the ones in the list. When the Hall started letting in very good players, IMO it tarnished the ones that are really HOFers in stats and name.
No trying to get in a debate that dale m is better than dawson and should be in too. And certainly card values demonstrate this. Whitaker and Trammell cards are ok, But they do not = ozzie, ryan, rose cards, etc.
For the 1960's I think Marichal was every bit as good if not better than Sutton, Niekro, Perry, and Jenkins. He's definitely deserving. The only difference is that his career did not drag on and accumulate stats.
Billy W. as well was exceptional especially in comparison to other greats of the 60's. He's is a definite Hall of Famer as well.
One guy that has always baffled me is Joe Torre. He gets absolutely no love as a player and only made the Hall of Fame from a managerial standpoint. He should be elected as a player. The guy was a 9 time all-star, 1971 MVP, won a batting title, Gold Glove winner, 2342 career hits, .297 career average, 252 homers, 1185 rbi's. He played most of his games as a catcher but also played a significant amount at Third Base and First Base. Ron Santo is in the Hall of Fame with nearly identical stats.
I'm sure I left a couple out. But these guys were the main dudes. Marichal, Oliva, Kaat, Tammell, Whitaker, Rice, Billy W, Santo, etc. these guys were very good players, definitely above average. But not household names like the ones in the list. When the Hall started letting in very good players, IMO it tarnished the ones that are really HOFers in stats and name.
No trying to get in a debate that dale m is better than dawson and should be in too. And certainly card values demonstrate this. Whitaker and Trammell cards are ok, But they do not = ozzie, ryan, rose cards, etc.
Without addressing the specific players you've identified, I insist that this is simply not the case. We have Candy Cummings enshrined in 1939 as a pioneer because he invented the curve ball. For those "very good" enshrined as players, depending how you feel about his stolen bases you have Wee Willie Keeler enshrined in 1939, or the definitely indefensible Hugh Duffy in 1945. My point is that there have always been those who only belong in a much bigger hall than we have now enshrined.
@olb31@daltex Good points, and I would be happier with a HOF that was either a Hall of the Very Best or a HOVG than the one we're moving towards now. The thing that bothers me, as I've mentioned once or a hundred times, is that there is no logic now behind who does or does not get in - it's increasingly random. Do players like Jim Rice get in? OK, fine. Then let in the hundred or so better players, too. Is it just for the truly dominant? OK, fine. Then let in Dick Allen and Curt Schilling and get rid of the committees that elect Gil Hodges and the like.
I thought the HOF did a pretty good job until Frankie Frisch wreaked his path of destruction with the VC in the 1970's, and did pretty good after Frisch was gone until relatively recently. But it now seems to be an annual occurrence that names are drawn randomly out of a HOVG bucket, and it's making the HOF look sillier and sillier. Jim Kaat may or may not be a HOFer depending on your vision of what the HOF should be; that's an opinion. But Jim Kaat was not as good a pitcher as Billy Pierce; that's a fact. And a HOF with Jim Kaat and not Billy Pierce (to pluck one example out of hundreds) makes no sense.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
One guy that has always baffled me is Joe Torre. He gets absolutely no love as a player and only made the Hall of Fame from a managerial standpoint. He should be elected as a player. The guy was a 9 time all-star, 1971 MVP, won a batting title, Gold Glove winner, 2342 career hits, .297 career average, 252 homers, 1185 rbi's. He played most of his games as a catcher but also played a significant amount at Third Base and First Base. Ron Santo is in the Hall of Fame with nearly identical stats.
I'll nitpick just because:
Torre played most of his games not at catcher. He played roughly 900 there and 1300 elsewhere.
One guy that has always baffled me is Joe Torre. He gets absolutely no love as a player and only made the Hall of Fame from a managerial standpoint. He should be elected as a player. The guy was a 9 time all-star, 1971 MVP, won a batting title, Gold Glove winner, 2342 career hits, .297 career average, 252 homers, 1185 rbi's. He played most of his games as a catcher but also played a significant amount at Third Base and First Base. Ron Santo is in the Hall of Fame with nearly identical stats.
