is this the worst group ever chosen for the HOF?
craig44
Posts: 11,244 ✭✭✭✭✭
man, and I am a big hall guy too. wow. Oliva? Kaat? Oneil?
I mean, look at buck oneils stats, for what they are worth, not being MLB statistics. he was a below average player. is he going to be inducted because he could tell good stories? am I missing something. I got a chance to talk with him 20 years ago and he was a very nice man, but he should never sniff the HOF.
discuss
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
0
Comments
Pickens are getting slim?
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
What??? Slim Pickins got in???
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
He was all stick and no glove
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Awful choices. So yes.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
It's a very, very weak class but the 1971 VC class was the worst:
Rube Marquard: I don't say this often, but even Catfish Hunter was better.
Chick Hafey: short-career left fielder elected by people who didn't understand that a .300 BA in the 20's/30''s doesn't mean anything
Harry Hooper: Harold Baines of the 1910's
Dave Bancroft: Cecil Travis from the generation before
Jake Beckley: Bill Buckner 80 years before
Joe Kelley: 19th century star; best pick of this group, and no worse a pick than Oliva
The VC continued to make terrible picks for several more years after 1971 (not every pick, but lots of them), but the 1971 class was both large and 100% undeserving. The current class is certainly unimpressive, but Minnie Minoso finally got in, so I'm not going to complain too much.
I would say Oliva was deserving as he certainly would have had the numbers if he hadn't gotten injured. He was a dominant hitter when healthy.
Even though Jim Kaat was a Minnesota Twin and I really like him. I don't think I would have voted for him.
It's pretty obvious that O'Neil got in as a "builder" rather than a player. He's been extremely influential in terms of recognizing Negro Leagues history.
I didn't know this had already happened. Both Kaat and Oliva are at best borderline HOF-er's, IMO. Oliva had some dominant hitting years, but whether he had enough of them to merit an HOF induction is for others to debate.
Minosa was a 13 time all star
Why did it take him so long to get elected?
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
No. See above, but the VC selections of the early '70s are even worse. O'Neil, like Tommy John, should be in as a builder.
Oliva should never have gotten in for what he might have done had he not been injured.
I'm OK with Minoso and I know nothing about Fowler, but I make the following observations about the other three:
It bothers me that now that Kaat is in it becomes difficult to come up with a reason to keep Moyer out, Hodges Mattingly or Garvey, Oliva Colavito or Brian Giles.
It bothers me that we're putting these guys in when we're leaving guys like Dave Steib or Rick Reuschel, Keith Hernandez or Will Clark, Dwight Evans or Reggie Smith out. I don't think it's a travesty that any of the six are out, but I think they were far better than the three we put in.
Most of all it bothers me that we're putting guys like this in, and I include all six here, while we're debating whether Schilling, Rolen, and Andruw Jones are good enough. I can understand the argument for keeping out Clemens, Bonds, and Alex Rodriguez, even if I think it's stupid. I can't see someone saying with a straight face "Kaat is a HoFer, but I'm just not sure if Schilling belongs."
I am happy for Tony Oliva and Jim Kaat that they got in. And sad that they waited until Minnie passed away to finally let him in. I just wish they would stop that nonsense. Put them in while they are still living.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Have they published the "Golden Era Committee" members that made the vote yesterday?
It's been published before but I cannot find it.
I do know that Bert Blyleven and Rod Carew were on it. There's no doubt that they pushed it to the max for both Oliva and Kaat to get in.
While neither Oliva nor Kaat is at the same elite level as most of their peers, they are both LIFETIME baseball guys. Their entire adult life has been around and serving baseball in some capacity. There's something to be said for that...
EDITED TO ADD:
I found the following voters:
Other voter names I saw were:
Gary Ashwill, Leslie Heaphy, Jim Henneman, Justice Hill, Rick Hummel and John Thorn.
I believe there were 20 voters for each Era. What's not clear on some of the names above, was who exactly were involved. The reality is that they were primarily voted on by their peers.
Erik
That is a fair point, but personally I hate to see guys who were nowhere near as good get in (Baines) just because they didn't get hurt.
Oliva, Minoso and Hodges are in...
So what happened to Rocky Colavito?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
No Dick Allen. Strange.
