@olb31 said:
Baseball - guys who are really close to HOFer's or probably should be: (10 HoFer, 9 hofer, but not quite as good, 8 hofer, but a little iffy and so on ) (these guys are different than the steriod era guys who aren't in for those reasons)
1) Tommy John - 8
2) Al Oliver - 7.5
3) Bill Buckner - 7
4) Bill Madlock - 7
5) Graig Nettles - 7.5 (5 star fielder)
6) Brett Butler - 7 (all around player, great lead off hitter)
7) Dusty Baker - 9 (playing days plus coaching should get him in)
8) Frank Tanana - 7.5
9) Ken griffey - 7
10) Bobby bonds - 7
11) Bob Boone - (fantastic catcher, great leader, more than just stats) - 7
12) Lance Parrish - 8 easily a top 10 catcher of all-time.
13) Willie Randolph - 7
14) Johnny Damon - 8.5
15) Billy Wagner - 8
Nice list, but Dwight Evans is a notable omission.
@olb31 said:
Baseball - guys who are really close to HOFer's or probably should be: (10 HoFer, 9 hofer, but not quite as good, 8 hofer, but a little iffy and so on ) (these guys are different than the steriod era guys who aren't in for those reasons)
12) Lance Parrish - 8 easily a top 10 catcher of all-time.
Hm. I think your list managed to exclude all the guys from those eras who could make a legitimate Hall case (except Nettles).
Re Parrish, I think you'll have little argument that Bench, Carter, Rodriguez, Fisk, Piazza, Berra, Mauer and Dickey were vastly superior to him. It's hard to make a case that Parrish is "easily" better than Molina and Posey, much less Hartnett, Cochrane, and Simmons. Now if you said "top 25" or "easily top 40" I'd say you have a strong argument.
While I'll be the first to say Killebrew was overrated, he was vastly better than Oliver. They were completely different players, of course. Killebrew was much more of a "three true outcomes" player (61% balls in play to 84%). Besides, it's silly to say that the HoFer hit a home run every 14.2 AB and the other guy hit one every 41.3, but other than home runs they're similar. I mean the difference in OPS is .089 (huge) while the difference in their league's OPS was just .008. Now it was substantially easier to hit when Killebrew played, but he outhit Oliver by a factor of ten times that difference.
Williams was a much more similar player (stylewise) to Oliver so is more directly comparable, so it's easier to see how Williams is clearly better.
It's more reasonable to compare Oliver to, say, Fred Lynn and Cesar Cedeno. Both roughly contemporary CFs, both far better than Oliver, neither should get anywhere near the HoF.
Cedeno was only slightly better as a hitter, but did everything else much better. Lynn was a much better hitter and fielder but about equal on the basepaths. Despite the magic .300 lifetime BA, no one would prefer Oliver to either of these two.
And we haven't even gotten to the CFs who merit a little consideration.
While I'll be the first to say Killebrew was overrated, he was vastly better than Oliver.
>
>
Overrated??
Well, no one's comparing Harmon to Mantle, Mays, Aaron or Musial.
Name the (non steroid) players all time with over 500HR that hit more home runs per at bat than Killebrew, then look at how many were right handed.
Killebrew should have played 3rd base until his last few years. Had that happened, he would be in the discussion for 2nd best of all time behind Schmidt. Had the Senators put him in the lineup earlier, "Killer" might have had a shot at Ruth's record.
But that didn't happen.
As it stands, he ends up being more of a utility player. Most of his appearances came at 1st base, where he suffered 2 significant injuries, keeping him from the "600 club".
Three years in left field also doesn't help. Instead of getting credit for playing out of position in order to help his team, he gets criticized for poor outfield play.
On to his card values, where you see that both other rookies in 1955 are much more valuable. Clemente, I can understand, but Koufax?
