This really has turned into an outstanding thread in that Oliver, Staub, Parker and Hernandez- among others- are getting some well deserved attention. It is a thread such as this that so clear illustrates there is so much more to MLB than the HOF.
And yes Rocky Colavito will be mentioned again... and again
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@coinkat said:
This really has turned into an outstanding thread in that Oliver, Staub, Parker and Hernandez- among others- are getting some well deserved attention. It is a thread such as this that so clear illustrates there is so much more to MLB than the HOF.
And yes Rocky Colavito will be mentioned again... and again
Colavito was a superb player!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@coolstanley said:
The iron man of the National League. Great fielder and post season hitter. He would get my vote. Hard to believe a 10-time All star is left out.
Nobody is denying Garvey was a popular player with the public with his boy scout image and plastic smile.
The fans voted him into all but 1 or 2 All Star games.
We know now, he was a bit of a scumbag.
And playing when you probably shoudn't, just to keep a selfish ironman streak alive, is not being a team player.
Lasorda's hands were tied. No way he benches Garvey and be the guy that breaks his streak.
And Gold Gloves is one of the more meaningless awards out there. It's a popularity contest.
Didn't Palmiero win the Gold Glove even though he was a DH?
Being popular and owning undeserved hardware shouldn't be benchmarks that get a player into the Hall.
But we also know the HOF has lost a lot of its cachet with some of its recent inductees.
This is such a sad discussion because there are so many borderline players from that era, like the Evans brothers, Reggie Smith, Bobby Bonds, Jim Wynn, Thurman Munson, and, yes, Lynn and Hernandez, not to mention players who far exceed the normal criteria like Graig Nettles, Lou Whitaker, and Bobby Grich, who have somehow been overlooked, and we're talking about merely "good" players like Garvey, Oliver, Staub, and Parker.
And, of course, if you let in all the players I've listed above, you can't make a serious argument that we need more position players who peaked in the '70s and early-mid '80s. But if we do need more, I have more names to consider before we think about those four.
No objection if you want to move Dwight Evans from borderline to "should be in".
And Gold Gloves is one of the more meaningless awards out there. It's a popularity contest.
Didn't Palmiero win the Gold Glove even though he was a DH?
In 1999 Palmeiro played 28 games (246 1/3 innings) at 1B and 128 at DH. And won the Gold Glove.
In his prime, Staub did not have consecutive game streak like Garvey, but he played an exceptionally high percentage of his team's games, even more remarkable that he did it as a left handed batter.
From 1968-1972(age24-27) Staub played in 641 games of the 648 played by his team.
From 1973 to 1979(age 29-34) Staub played in 939 games of the 972 played by his team
@craig44 said:
normally i would have said no way, but hey, they let Harold Baines and jack morris in.
Re Jack morris
“went 3–0 in the 1984 postseason with two complete-game victories in the 1984 World Series, and 4–0 in the 1991 postseason with a ten-inning complete-game victory in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series.”
Come on man…….pick on someone else man - 4 World Series and critical to all of them in the regular season and post season….big game pitcher all day….
It was ONLY 3 World Series' and Morris' 1992 post season was totally HORRID. 0-3 post-season with a putrid ERA of 7.52. not to mention 23 innings pitched and a whopping 19 earned runs allowed. Somehow the Blue Jay's won despite his near historic negative cWPA
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
@daltex said:
This is such a sad discussion because there are so many borderline players from that era, like the Evans brothers, Reggie Smith, Bobby Bonds, Jim Wynn, Thurman Munson, and, yes, Lynn and Hernandez, not to mention players who far exceed the normal criteria like Graig Nettles, Lou Whitaker, and Bobby Grich, who have somehow been overlooked, and we're talking about merely "good" players like Garvey, Oliver, Staub, and Parker.
And, of course, if you let in all the players I've listed above, you can't make a serious argument that we need more position players who peaked in the '70s and early-mid '80s. But if we do need more, I have more names to consider before we think about those four.