The Hall just got weaker by addition. Sad actually. I'm starting to care less and less. Just let anyone in if they played 20 years or had a good career cut short
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Seems Baseball is more in need of a Museum... something like the Smithsonian... instead of the HOF.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I suppose tommy john must be next with the addition of Kaat. I mean, how could they keep him out and stay consistent?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Dick Allen was better than every single guy who just found their way into the hall yesterday.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
This appears to be getting much more realistic than ever and maybe not a bad idea. Divert a lot of the dead weight away from the Hall's preserved preciousness .
they already have one. it is called the national baseball hall of fame and museum. the hall of plaques is for those enshrined, the rest of the building is a museum that basically tells the history of the sport. that is where guys like Kaat, Oneil and the rest belong.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I have been to Cooperstown... it was 30 years ago... I took some pictures and possibly could dig up afew. I guess I should have been more clear. I am contemplating something far more comprehensive than the museum component at Cooperstown.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Him quitting on his team in the middle of a season (1977) might have something to do with it.
Same question I asked about Chili Davis when they let Jim Rice in. There is no good answer, which is why they shouldn't let these guys in.
Hard to compare Oliva to Baines. Kaat is almost exactly the same as Baines, though. A hair better than average for a really long time. Oliva was good, even very good, for a brief time. More deserving but so what? Baines' peak was very low and very narrow and I don't think anyone thought of him as a HoFer when they saw him play. Somehow he managed to be on the ballot six times.
that is a good point and is something that would stick in ones mind as it was a last memory of a player
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Possibly, but the A's were going to finish last with or without him, and he was hitting just as bad as the rest of the team while playing 1B poorly. Retiring midseason - as Mike Schmidt did - when you're not able to play well anymore should not be a negative from a HOF perspective. In fact, and I know I've read posts to this effect on this very forum, hanging on and refusing to retire when you aren't able to play well anymore is, and ought to be, what is looked at negatively.
And Dick Allen was not only better than the motley crew elected yesterday, he was better than the great majority of players ever elected.
I believe Dick Allen pissed off too many voters.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
like I said in the "if you were starting the HOF" thread, they need to remove about one-third of the current players, not add to it.
O'Neil didn't get in for his playing career, so i could care less if he got in or not. I don't really have any opinion on the pioneers, ambassadors, builders of the game, etc.
Kaat is the only one I question about getting in though. Seemed to just be slightly above average for a really long time. Long enough to compile stats. I don't mind Hodges, Oliva, and Minoso getting in. Minoso was a long time coming. He should have been inducted long ago. Hodges was one of the premier hitters of the 50s on a really good team. Far from the bottom tier of HOFers in my opinion. Oliva had an 8 year stretch with an OPS+ of 140, won 3 batting titles, led the league in hits 5 times, and doubles 4 times. Certainly not someone I will get upset about making it in.
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)
I would say that Oliva was the best hitter in the AL from 1964 to 1971 with the exception of 1973 when he had a down season.
Each of those seven years he was in the top 3 for BA and in the top 10 in SLG, 4 times over .500 SLG. If you call that "a brief time" I guess you would be correct.
There's no denying that Oliva had a short career, but Baines was great for about 6 years and not great and/or not a full time player for 16 years. When Harold played full years of 140+ games he had about 4 exceptional years.
If you look at the HOF statistics and JAWS numbers Oliva obliterates Baines.
Might be why he didn't get in. Like others have already stated, he was the best player on the list.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Sorry. I have to strongly disagree with you. Baines had 2 1/2 good years (1981 counts as 1/2). No very good, and certainly no great years. But of course the definition of HoFer isn't, and never has been, someone who is better than Harold Baines. If we tried to do that we'd have to put just about anyone someone tried to make a case for in, and a lot of people with no popular support at all. I have never heard anyone say that, for example, Ron Fairly belongs in the Hall, but he meets your standard.
Are you sure that's the group you want to put Oliva in?
Not to beat a dead horse here, but this is the problem with the various Committees: every single pitcher who is a holdover on the BBWAA ballot is far better than the pitchers on the Committee ballots. As always excepting the Negro Leaguers simply because the data is too unreliable.