I would say Killebrew is by no means overrated.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Re Parrish, I think you'll have little argument that Bench, Carter, Rodriguez, Fisk, Piazza, Berra, Mauer and Dickey were vastly superior to him. It's hard to make a case that Parrish is "easily" better than Molina and Posey, much less Hartnett, Cochrane, and Simmons. Now if you said "top 25" or "easily top 40" I'd say you have a strong argument.
I won't argue for where Parrish should be ranked BUT... I think he'd be in the Hall without his back injury.
He deserves it just for the orange highlighter mitt
@MinorLeaguer said:
Carney Lansford was a decent player who no one talks about anymore. He used to be spoken about in the same sentence as Baines for a long time.
remember these are guys under the radar, so parrish isn't a top 5 catcher but top 10, is doable. and his cards aren't as popular but maybe should be more popular.
@daltex said:
I don't see it. I just sorted pitching seasons during John's career by WAA. His best is 1968 which is 144th. Then 1970 is 282nd. I mean the man never had 30 RAA or 5.7 WAR. (By WAR his top season was 235th.) A pretty good pitcher who pitched forever. I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to do the "divide the career in two" thing with him, but John was never, not in any season, a superstar. John's best season would have placed him approximately between Martin Perez and Julio Urias this year. No one would consider that a superstar.
I couldn't find as good a fit with John as I did with Ryan, but I think this is close enough:
Career 1: Dizzy Trout
Career 2: Shane Rawley
Dizzy Trout (if we, like the stats, ignore that his best years were during WWII), was a very good pitcher, but not good enough that anyone other than the one sportswriter who voted for him ever thought of him as a HOFer.
Shane Rawley was not very good. He was similar to Forsch. etc. but not as good and not for as long. So being consistent with my reasoning on Ryan, I'll say that Tommy John was better than Dizzy Trout by a career equal to Shane Rawley (i.e., not much better than Dizzy Trout).
If Tommy John made the HOF it would be kind of silly, but he was SO MUCH better than Jack Morris and Catfish Hunter, that it almost seems inevitable. Jim Kaat getting in probably does make it inevitable.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@daltex said:
I don't see it. I just sorted pitching seasons during John's career by WAA. His best is 1968 which is 144th. Then 1970 is 282nd. I mean the man never had 30 RAA or 5.7 WAR. (By WAR his top season was 235th.) A pretty good pitcher who pitched forever. I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to do the "divide the career in two" thing with him, but John was never, not in any season, a superstar. John's best season would have placed him approximately between Martin Perez and Julio Urias this year. No one would consider that a superstar.
I couldn't find as good a fit with John as I did with Ryan, but I think this is close enough:
Career 1: Dizzy Trout
Career 2: Shane Rawley
Dizzy Trout (if we, like the stats, ignore that his best years were during WWII), was a very good pitcher, but not good enough that anyone other than the one sportswriter who voted for him ever thought of him as a HOFer.
Shane Rawley was not very good. He was similar to Forsch. etc. but not as good and not for as long. So being consistent with my reasoning on Ryan, I'll say that Tommy John was better than Dizzy Trout by a career equal to Shane Rawley (i.e., not much better than Dizzy Trout).
If Tommy John made the HOF it would be kind of silly, but he was SO MUCH better than Jack Morris and Catfish Hunter, that it almost seems inevitable. Jim Kaat getting in probably does make it inevitable.
I don't disagree with the analysis, but I do disagree with the inevitability. Morris, Hunter, and Kaat are not the new standard, and there is no reason to believe that any set of voters will consider "much better than Kaat" a criterion, any more than Baines' enshrinement makes Carney Lansford's (or Rusty Staub's) inevitable.
As evidence, neither Jake Daubert nor George Burns (either one) have gotten serious consideration (or any that I've heard of) in the last fifty years despite being SO MUCH better than High Pockets Kelly.
@MinorLeaguer said:
Carney Lansford was a decent player who no one talks about anymore. He used to be spoken about in the same sentence as Baines for a long time.