No objection if you want to move Dwight Evans from borderline to "should be in".
Nettles! Yep pretty much twice the WAR in the same amount of seasons as Baines. In addition an elite defender even near the end. Must be nice to have 2 time convicted drunk (Public record folks) in your corner like Baines did.
IMHO Nettles and Whitaker belong more than many now in the Hall. Grich I'm a bit luke-warm on, but yes he is certainly more worthty than Garvey, Oliver, Staub
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
THE HOF kind of created a mess by allowing players in that were not truly elite. Sad, IMO.
Halladay Koufax, Morris, Blyleven, Kaat - All are truly great players. But there end numbers just don't bare out a true HOF career. Doesn't mean their cards shouldn't sell for a high price. Probably needs to be a standard. I.E. 500 HR's, 3000 hits, 300 wins, 500 saves, .300 batting average, etc.
From 1960 rookie cards and up, pitchers who should be in: Carlton, Niekro, Sutton, Ryan, Seaver, Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Glavine, Gaylord Perry. These guys are locks in my opinion.
Now the other issue is the change in the use of pitchers. Starts going from 36 per year to 30. Some pitchers are getting less than 100 starts or more than some of the competition. So what do we do with those guys? Verlander, Kershaw, Halladay, Pedro, Smoltz, Scherzer, etc. Good question.
Overall they should have criteria, not just because he was the first this or had 5 great years. But heck it gives us something to talk about.
@daltex said:
This is such a sad discussion because there are so many borderline players from that era, like the Evans brothers, Reggie Smith, Bobby Bonds, Jim Wynn, Thurman Munson, and, yes, Lynn and Hernandez, not to mention players who far exceed the normal criteria like Graig Nettles, Lou Whitaker, and Bobby Grich, who have somehow been overlooked, and we're talking about merely "good" players like Garvey, Oliver, Staub, and Parker.
And, of course, if you let in all the players I've listed above, you can't make a serious argument that we need more position players who peaked in the '70s and early-mid '80s. But if we do need more, I have more names to consider before we think about those four.
No objection if you want to move Dwight Evans from borderline to "should be in".
Nettles! Yep pretty much twice the WAR in the same amount of seasons as Baines. In addition an elite defender even near the end. Must be nice to have 2 time convicted drunk (Public record folks) in your corner like Baines did.
IMHO Nettles and Whitaker belong more than many now in the Hall. Grich I'm a bit luke-warm on, but yes he is certainly more worthty than Garvey, Oliver, Staub
For the record, I'm not proposing putting Staub or Oliver into the HOF. I don't think anyone else is either. Just that they are as good or better than Garvey, and their careers are worthy of admiration despite not being HOFer's.
He will not get the support from his contemporaries in what is now called the Era Committe. This is how Kaat, Oliva, and soon to be Dick Allen will get in.
From all accounts I've read, he just wasn't well like within his team or around the league.
He was a GREAT - GREAT player.
As others have pointed out there are some greats that just don't get enshrined.
If for some reason he makes it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I like a more inclusive HOF.
I do agree with the comments that had Garvey & Lynn stayed with their original teams, their enshrinement would be easier. I still think that Mattingly will one day get in... and yes, Rusty Staub - Al Oliver - Bill Buckner were great players. Being that good for 10 seasons is not easy.
I think most of us would agree. There are good players, great players and HOFers. The Hall somehow is not always making those distinctions.
If you have over 2,000 hits, 300 HRS's. lots of stolen bases or whatever, that is a great career. Garvey IMO had a great Career, just like Nettles, Oliva, Kaat, Buckner and all the rest mentioned above. They are just not HOFers in my opinion. Doesn't mean their cards should be slighted in anyway.
I collect Garvey cards and memorabilia and have for 45 years now. I would certainly have liked to see him enshrined, but up until the last couple years, that might have freaked me out. I was attempting to get EVERYTHING Garvey and induction into the HOF now means a glut of stuff that would be nearly impossible to chase all of it down. I finally let go of the must have it all mentality. It still freaks me out sometimes to lose out on something I wanted, but I don't dwell on it.