Clemens, Schilling, Pettitte, Buehrle, and Hudson are all vastly superior to any of Kaat, Pierce, and Reynolds.
It's really hard to make the case that from 1964 to 1971 Oliva was a better hitter than Killebrew. I mean he had 400 more hits and a much higher batting average, but Killebrew has 100 more home runs and 500 more walks(!) significantly higher OBP, SLG, and, necessarily, OPS. It's just not even close.
I'd also take Yastrzemski, Howard, and Robinson, though of course Howard misses the first year and Robinson the first two because they were in the NL.
>
I consider 140 games played and 130 OPS+ a good place to start. If you aren't close to those numbers, I don't consider them "great" years.
Ron Fairly? The name was familiar, looks like he had one real good year; 1973. I wouldn't say he was in any kind of consideration by anyone's standards. Certainly not mine.
Back to Baines. Not sure if I made myself clear, I wouldn't put him in the HOF. I see him as having 4 very good to great years; 1984, 1989, 1991 and 1995. He played in at least 140 games and averaged a .500 SLG and a 143 OPS+. I didn't consider 1981.
The point I was trying to make was that Baines was good/great for about 20% of the time he played, whereas Oliva was great 67% of his career and 100% of the time before he got hurt, with the possible exception of 1967 when he was still very good, but maybe not quite "great".
Yes Killebrew was better, but I was focusing on a 8 year run of consistent superior hitting (not walking). Harmon also was injured in '65 and '68.
As you said, Robinson (vastly superior to Oliva in the long run) was in the NL in '64 & 65. I rank him above all mentioned here.
Howard was better from 1967-71, but not quit as good in '64,65,66.
Yastrzemski had some monster years, he also had three pretty average years during the period. '64, 66 and 1971. I could never understand how Carl could go from hitting 44HR to 16. "Killer" hit 40 or more every single year he had over 500AB, except one year he hit 39 and finished top 5 in BA.
I would rank all of the players you bring up as much better than Oliva and Howard about the same. I wouldn't mind seeing "The Capital Punisher" in the HOF.
How about modifying my statement to; Oliva was one of the top 5 hitters in the AL each and every year from 1964-1971?
Well, OPS+ isn't a bad stat, but it's very one dimensional. Only using OPS+ you'd say Mark McGwire is better than Willie Mays and Darryl Strawberry better than Ken Griffey.
I think Baines had a good year in 1984, not bad years in 1981 or 1982 (in '81 he played in 82 of the White Sox 106 games, so equivalent to 125 games in a whole season.) He was just bad the rest of the time. My only point is that it's insulting to Oliva to say that he belongs in the Hall because he was better than Baines. I suppose further that there are guys like Fairly who fit that criterion but have never had anyone suggest they are HoFers.
This is just wrong. I mean, it's OK to not like Baines or think he's not a HOFer but "he was just bad the rest of the time" is simply not true. A .919 OPS in 1999 with a 2.9 WAR is not "bad". A .943 OPS and 2.3 WAR in 1995 is not "bad". A .902 OPS with a 2.7 WAR in 1996 is not "bad". No, he wasn't a superstar but "not a superstar" is a long way from "bad".
I think OPS+ is a bad stat when you are looking at the top 5% players and use a formula that throws in the other 95% of the players and say the guys that suck determine how we rate the best of the best. I see the reasoning, I just don't agree with it as a determining factor.
>
>
Baines was a very good to great hitter, but for much of his career he wasn't good enough to play everyday. Oliva was a HOF level player and certainly top 5 (or better) hitter before he hurt his knee. He actually was still a great hitter after the injury he just couldn't run hardly at all.
I do give Baines credit for longevity but would not say he was good enough to put him in. I also understand those who say Oliva didn't play long enough.
Ron Fairly does not merit discussion here.
He was very good in 1999. I didn't list that because he played in less than 140 games, but he was very good that year.
All right. Bad is an exaggeration. Would you settle for "significantly below average"? In the 19 years I didn't highlight he was -41 RAA. It's only a 2.5 WAR in 1999 (you forgot to subtract our his performance with Cleveland), and if you're cherrypicking years that WAR claims make him an ordinary starter and still not addressing 16 years it shows that he wasn't a good player. If we want to exclude the three years you highlight, he is down to -64 RAA.