I'll nitpick just because:
Torre played most of his games not at catcher. He played roughly 900 there and 1300 elsewhere.
torre has a far superior career to Harold Baines:
Torre's WAR in 18 season = 57.5
Baines's WAR in 22 seasons = 38.7
Torre:
Win Probability
WPA cWPA RE24
39.0 28.8% 377.9
Baines:
Win Probability
32.3 19.3% 348.2
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
@ArtVandelay said:
For the 1960's I think Marichal was every bit as good if not better than Sutton, Niekro, Perry, and Jenkins. He's definitely deserving. The only difference is that his career did not drag on and accumulate stats.
Billy W. as well was exceptional especially in comparison to other greats of the 60's. He's is a definite Hall of Famer as well.
One guy that has always baffled me is Joe Torre. He gets absolutely no love as a player and only made the Hall of Fame from a managerial standpoint. He should be elected as a player. The guy was a 9 time all-star, 1971 MVP, won a batting title, Gold Glove winner, 2342 career hits, .297 career average, 252 homers, 1185 rbi's. He played most of his games as a catcher but also played a significant amount at Third Base and First Base. Ron Santo is in the Hall of Fame with nearly identical stats.
VERY good post!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Please, let's not do this. Depending on how you define "far" there are hundreds of people who fit that criterion. It's just not the distinction of a HoFer. I mean I know WAR is slightly different for pitchers, but I don't want to debate Danny Darwin's HoF case because he had more WAR than Baines. If you insist on comparing position players, then Russell Martin or Carl Crawford.
@mintonlypls said:
Just put everyone into the HOF... who had a career batting average above the Mendoza line. 😉
I think this is more the mentality of GM's in today's game for putting players on the field. Although hitting .160 and striking out every other at-bat will get you a starting position in the playoffs with the New York Yankees so their expectations might even be lower.
Please, let's not do this. Depending on how you define "far" there are hundreds of people who fit that criterion. It's just not the distinction of a HoFer. I mean I know WAR is slightly different for pitchers, but I don't want to debate Danny Darwin's HoF case because he had more WAR than Baines. If you insist on comparing position players, then Russell Martin or Carl Crawford.
BTW, Hack Wilson also had 38.7 WAR.
Yeah but Wilson got to that career WAR total in only 12 seasons, Baines needed 22 years just to get to 38. Ol' Hack could hit'em and was dominant from 1926-1930. Yes a mere 5 season at that level, but it's 5 more dominant season than Baines ever had.
Harold Baines in the modern poster child for players who do no belong in the hall. But when you have Tony Larussa and his 2-Time Felony DUI's (PUBLIC RECORD) helping you out I guess you get in.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Please, let's not do this. Depending on how you define "far" there are hundreds of people who fit that criterion. It's just not the distinction of a HoFer. I mean I know WAR is slightly different for pitchers, but I don't want to debate Danny Darwin's HoF case because he had more WAR than Baines. If you insist on comparing position players, then Russell Martin or Carl Crawford.
BTW, Hack Wilson also had 38.7 WAR.
Yeah but Wilson got to that career WAR total in only 12 seasons, Baines needed 22 years just to get to 38. Ol' Hack could hit'em and was dominant from 1926-1930. Yes a mere 5 season at that level, but it's 5 more dominant season than Baines ever had.
Harold Baines in the modern poster child for players who do no belong in the hall. But when you have Tony Larussa and his 2-Time Felony DUI's (PUBLIC RECORD) helping you out I guess you get in.
Agreed that Wilson's worst season in that era is better than Baines' best. Still, you're wrong about Baines and especially LaRussa. There are actually quite a few worse than Baines, like the Frisch-led VC electees Kelly, Lindstrom, and Hafey. Baines is also more deserving than Hunter and Kaat. It can't possibly get worse than the Frisch era.
One thing I thought was curious about Harold Baines, how did he get his number retired so quickly, when he clearly at the time still had several years of playing career left?
@Estil said:
One thing I thought was curious about Harold Baines, how did he get his number retired so quickly, when he clearly at the time still had several years of playing career left?
As near as i can figure Baines is the most loved person who has ever lived ? Or has made a great deal w/the Devil?
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
I've been in the Tony Oliva for HOF facebook group for about a decade. Glad he was able to enjoy the announcement and hopefully be around for the ceremony. His induction makes for an interesting discussion for a number of players who now have an even more serious argument for induction.
@hyperchipper09 said:
I've been in the Tony Oliva for HOF facebook group for about a decade. Glad he was able to enjoy the announcement and hopefully be around for the ceremony. His induction makes for an interesting discussion for a number of players who now have an even more serious argument for induction.