That said, I would still like to see him make it someday and could even live with not being able to grab all the post election stuff that would be made/issued or feature his likeness. My go to argument is always that the HOF is so exclusive as it is, that even adding ALL of the often debated borderline players would not even move the needle on that percentage, which would still be below 2% of the players who played at the MLB level, all time. If the HOF needs to be more like <1% and only guys with careers like Aaron, Mays, Cobb, Johnson, Young, Spahn, Ruth, etc...well that ship already sailed, so why keep trying to squeeze the doors shut on a few dozen guys who would hardly ruin the place if they were in.
Al OIiver is another (much smaller) player collection of mine. Would love to see him get in too.
I collect Steve Garvey, Dodgers and signed cards. Collector since 1978.
@craig44 said:
normally i would have said no way, but hey, they let Harold Baines and jack morris in.
Re Jack morris
“went 3–0 in the 1984 postseason with two complete-game victories in the 1984 World Series, and 4–0 in the 1991 postseason with a ten-inning complete-game victory in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series.”
Come on man…….pick on someone else man - 4 World Series and critical to all of them in the regular season and post season….big game pitcher all day….
Jack Morris, ERAs by series after 1984: 6.75, 4.05, 1.17, 6.57, 8.44
Career record of 7-4 in the postseason with a 3.80 ERA, just a hair lower than his 3.90 regular season. He wasn't a "big game pitcher" a la John Smoltz or Curt Schilling. He was a guy who had some good performances in big games but was pretty average overall. Full to 1991 - that performance was legendary.
4 rings…key to them all…not just lucky….
Love smoltz so no argument there….
Morris has 3 rings, not 4, and pitched terribly in the '92 postseason when he was 0-3 with an ERA of 7.43.
Sorry we was shut down with injury - apologies….I think
He got a ring though
1992….so after like 15 years and 3 other successful post seasons??? Gotcha - that settles it then…HOF letting in losers now….
@craig44 said:
normally i would have said no way, but hey, they let Harold Baines and jack morris in.
Re Jack morris
“went 3–0 in the 1984 postseason with two complete-game victories in the 1984 World Series, and 4–0 in the 1991 postseason with a ten-inning complete-game victory in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series.”
Come on man…….pick on someone else man - 4 World Series and critical to all of them in the regular season and post season….big game pitcher all day….
Jack Morris, ERAs by series after 1984: 6.75, 4.05, 1.17, 6.57, 8.44
Career record of 7-4 in the postseason with a 3.80 ERA, just a hair lower than his 3.90 regular season. He wasn't a "big game pitcher" a la John Smoltz or Curt Schilling. He was a guy who had some good performances in big games but was pretty average overall. Full to 1991 - that performance was legendary.
4 rings…key to them all…not just lucky….
Love smoltz so no argument there….
Morris has 3 rings, not 4, and pitched terribly in the '92 postseason when he was 0-3 with an ERA of 7.43.
Sorry we was shut down with injury - apologies….I think
He got a ring though
1992….so after like 15 years and 3 other successful post seasons??? Gotcha - that settles it then…HOF letting in losers now….
His career postseason ERA of 3.80 is 1/10 of a run lower than his career ERA which pretty much sums him up~he had some great postseason performances mixed in with some mediocre to downright awful ones. His career ERA is also the highest of any pitcher in the HOF.
Also, his 1992 postseason was far from "successful." "Putrid" might be a better adjective to describe his performance that year.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Buckner? 1-time All-Star, 2-time Top 10 MVP (both 10th place) Bill Buckner? There have been some bad selections for the HoF, and a few very bad, but I don't think any as bad as Buckner would be. IMO, Buckner is worse than Bruce Bochte, Greg Jefferies, Eric Hosmer, or Dave Magadan. If you want to look at players with similar career lengths, he is far, far worse than Ron Fairly and Mickey Vernon. And Staub, Oliver, Lynn, Garvey, and Mattingly are all significantly better than Fairly or Vernon.