@MinorLeaguer said:
Carney Lansford was a decent player who no one talks about anymore. He used to be spoken about in the same sentence as Baines for a long time.
Lansford was much better than Baines.
Not sure how you came to this conclusion.
Baines had 15 seasons with over 130 games played.
Lansford had 9.
Baines also had much more power and was about as good hitting for average. OBP was better for Harold.
I guess this is what it comes to when you put Baines in the HOF.
Kind of sad really.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@MinorLeaguer said:
Carney Lansford was a decent player who no one talks about anymore. He used to be spoken about in the same sentence as Baines for a long time.
I loved Carney. Such a solid player. I could never understand how he could get in position to hit the ball with his frenetic bat wiggle while in the box.
@MinorLeaguer said:
Carney Lansford was a decent player who no one talks about anymore. He used to be spoken about in the same sentence as Baines for a long time.
Lansford was much better than Baines.
Not sure how you came to this conclusion.
Baines had 15 seasons with over 130 games played.
Lansford had 9.
Baines also had much more power and was about as good hitting for average. OBP was better for Harold.
I guess this is what it comes to when you put Baines in the HOF.
Kind of sad really.
Wow! We're leading with "seasons with 130 games played". So I completely agree that Baines was a better hitter than Lansford, though, as you suggest, much of that is due to the length of his career.
But, and this is a big but, Lansford played (badly) 14,640 innings at third. Baines was only able to play 8718 innings, and in right though about league average, before he had to spend 1643(!) games at DH. It's the reason why Mike Piazza is better than Mark McGwire despite an OPS+ that is 20 points lower, and both being similarly wretched fielders (not as bad as Lansford). Someone who can play catcher adds a lot more to a team, all else being equal, than someone who can only play first or DH.
I have many times identified my HOF line player as Orlando Cepeda; he should be either the worst player in the HOF or the best player not in the HOF. He is also essentially the same player as Todd Helton. So I'm fine if Helton gets in and fine if he doesn't. Of course, in the actual HOF, the line has been drawn so far below Helton that he will almost certainly get in, and soon.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
I picked 130 games because I felt it was a good number for a full season.
9 "full seasons" is a rather short time and Lansford was a good, not great player.
Mattingly also had 9 "full" seasons and was a lot better.
Baines was a very good hitter and I guess a really nice fellow who played for a really long time.
I would consider Don for the HOF, but neither of the other two guys.
From my way of thinking putting Baines, and now Kaat, in is a disaster when you look at a LOT of guys with much more ability who aren't in.
It is what it is.
If you like, but then a lot of other people who no one would consider for the Hall are very good hitters. Consider that Baines had 234 Batting Runs with a 121 OPS+. The other players with 234 Batting Runs are Klesko, Puckett, Judge, and Rolen. All of them have higher OPS+ than Baines. Rolen played 3/4 the games Baines did, Judge, so far, about 1/4. So, assume Judge were to play three times as long as he already has, and that over those 2100 games he were to be a league average hitter, that is as good as Harold Castro or Dylan Carlson was last year, if you would (still) consider Judge a "very good" hitter, then I suppose Baines is "very good".
I agree that if one of Baines, Mattingly, or Lansford were to be elected it should be Mattingly, but there are hundreds of players who could be put with Baines and Lansford and be found more deserving. And besides, there is (still) no suggestion that Lansford wasn't better than Baines.
There is no doubt that several "HOFers" were just very good players. There doesn't seem to be a real criteria except 3,000 hits and/or 500 HR's or 300 wins. After that it's a crap shoot. I feel like many of these players are enshrined because the committee wants to have a party each year, so at some point, if you allow only the ones that really belong, the committee wouldn't have anything to party about.
Thus allowing Baines or Santo or Kaat or whomever seems to be a little "under qualified" in order to have their "party", has really skewed the definition of HOFer. It's a pity and somewhat devalues the true HOFers.