Which is the entire problem, right? Or, as I said on a slightly different topic, now that Jim Kaat is a HoFer, what is the argument for keeping Jamie Moyer out?
@hyperchipper09 said:
I've been in the Tony Oliva for HOF facebook group for about a decade. Glad he was able to enjoy the announcement and hopefully be around for the ceremony. His induction makes for an interesting discussion for a number of players who now have an even more serious argument for induction.
Oh, and it doesn't work like "Tony Oliva is in. Bobby Bonds is more deserving. We must put Bobby Bonds in." It took Oliva fifty years after the far less deserving Ross Youngs to get inducted. This is fortunate for any number of reasons.
Pretty good list you had here back in August. I would add Vada Pinson to this list going forward along with a few more from that period.
Good post Art.
@ArtVandelay said:
Olivia was definitely a HOF-type player. Unfortunately, he only played 11 MLB seasons which limits his HOF chances and left him as a borderline guy. My top 10 not in the Hall of Fame are as follows.
Dave Parker
Cecil Travis
Minnie Minoso
Jim Kaat
Richie Allen
Tony Oliva
Gil Hodges
Lou Whitaker
Tommy John
Ken Boyer
Previous CU user: jmmiller777
Baseball HOFer's-PSA6+
Heritage Sets
Kellogg's Graded-PSA 8+
60's Topps Sets-Raw
Anything that Catches My Attention
Comments
Not only is BA "not enough", I never look at it at all. Looking at OPS+, which will do fine for contemporaries on the same team, I see:
Top season: Carew by 24
2nd best season: Carew by 7
3rd best season: Carew by 5
4th best season: Carew by 7
5th best season: Carew by 7
and so on through every season until Oliva is gone and Carew keeps on going. And you'll see the same thing if you look at batter runs, offensive Win Shares, or any other comprehensive measure of hitting. Carew was better, of that I am positive. If Oliva was more fun to watch at the plate, so be it, but that's not what I'm talking about. And again, once you add in running and fielding, Carew was a better player than Oliva by a rather large margin. In fact, he was almost as good as Killebrew.
Ah yes, the complete joke that OPS+ is in this (and most other) cases.
Both played in the same park at the same time yet the "geniuses" ad a bunch of imaginary numbers benefiting Carew. Why not just add a SLG+ and claim Carew was a better slugger as well.
ANYONE who saw those two guys hit would say Oliva was not only better, but significantly better, except maybe for average.
Carew was a better bunter, and got on base a little better, (but that's not hitting and didn't translate into more runs scored) that's about it. Of course Rod's much longer career adds a lot of "value" but Oliva was clearly the better hitter.
Let's look at a better number, Total Bases top 10 seasons;
Oliva +23
Oliva +43
Oliva +43
Oliva +45
Oliva +17
Oliva +17
Oliva +22
Oliva +15
Oliva +10
Carew +21
The only season out of 10 Carew was better was when Oliva couldn't run. Yes Carew was a much better player after that.
Carew did have the best single season overall in 1977.
dupe post
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
First, I agree that Hodges has a better case than Watson and Rice, neither of whom has any case at all. I think Hodges case is extremely weak, but it exists.
With respect to Hodges home/road splits, I actually didn't look those up, so maybe I overstated my case when I said he wouldn't have ANY of those things. But, it's clear he wouldn't have MOST of these things, at least. No way does he drive in 100 runs seven times on a bad team, no way does he have World Series appearances, etc. I state with 100% confidence that, regardless of where we settle on how good a player he was, he would not be in the HOF had he played for a bad team, and not a single person here would think he belonged.
I'm a big boy, and I'm not asking for sympathy, but you have to appreciate how hard it is to have these discussions with people who change their standards each time, depending on what they can find that favors the player they're advocating for.
Anyway, if that standard is to be total bases this time, let's start with that. Ask yourself what total bases measures, and then ask yourself why/if it matters whether a player gets on base with a single or a walk. By using total bases as your sole standard - and at least so far it is the sole standard you have advanced - you are saying that walks have no value whatsoever. Add in walks, and you'll get a much more even mix of Oliva and Carew in your top 10 list (Carew wins 4, Oliva 6).