But look, it's just not true that the Hall has relaxed its standards. I mean we can debate choices and close calls, but that ship sailed by the mid-1940s. Tommy McCarthy isn't any better than Buckner, really, except that it took him thirteen seasons to establish his mediocracy, one of which only saw him in eight games. The likes of Roger Bresnahan, Hugh Duffy, Hugh Jennings, and Orator Jim O'Rourke were much better, but not up to the level of some of the guys who are routinely "overlooked" today. Suffice it to say that if you looked at their careers alongside those of Staub, Oliver, Lynn, Garvey, Mattingly, and several dozen other players from any era, you'd be hard pressed to say why the HoFers stand out. And then it died down, with the occasional howler (Ray Schalk?) until the days when Frankie Frisch controlled the Veterans Committee. You got dubious entries like Harry Hooper and Waite Hoyt, but also really bad choices like Rube Marquard, Jesse Haines, Lefty Gomez, before bottoming out with Jim Bottomley, High Pockets Kelly, and the incomprehensible Ross Youngs.
So yes, the selections of Hunter, Rice, Ferrell, Morris, Baines, Kaat, Mazeroski, Rizzuto, and most of the relief pitchers are terrible. But they don't bring the Hall any lower than it was ten years after it was established and can't bring it any lower than it was in the Frisch days.
The mention of Bill Buckner in a HOF discussion made me cry.
Fun fact: the 1925 Giants roster included 7 Hall of Famers. In addition to Frisch and Terry, who caused such a colossal mess on the Veteran's Committee, there was Travis Jackson, High Pockets Kelly, Fred Lindstrom, Hack Wilson, and Ross Youngs. You could make a pretty fine list of the worst Hall of Famers with nothing but 1925 Giants.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The MLB HOF and the players that have been fortunate to be enshrined therein merely represent part of MLB history... not the entire history of the game. There is much to be learned and appreciated in terms of looking at careers of those players that are on the outside looking in. And this statement by no means is made cast dispersions on the HOF. Instead, it is made as an attempt to merely insure that those on the outside looking in do not loose their rightful place in MLB history. Whether Steve Garvey, Reggie Smith or Rocky Colavito belong in the HOF is not as important as just recognizing these players for their career accomplishments. They should not be reduced to a footnote or a misplaced belief that they were not excellent players. I suspect a player group of their peers would easily confirm their worthy talent.
While this thread expanded to include some players that made a name for themselves- perhaps not to the satisfaction of those that have a misplaced yardstick or simply rely on numbers/statistics to either prove a point of inclusion or argue certain players simply wallow in the stench of mediocrity- MLB is more than that. MLB remains an evolutionary process as the game has changed and likely will continue to change. And those changes simply can not be retrofitted to the past for purposes of comparison. There is a rich history. Some of which is clearly unjust. And those critical factors should provide an inspiration to insure that more of the MLB story that made the game what it is remains center stage instead of just the story of the selected few.
Because this is actually the Trading Card Forum and not the Sports forum, I'll write here and now that I would rather own cards of players that I see as important in terms of how MLB progressed. Players that will never be in the HOF but had moments/seasons that defy how they managed to achieve success. As an example- look at the 1939 as well as the 1945 season for Dutch Leonard. Look at Buddy Lewis, Buddy Myer and even George Case. It is players such as these that set the bar to measure greatness of the day. And yet today, I suspect very few would recognize their names, their positions or why they even matter. Baseball cards are merely pieces of the puzzle that memorialize MLB for various seasons. Overlooked or missing pieces really lead to an inaccurate or incomplete account of who was important and why at that specific point in time. There can easily be differences in the opinions that folks may hold as to who should be in or out of the HOF, but it should not come at the expense of reducing the entire historical record.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Comments
This really has turned into an outstanding thread in that Oliver, Staub, Parker and Hernandez- among others- are getting some well deserved attention. It is a thread such as this that so clear illustrates there is so much more to MLB than the HOF.