@olb31 said:
There is no doubt that several "HOFers" were just very good players. There doesn't seem to be a real criteria except 3,000 hits and/or 500 HR's or 300 wins. After that it's a crap shoot. I feel like many of these players are enshrined because the committee wants to have a party each year, so at some point, if you allow only the ones that really belong, the committee wouldn't have anything to party about.
Thus allowing Baines or Santo or Kaat or whomever seems to be a little "under qualified" in order to have their "party", has really skewed the definition of HOFer. It's a pity and somewhat devalues the true HOFers.
If by “party” you mean a yearly induction ceremony where the HOF makes significant revenue, then you are correct. The standards have to be set at a level that ensures regular inductions to keep the visitors coming and money flowing. It’s been that way since 1945; it’s not anything new. The Hall is not going to adopt induction standards that routinely give up its highest revenue weekend, with 40k or more visitors in a single weekend, even if it means a Harold Baines slips in every once in a while. And why would it?
@olb31 said:
There is no doubt that several "HOFers" were just very good players. There doesn't seem to be a real criteria except 3,000 hits and/or 500 HR's or 300 wins. After that it's a crap shoot. I feel like many of these players are enshrined because the committee wants to have a party each year, so at some point, if you allow only the ones that really belong, the committee wouldn't have anything to party about.
Thus allowing Baines or Santo or Kaat or whomever seems to be a little "under qualified" in order to have their "party", has really skewed the definition of HOFer. It's a pity and somewhat devalues the true HOFers.
If by “party” you mean a yearly induction ceremony where the HOF makes significant revenue, then you are correct. The standards have to be set at a level that ensures regular inductions to keep the visitors coming and money flowing. It’s been that way since 1945; it’s not anything new. The Hall is not going to adopt induction standards that routinely give up its highest revenue weekend, with 40k or more visitors in a single weekend, even if it means a Harold Baines slips in every once in a while. And why would it?
Induction weekend is a major economic shot in the arm for the local economy. that is for sure.
@craig44 said:
Todd Helton may be in the same group.
He gets screwed for where he played and the fact that (apparently) Gold Gloves are meaningless.
Somewhat of a short career.
Anyone with a BA over .300 an OBP over .400 and a SLG over .500 lifetime should pretty much be in.
Park factor hurts him in the eyes of many.
If you double his away numbers and give him zero for a home park advantage, he hits .287, OBP, .386 and SLG .469.
Scores 1054 runs, has 542 doubles, 284 HR, 1094 RBI and 1250 walks.
His OPS+ (supposed to take "park factor" out of the equation) of 133 is just below George Brett's 135.
Shouldn't there be more discussion about Todd Helton?
I agree park factor hurts him in many eyes. I think if that is a major factor, many people need to take a look at Sandy Koufax. He was much more human outside of Dodger Stadium
Wouldn't you be more accurate if you said " much more mediocre" outside of Dodger Stadium? Maybe even poor, if you look at his entire career on the road.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Wouldn't you be more accurate if you said " much more mediocre" outside of Dodger Stadium? Maybe even poor, if you look at his entire career on the road.
I agree. I guess I was trying to soften the blow to the many Koufax fans. I think that Dodger Stadium was to pitchers what Coors Field was to hitters.
@stwainfan said:
For a great player Frank Robinson cards are undervalued.
This is something I'm always amazed by. One of the best players of all time and his cards are CHEAP. Way cheaper than they should and he doesn't get the respect he deserves.
@stwainfan said:
For a great player Frank Robinson cards are undervalued.
This is something I'm always amazed by. One of the best players of all time and his cards are CHEAP. Way cheaper than they should and he doesn't get the respect he deserves.
Yes that's true. Mantle and Mays have been favorites in the hobby for many years. Yes they were great players, I'm not saying who was the better player here. I think Frank Robinson should get more hobby love.