More importantly, what you're missing by relying 100% on a single counting stat is the outs each of them made accumulating their bases. A much better stat than total bases (even adjusted to include walks) is the number of bases they accumulated per out used. Using the same 10 seasons you did (so it's possible I'm cheating Carew a little bit), Carew wins that stat 7 times to Oliva's 3. Carew in 1977 spanks Oliva's best season (1964) ten ways to Sunday, but after that they're pretty close every year.
From all of this I conclude the same thing any reasonable person is forced to conclude: as hitters, Oliva and Carew were pretty close, but Carew's best years were better - in the case of 1977 MUCH better - than any season Oliva ever had. If only I'd said that from the beginning. Oh wait, I did say that from the beginning.
I'm not the one relying on a single stat, you are with O_BS_+.
Oliva had MUCH better SLG numbers, better RBI numbers and even better Runs Scored totals.
Carew hit more Triples, but Oliva dwarfed him in Doubles and obliterated Rod in HR.
Carew's OB% and BA were higher, but he scored less runs, meaning his OPS (and therefor his OBS+) didn't really produce as much, so to be accurate, Carew's OBS+ should get reduced instead of increased.
Rod got on base more often, but his hits were much less effective in driving in runs or getting in position to score them.
Before he got hurt, Oliva was a VASTLY superior hitter. Carew's very good hitting for a longer period of time makes it appear they were "equal", but in fact Tony was much better, he just got hurt and that's unfortunate.
The years 1973,4,5 Oliva played on one leg and THAT's where Tony's numbers are diminished.
Carew on two legs was better than Oliva on one, that's as far as it goes. Both healthy (other than 1977 for Rod) it's Oliva hands down.
Congrats to Mr. Oliva...a classy gentleman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b8eBtVKQFQ
Eventually all 250 game winners will probably be in the HOF. We are likely to barely see anymore. AS for hitters. 3000 base hits for guys that play about 140 games per year will probably never happen after Miggy, or hardly ever. To many games off. Cano is decently close if he can stay on the field.
But overall, the HOF is really Hall of good players. HOGP.
By stats only (and maybe another variable or two) let's look at the 70's rookies and who should be in the Hall:
1) 1972 Fisk
2) 1973 Schmidt
3) 1974 Winfield
4) 1975 Brett
5) 1975 Yount
6) 1975 Carter
7) 1976 Eckersley
8) 1977 Dawson
9) 1978 Murray
10) 1978 Molitor
11) 1979 Ozzie
1960's
1) 1960 Mccovey
2) 1960 Yaz
3) 1962 Perry
4) 1962 Brock
5) 1963 Rose
6) 1963 Stargell
7) 1964 Niekro
8) 1965 Carlton
9) 1965 Morgan
10) 1966 Palmer
11) 1966 Sutton
12) 1966 Jenkins
13) 1967 Seaver
14) 1967 Carew
15) 1968 Ryan
16) 1968 Bench
17) 1969 Reggie
18) 1969 fingers
I'm sure I left a couple out. But these guys were the main dudes. Marichal, Oliva, Kaat, Tammell, Whitaker, Rice, Billy W, Santo, etc. these guys were very good players, definitely above average. But not household names like the ones in the list. When the Hall started letting in very good players, IMO it tarnished the ones that are really HOFers in stats and name.
No trying to get in a debate that dale m is better than dawson and should be in too. And certainly card values demonstrate this. Whitaker and Trammell cards are ok, But they do not = ozzie, ryan, rose cards, etc.
For the 1960's I think Marichal was every bit as good if not better than Sutton, Niekro, Perry, and Jenkins. He's definitely deserving. The only difference is that his career did not drag on and accumulate stats.
Billy W. as well was exceptional especially in comparison to other greats of the 60's. He's is a definite Hall of Famer as well.
One guy that has always baffled me is Joe Torre. He gets absolutely no love as a player and only made the Hall of Fame from a managerial standpoint. He should be elected as a player. The guy was a 9 time all-star, 1971 MVP, won a batting title, Gold Glove winner, 2342 career hits, .297 career average, 252 homers, 1185 rbi's. He played most of his games as a catcher but also played a significant amount at Third Base and First Base. Ron Santo is in the Hall of Fame with nearly identical stats.
Without addressing the specific players you've identified, I insist that this is simply not the case. We have Candy Cummings enshrined in 1939 as a pioneer because he invented the curve ball. For those "very good" enshrined as players, depending how you feel about his stolen bases you have Wee Willie Keeler enshrined in 1939, or the definitely indefensible Hugh Duffy in 1945. My point is that there have always been those who only belong in a much bigger hall than we have now enshrined.