And yes Rocky Colavito will be mentioned again... and again
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Colavito was a superb player!
yup...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Nobody is denying Garvey was a popular player with the public with his boy scout image and plastic smile.
The fans voted him into all but 1 or 2 All Star games.
We know now, he was a bit of a scumbag.
And playing when you probably shoudn't, just to keep a selfish ironman streak alive, is not being a team player.
Lasorda's hands were tied. No way he benches Garvey and be the guy that breaks his streak.
And Gold Gloves is one of the more meaningless awards out there. It's a popularity contest.
Didn't Palmiero win the Gold Glove even though he was a DH?
Being popular and owning undeserved hardware shouldn't be benchmarks that get a player into the Hall.
But we also know the HOF has lost a lot of its cachet with some of its recent inductees.
Maybe Steve would've made the HOF if he hadn't broken his stupid thumb...
Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
Quarters: 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
This is such a sad discussion because there are so many borderline players from that era, like the Evans brothers, Reggie Smith, Bobby Bonds, Jim Wynn, Thurman Munson, and, yes, Lynn and Hernandez, not to mention players who far exceed the normal criteria like Graig Nettles, Lou Whitaker, and Bobby Grich, who have somehow been overlooked, and we're talking about merely "good" players like Garvey, Oliver, Staub, and Parker.
And, of course, if you let in all the players I've listed above, you can't make a serious argument that we need more position players who peaked in the '70s and early-mid '80s. But if we do need more, I have more names to consider before we think about those four.
No objection if you want to move Dwight Evans from borderline to "should be in".
His forearms are too big for the Hall.
In 1999 Palmeiro played 28 games (246 1/3 innings) at 1B and 128 at DH. And won the Gold Glove.
Interesting
In his prime, Staub did not have consecutive game streak like Garvey, but he played an exceptionally high percentage of his team's games, even more remarkable that he did it as a left handed batter.
From 1968-1972(age24-27) Staub played in 641 games of the 648 played by his team.
From 1973 to 1979(age 29-34) Staub played in 939 games of the 972 played by his team
It was ONLY 3 World Series' and Morris' 1992 post season was totally HORRID. 0-3 post-season with a putrid ERA of 7.52. not to mention 23 innings pitched and a whopping 19 earned runs allowed. Somehow the Blue Jay's won despite his near historic negative cWPA
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
1993?
^ Morris did not play in the 1993 Post Season and his regular season numbers were awful
The Jays both got to the 1993 World Series, and won it, despite Morris
But yeah he may have been awarded a 93 ring which I think even he woudl admit he did not deserve.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Nettles! Yep pretty much twice the WAR in the same amount of seasons as Baines. In addition an elite defender even near the end. Must be nice to have 2 time convicted drunk (Public record folks) in your corner like Baines did.
IMHO Nettles and Whitaker belong more than many now in the Hall. Grich I'm a bit luke-warm on, but yes he is certainly more worthty than Garvey, Oliver, Staub
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
THE HOF kind of created a mess by allowing players in that were not truly elite. Sad, IMO.
Halladay Koufax, Morris, Blyleven, Kaat - All are truly great players. But there end numbers just don't bare out a true HOF career. Doesn't mean their cards shouldn't sell for a high price. Probably needs to be a standard. I.E. 500 HR's, 3000 hits, 300 wins, 500 saves, .300 batting average, etc.
From 1960 rookie cards and up, pitchers who should be in: Carlton, Niekro, Sutton, Ryan, Seaver, Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Glavine, Gaylord Perry. These guys are locks in my opinion.
Now the other issue is the change in the use of pitchers. Starts going from 36 per year to 30. Some pitchers are getting less than 100 starts or more than some of the competition. So what do we do with those guys? Verlander, Kershaw, Halladay, Pedro, Smoltz, Scherzer, etc. Good question.