@olb31 said:
There is no doubt that several "HOFers" were just very good players. There doesn't seem to be a real criteria except 3,000 hits and/or 500 HR's or 300 wins. After that it's a crap shoot. I feel like many of these players are enshrined because the committee wants to have a party each year, so at some point, if you allow only the ones that really belong, the committee wouldn't have anything to party about.
Thus allowing Baines or Santo or Kaat or whomever seems to be a little "under qualified" in order to have their "party", has really skewed the definition of HOFer. It's a pity and somewhat devalues the true HOFers.
Befuddled as to how one can use Santo's name in the same sentence as Kaat's or Baines'.
Also, you may wish to reexamine your "real criteria".
@ScoobyDoo2 said:
I'm a big fan of ~ Steve Garvey, Keith Hernandez, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker....
I'm a Dodger fan and Garvey was certainly a superstar for his era. Did lots of commercials. Love Murphy also. Murphy another Superstar. Back to back MVP's.
All 4 four were All-Stars many times over and dominated the game for many years apiece.
Here are a few non-HOF pitchers that did really well (some have already been mentioned above):
Mike Scott
Frank Tanana
Jamie Moyer
Billy Wagner
Jeff Reardon
Dan quisenberry
Joe Niekro
Ron Guidry
Frank Viola
Jerry Koosman
Luis tiant
Ron Darling
John Franco
Mike Cuellar
Bob Welch
Orel Hershiser
Dwight Gooden
Mike Boddicker
Bret Saberhagen
I'd love to see Murphy, Hernandez, Parker & Guidry get serious consideration. Guidry was as good as anyone for about 6-8 years.
I always loved Tanana and his entire story about how he overcame injury, redid how he pitched and was still successful. Plus, I met him as a kid and he was just the nicest guy.
@BBBrkrr said:
I'd love to see Murphy, Hernandez, Parker & Guidry get serious consideration. Guidry was as good as anyone for about 6-8 years.
I always loved Tanana and his entire story about how he overcame injury, redid how he pitched and was still successful. Plus, I met him as a kid and he was just the nicest guy.
Frank is one of the most underrated pitchers of all-time, gutsy and tough.
@BBBrkrr said:
I'd love to see Murphy, Hernandez, Parker & Guidry get serious consideration. Guidry was as good as anyone for about 6-8 years.
I always loved Tanana and his entire story about how he overcame injury, redid how he pitched and was still successful. Plus, I met him as a kid and he was just the nicest guy.
Frank is one of the most underrated pitchers of all-time, gutsy and tough.
But I have no idea what he was thinking with that perm hairdo in the early 80s. Though to be fair he wasn't the only one doing that.
@BBBrkrr said:
I'd love to see Murphy, Hernandez, Parker & Guidry get serious consideration. Guidry was as good as anyone for about 6-8 years.
I always loved Tanana and his entire story about how he overcame injury, redid how he pitched and was still successful. Plus, I met him as a kid and he was just the nicest guy.
Guidry was not as good as anyone for 6-8 years. Guidry was a top tier pitcher from 1977-79, but never any better than that (Phil Niekro was always better) and never reached that level again. A very good pitcher, sure, but never "as good as anyone" and not elite for anywhere near that long.
Comments
Nice list, but Dwight Evans is a notable omission.
i agree dwight evans was awesome. he's a 7.5.
Hm. I think your list managed to exclude all the guys from those eras who could make a legitimate Hall case (except Nettles).
Re Parrish, I think you'll have little argument that Bench, Carter, Rodriguez, Fisk, Piazza, Berra, Mauer and Dickey were vastly superior to him. It's hard to make a case that Parrish is "easily" better than Molina and Posey, much less Hartnett, Cochrane, and Simmons. Now if you said "top 25" or "easily top 40" I'd say you have a strong argument.
https://stathead.com/tiny/B32Hx
Comparing Oliver, Killebrew, and Williams above:
While I'll be the first to say Killebrew was overrated, he was vastly better than Oliver. They were completely different players, of course. Killebrew was much more of a "three true outcomes" player (61% balls in play to 84%). Besides, it's silly to say that the HoFer hit a home run every 14.2 AB and the other guy hit one every 41.3, but other than home runs they're similar. I mean the difference in OPS is .089 (huge) while the difference in their league's OPS was just .008. Now it was substantially easier to hit when Killebrew played, but he outhit Oliver by a factor of ten times that difference.