Ron Fairly's 1971 and 1973 are each better than any year Baines ever had, and he finished with 44 RAA (-8 in his other 19 years). Again, please note that I'm using Fairly as an example of someone who both no one thinks belongs in the HoF and is better than Baines.
I don't understand your OPS+ argument, but I think we agree that we can't just look at OPS+ and determine how good a player was (or how good a season was).
Recall that we had very specific criteria regarding Oliva's hitting. We said "American league between 1964-71". Players like Robinson and Howard were marked down because they played in the NL part of that time. Oliva ranks much lower overall in that period.
Anyway, applying the same criteria to Baines over the course of his career (regardless of league) he is 44th, which is not nearly as good as it sounds. Number 43 on this list just happens to be Kirby Puckett. Now regardless whether you think Puckett was a better hitter than Baines (I'm betting you do) the fact is that using a counting stat (which also has the potential to count negatively) Baines tried for four years before Puckett was in the league and six after he retired and still couldn't quite manage to add as much value with his bat. I don't know where you draw the line for "very good to great hitter" in that period, but I'm betting it is somewhere between Will Clark, Jack Clark (after his first five years), John Olerud (before his last four), Pedro Guerrero (after the first two which were ever so slightly negative over just 30 games), and Brian Downing (after his first seven).
incidentally, the players who hurt their teams most with the bat during that period were Ozzie Guillen and Alfredo Griffin by a very substantial margin. 9th is the first sixteen years of Greg Maddux's career. I wouldn't have thought anyone could be bad enough in just 1293 plate appearances to make the top ten over a 22 year period.
Yeah, I forgot that 1999 was a combined year.
All I was doing was refuting the quote, "he was just bad the rest of the time". If pressed, I would say he was a roughly average major leaguer with all that entails - some good years, some bad. I'm certainly not trying to make the case that he was good or great.
Using Win Shares, Oliva ranks tied for 12th in MLB for that 8-year period. Every player who can claim 12th-best in MLB for an 8-year period is a very good player, but lots of players can make that claim, or a stronger one, who nobody ever confused with a HOFer.
Bobby Murcer was the 5th best player in MLB from 1970-1977
Ken Singleton was the 3rd best player in MLB from 1974-1981
Toby Harrah, 6th, 1975-1982
Cecil Cooper, 12th, 1978-1985
BTW, over the 1964-1971 period, where Oliva was 12th, Dick Allen was in 2nd even though this misses his MVP season in 1972, Ron Santo (who some think wasn't a HOFer) was 5th, and Frank Howard was tied for 12th. None of the other names in the top 12 would surprise anyone.
I just don't think OPS+ works like a lot of people think it does. It "gives" Rod Carew, who had a lower OPS than Oliva an equal OPS+. I saw them both and they played (for the most part) in the same time and even for the same team. Oliva was a significantly better hitter for power and as good or nearly as good for average. If OPS+ ranks them equal, there's a problem.
>
>
Yes, I already agreed he wasn't a better hitter than most of those guys. I was making a point about 8 straight nearly flawless years of high average hitting combined with excellent SLG while playing in almost every game. Makes me wonder how great he would have been IF he didn't suffer his knee injury. I can remember him crushing the ball and hobbling to first base on what should have been a sure double. Sad memories. Glad he got in!
>
Regarding Puckett/Baines;
Puckett was a little bit better of a hitter, I remember Baines killing the Twins on many occasions, Puckett was A LOT better in every other area of the game, and almost didn't miss any games for 9 years. Baines wasn't a full time player for much (half?) of his career. If you just look at hitting, Baines is very good. Puckett refused to take a walk and that hurts his "hitting" numbers. Look at total bases and you see a BIG difference.
I think the committee got it right this time. lol were deserving in one way another.
Gil Hodges and Minnie Minoso were long over due.
Being one of the older goats on this forum I have seen these guys perform.
Gil was the heart and sole of the Dodgers. Both these guys should not have had to wait
for a special committee to get them in ,They both should have been rewarded while alive….."
……………….ENOUGH SAID.
Well those good stories had to come from somewhere! And frankly I agree that him getting into the HOF is appalling...because it should've been done when he was still alive!!
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