@olb31 @daltex Good points, and I would be happier with a HOF that was either a Hall of the Very Best or a HOVG than the one we're moving towards now. The thing that bothers me, as I've mentioned once or a hundred times, is that there is no logic now behind who does or does not get in - it's increasingly random. Do players like Jim Rice get in? OK, fine. Then let in the hundred or so better players, too. Is it just for the truly dominant? OK, fine. Then let in Dick Allen and Curt Schilling and get rid of the committees that elect Gil Hodges and the like.
I thought the HOF did a pretty good job until Frankie Frisch wreaked his path of destruction with the VC in the 1970's, and did pretty good after Frisch was gone until relatively recently. But it now seems to be an annual occurrence that names are drawn randomly out of a HOVG bucket, and it's making the HOF look sillier and sillier. Jim Kaat may or may not be a HOFer depending on your vision of what the HOF should be; that's an opinion. But Jim Kaat was not as good a pitcher as Billy Pierce; that's a fact. And a HOF with Jim Kaat and not Billy Pierce (to pluck one example out of hundreds) makes no sense.
I'll nitpick just because:
Torre played most of his games not at catcher. He played roughly 900 there and 1300 elsewhere.
torre has a far superior career to Harold Baines:
Torre's WAR in 18 season = 57.5
Baines's WAR in 22 seasons = 38.7
Torre:
Win Probability
WPA cWPA RE24
39.0 28.8% 377.9
Baines:
Win Probability
32.3 19.3% 348.2
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
VERY good post!
Please, let's not do this. Depending on how you define "far" there are hundreds of people who fit that criterion. It's just not the distinction of a HoFer. I mean I know WAR is slightly different for pitchers, but I don't want to debate Danny Darwin's HoF case because he had more WAR than Baines. If you insist on comparing position players, then Russell Martin or Carl Crawford.
BTW, Hack Wilson also had 38.7 WAR.
Any love for Bobby Bonds? His career was cut short due to injuries. Still a pretty impressive career.
57.9 WAR
332 HOMERS
461 Stolen bases
3 gold gloves
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Just put everyone into the HOF... who had a career batting average above the Mendoza line. 😉
I think this is more the mentality of GM's in today's game for putting players on the field. Although hitting .160 and striking out every other at-bat will get you a starting position in the playoffs with the New York Yankees so their expectations might even be lower.
Yeah but Wilson got to that career WAR total in only 12 seasons, Baines needed 22 years just to get to 38. Ol' Hack could hit'em and was dominant from 1926-1930. Yes a mere 5 season at that level, but it's 5 more dominant season than Baines ever had.
Harold Baines in the modern poster child for players who do no belong in the hall. But when you have Tony Larussa and his 2-Time Felony DUI's (PUBLIC RECORD) helping you out I guess you get in.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Agreed that Wilson's worst season in that era is better than Baines' best. Still, you're wrong about Baines and especially LaRussa. There are actually quite a few worse than Baines, like the Frisch-led VC electees Kelly, Lindstrom, and Hafey. Baines is also more deserving than Hunter and Kaat. It can't possibly get worse than the Frisch era.
One thing I thought was curious about Harold Baines, how did he get his number retired so quickly, when he clearly at the time still had several years of playing career left?
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
As near as i can figure Baines is the most loved person who has ever lived ? Or has made a great deal w/the Devil?
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
I've been in the Tony Oliva for HOF facebook group for about a decade. Glad he was able to enjoy the announcement and hopefully be around for the ceremony. His induction makes for an interesting discussion for a number of players who now have an even more serious argument for induction.
Which is the entire problem, right? Or, as I said on a slightly different topic, now that Jim Kaat is a HoFer, what is the argument for keeping Jamie Moyer out?
Oh, and it doesn't work like "Tony Oliva is in. Bobby Bonds is more deserving. We must put Bobby Bonds in." It took Oliva fifty years after the far less deserving Ross Youngs to get inducted. This is fortunate for any number of reasons.
Pretty good list you had here back in August. I would add Vada Pinson to this list going forward along with a few more from that period.
Good post Art.
Previous CU user: jmmiller777
Baseball HOFer's-PSA6+
Heritage Sets
Kellogg's Graded-PSA 8+
60's Topps Sets-Raw
Anything that Catches My Attention