Williams was a much more similar player (stylewise) to Oliver so is more directly comparable, so it's easier to see how Williams is clearly better.
It's more reasonable to compare Oliver to, say, Fred Lynn and Cesar Cedeno. Both roughly contemporary CFs, both far better than Oliver, neither should get anywhere near the HoF.
https://stathead.com/tiny/ZEZbv//
Cedeno was only slightly better as a hitter, but did everything else much better. Lynn was a much better hitter and fielder but about equal on the basepaths. Despite the magic .300 lifetime BA, no one would prefer Oliver to either of these two.
And we haven't even gotten to the CFs who merit a little consideration.
>
>
Overrated??
Well, no one's comparing Harmon to Mantle, Mays, Aaron or Musial.
Name the (non steroid) players all time with over 500HR that hit more home runs per at bat than Killebrew, then look at how many were right handed.
Killebrew should have played 3rd base until his last few years. Had that happened, he would be in the discussion for 2nd best of all time behind Schmidt. Had the Senators put him in the lineup earlier, "Killer" might have had a shot at Ruth's record.
But that didn't happen.
As it stands, he ends up being more of a utility player. Most of his appearances came at 1st base, where he suffered 2 significant injuries, keeping him from the "600 club".
Three years in left field also doesn't help. Instead of getting credit for playing out of position in order to help his team, he gets criticized for poor outfield play.
On to his card values, where you see that both other rookies in 1955 are much more valuable. Clemente, I can understand, but Koufax?
I would say Killebrew is by no means overrated.
Carney Lansford was a decent player who no one talks about anymore. He used to be spoken about in the same sentence as Baines for a long time.
I won't argue for where Parrish should be ranked BUT... I think he'd be in the Hall without his back injury.
He deserves it just for the orange highlighter mitt
carney was a fantastic hitter. good pull.
catchers, molina, mauer and parrish are very close.
these three would be 7,8,9. boone 10?
remember these are guys under the radar, so parrish isn't a top 5 catcher but top 10, is doable. and his cards aren't as popular but maybe should be more popular.
I couldn't find as good a fit with John as I did with Ryan, but I think this is close enough:
Career 1: Dizzy Trout
Career 2: Shane Rawley
Dizzy Trout (if we, like the stats, ignore that his best years were during WWII), was a very good pitcher, but not good enough that anyone other than the one sportswriter who voted for him ever thought of him as a HOFer.
Shane Rawley was not very good. He was similar to Forsch. etc. but not as good and not for as long. So being consistent with my reasoning on Ryan, I'll say that Tommy John was better than Dizzy Trout by a career equal to Shane Rawley (i.e., not much better than Dizzy Trout).
If Tommy John made the HOF it would be kind of silly, but he was SO MUCH better than Jack Morris and Catfish Hunter, that it almost seems inevitable. Jim Kaat getting in probably does make it inevitable.
I don't disagree with the analysis, but I do disagree with the inevitability. Morris, Hunter, and Kaat are not the new standard, and there is no reason to believe that any set of voters will consider "much better than Kaat" a criterion, any more than Baines' enshrinement makes Carney Lansford's (or Rusty Staub's) inevitable.
As evidence, neither Jake Daubert nor George Burns (either one) have gotten serious consideration (or any that I've heard of) in the last fifty years despite being SO MUCH better than High Pockets Kelly.
Lansford was much better than Baines.
Parrish is better classed as very close to Jim Sundberg and Darrell Porter.
https://stathead.com/tiny/scSgN
Porter was much better offensively, Sundberg defensively, but all three close to equally valuable.
Boone is not close.
Not sure how you came to this conclusion.
Baines had 15 seasons with over 130 games played.
Lansford had 9.
Baines also had much more power and was about as good hitting for average. OBP was better for Harold.
I guess this is what it comes to when you put Baines in the HOF.
Kind of sad really.
I loved Carney. Such a solid player. I could never understand how he could get in position to hit the ball with his frenetic bat wiggle while in the box.
Andres Galarraga
Wow! We're leading with "seasons with 130 games played". So I completely agree that Baines was a better hitter than Lansford, though, as you suggest, much of that is due to the length of his career.
But, and this is a big but, Lansford played (badly) 14,640 innings at third. Baines was only able to play 8718 innings, and in right though about league average, before he had to spend 1643(!) games at DH. It's the reason why Mike Piazza is better than Mark McGwire despite an OPS+ that is 20 points lower, and both being similarly wretched fielders (not as bad as Lansford). Someone who can play catcher adds a lot more to a team, all else being equal, than someone who can only play first or DH.
I picked 130 games because I felt it was a good number for a full season.
9 "full seasons" is a rather short time and Lansford was a good, not great player.
Mattingly also had 9 "full" seasons and was a lot better.
Baines was a very good hitter and I guess a really nice fellow who played for a really long time.
I would consider Don for the HOF, but neither of the other two guys.
From my way of thinking putting Baines, and now Kaat, in is a disaster when you look at a LOT of guys with much more ability who aren't in.
It is what it is.
good call on the big cat.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Todd Helton may be in the same group.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
He gets screwed for where he played and the fact that (apparently) Gold Gloves are meaningless.
Somewhat of a short career.
Anyone with a BA over .300 an OBP over .400 and a SLG over .500 lifetime should pretty much be in.
Park factor hurts him in the eyes of many.
If you double his away numbers and give him zero for a home park advantage, he hits .287, OBP, .386 and SLG .469.
Scores 1054 runs, has 542 doubles, 284 HR, 1094 RBI and 1250 walks.
His OPS+ (supposed to take "park factor" out of the equation) of 133 is just below George Brett's 135.
Shouldn't there be more discussion about Todd Helton?
Helton got over 50% of the vote last year. He will get in eventually.
Helton was a beast!!!
I have many times identified my HOF line player as Orlando Cepeda; he should be either the worst player in the HOF or the best player not in the HOF. He is also essentially the same player as Todd Helton. So I'm fine if Helton gets in and fine if he doesn't. Of course, in the actual HOF, the line has been drawn so far below Helton that he will almost certainly get in, and soon.
If you like, but then a lot of other people who no one would consider for the Hall are very good hitters. Consider that Baines had 234 Batting Runs with a 121 OPS+. The other players with 234 Batting Runs are Klesko, Puckett, Judge, and Rolen. All of them have higher OPS+ than Baines. Rolen played 3/4 the games Baines did, Judge, so far, about 1/4. So, assume Judge were to play three times as long as he already has, and that over those 2100 games he were to be a league average hitter, that is as good as Harold Castro or Dylan Carlson was last year, if you would (still) consider Judge a "very good" hitter, then I suppose Baines is "very good".
I agree that if one of Baines, Mattingly, or Lansford were to be elected it should be Mattingly, but there are hundreds of players who could be put with Baines and Lansford and be found more deserving. And besides, there is (still) no suggestion that Lansford wasn't better than Baines.
There is no doubt that several "HOFers" were just very good players. There doesn't seem to be a real criteria except 3,000 hits and/or 500 HR's or 300 wins. After that it's a crap shoot. I feel like many of these players are enshrined because the committee wants to have a party each year, so at some point, if you allow only the ones that really belong, the committee wouldn't have anything to party about.
Thus allowing Baines or Santo or Kaat or whomever seems to be a little "under qualified" in order to have their "party", has really skewed the definition of HOFer. It's a pity and somewhat devalues the true HOFers.
If by “party” you mean a yearly induction ceremony where the HOF makes significant revenue, then you are correct. The standards have to be set at a level that ensures regular inductions to keep the visitors coming and money flowing. It’s been that way since 1945; it’s not anything new. The Hall is not going to adopt induction standards that routinely give up its highest revenue weekend, with 40k or more visitors in a single weekend, even if it means a Harold Baines slips in every once in a while. And why would it?
Induction weekend is a major economic shot in the arm for the local economy. that is for sure.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I agree park factor hurts him in many eyes. I think if that is a major factor, many people need to take a look at Sandy Koufax. He was much more human outside of Dodger Stadium
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Wouldn't you be more accurate if you said " much more mediocre" outside of Dodger Stadium? Maybe even poor, if you look at his entire career on the road.
I agree. I guess I was trying to soften the blow to the many Koufax fans. I think that Dodger Stadium was to pitchers what Coors Field was to hitters.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I don't believe Jeff Kent has been mentioned.
Maybe has the best stats ever for second base guy. BUT, steriod allegations have slowed him down. Purley stats though, he would 100% in, imo.
I do buy his rookies. 1992 Leaf Gold is the best, definitely the rarest in high condition.
For a great player Frank Robinson cards are undervalued.
I collect hall of fame rookie cards, https://www.instagram.com/stwainfan/
This is something I'm always amazed by. One of the best players of all time and his cards are CHEAP. Way cheaper than they should and he doesn't get the respect he deserves.
Yes that's true. Mantle and Mays have been favorites in the hobby for many years. Yes they were great players, I'm not saying who was the better player here. I think Frank Robinson should get more hobby love.
I collect hall of fame rookie cards, https://www.instagram.com/stwainfan/
Befuddled as to how one can use Santo's name in the same sentence as Kaat's or Baines'.
Also, you may wish to reexamine your "real criteria".
I think he was using 500, 3000, 300 as historical criteria not necessarily "real" criteria.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
When you eliminate the cheaters, every player eligible for the HOF who has achieved these milestones is in.
Seems real to me.
I'm a big fan of ~ Steve Garvey, Keith Hernandez, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker....
I'm a Dodger fan and Garvey was certainly a superstar for his era. Did lots of commercials. Love Murphy also. Murphy another Superstar. Back to back MVP's.
All 4 four were All-Stars many times over and dominated the game for many years apiece.
One of these players is much better than the other three.
Hernandez 5 time AS 1 MVP
Parker 7 time AS 1 MVP
Garvey 10 time AS 1 MVP
Murphy 7 time AS 2 MVP
Going by the above I assume you think that Steve Garvey was the best of these 4. All look like exceptional players.
Here are a few non-HOF pitchers that did really well (some have already been mentioned above):
Mike Scott
Frank Tanana
Jamie Moyer
Billy Wagner
Jeff Reardon
Dan quisenberry
Joe Niekro
Ron Guidry
Frank Viola
Jerry Koosman
Luis tiant
Ron Darling
John Franco
Mike Cuellar
Bob Welch
Orel Hershiser
Dwight Gooden
Mike Boddicker
Bret Saberhagen
I'd love to see Murphy, Hernandez, Parker & Guidry get serious consideration. Guidry was as good as anyone for about 6-8 years.
I always loved Tanana and his entire story about how he overcame injury, redid how he pitched and was still successful. Plus, I met him as a kid and he was just the nicest guy.
Frank is one of the most underrated pitchers of all-time, gutsy and tough.
But I have no idea what he was thinking with that perm hairdo in the early 80s. Though to be fair he wasn't the only one doing that.
I think Steve also once had 2 or 3 women pregnant as the same time. Just sayin..
Guidry was not as good as anyone for 6-8 years. Guidry was a top tier pitcher from 1977-79, but never any better than that (Phil Niekro was always better) and never reached that level again. A very good pitcher, sure, but never "as good as anyone" and not elite for anywhere near that long.