Overall they should have criteria, not just because he was the first this or had 5 great years. But heck it gives us something to talk about.
For the record, I'm not proposing putting Staub or Oliver into the HOF. I don't think anyone else is either. Just that they are as good or better than Garvey, and their careers are worthy of admiration despite not being HOFer's.
Nettles should be revisited for sure. I'd love to see Sweet Lou in as well. Dude was overshadowed on that team, but he was a great player for Tigers.
Unfortunately, no.
He will not get the support from his contemporaries in what is now called the Era Committe. This is how Kaat, Oliva, and soon to be Dick Allen will get in.
From all accounts I've read, he just wasn't well like within his team or around the league.
He was a GREAT - GREAT player.
As others have pointed out there are some greats that just don't get enshrined.
If for some reason he makes it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I like a more inclusive HOF.
I do agree with the comments that had Garvey & Lynn stayed with their original teams, their enshrinement would be easier. I still think that Mattingly will one day get in... and yes, Rusty Staub - Al Oliver - Bill Buckner were great players. Being that good for 10 seasons is not easy.
Erik
I think most of us would agree. There are good players, great players and HOFers. The Hall somehow is not always making those distinctions.
If you have over 2,000 hits, 300 HRS's. lots of stolen bases or whatever, that is a great career. Garvey IMO had a great Career, just like Nettles, Oliva, Kaat, Buckner and all the rest mentioned above. They are just not HOFers in my opinion. Doesn't mean their cards should be slighted in anyway.
I collect Garvey cards and memorabilia and have for 45 years now. I would certainly have liked to see him enshrined, but up until the last couple years, that might have freaked me out. I was attempting to get EVERYTHING Garvey and induction into the HOF now means a glut of stuff that would be nearly impossible to chase all of it down. I finally let go of the must have it all mentality. It still freaks me out sometimes to lose out on something I wanted, but I don't dwell on it.
That said, I would still like to see him make it someday and could even live with not being able to grab all the post election stuff that would be made/issued or feature his likeness. My go to argument is always that the HOF is so exclusive as it is, that even adding ALL of the often debated borderline players would not even move the needle on that percentage, which would still be below 2% of the players who played at the MLB level, all time. If the HOF needs to be more like <1% and only guys with careers like Aaron, Mays, Cobb, Johnson, Young, Spahn, Ruth, etc...well that ship already sailed, so why keep trying to squeeze the doors shut on a few dozen guys who would hardly ruin the place if they were in.
Al OIiver is another (much smaller) player collection of mine. Would love to see him get in too.
Garvey > @grote15 said:
Sorry we was shut down with injury - apologies….I think
He got a ring though
1992….so after like 15 years and 3 other successful post seasons??? Gotcha - that settles it then…HOF letting in losers now….
His career postseason ERA of 3.80 is 1/10 of a run lower than his career ERA which pretty much sums him up~he had some great postseason performances mixed in with some mediocre to downright awful ones. His career ERA is also the highest of any pitcher in the HOF.
Also, his 1992 postseason was far from "successful." "Putrid" might be a better adjective to describe his performance that year.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Buckner? 1-time All-Star, 2-time Top 10 MVP (both 10th place) Bill Buckner? There have been some bad selections for the HoF, and a few very bad, but I don't think any as bad as Buckner would be. IMO, Buckner is worse than Bruce Bochte, Greg Jefferies, Eric Hosmer, or Dave Magadan. If you want to look at players with similar career lengths, he is far, far worse than Ron Fairly and Mickey Vernon. And Staub, Oliver, Lynn, Garvey, and Mattingly are all significantly better than Fairly or Vernon.
But look, it's just not true that the Hall has relaxed its standards. I mean we can debate choices and close calls, but that ship sailed by the mid-1940s. Tommy McCarthy isn't any better than Buckner, really, except that it took him thirteen seasons to establish his mediocracy, one of which only saw him in eight games. The likes of Roger Bresnahan, Hugh Duffy, Hugh Jennings, and Orator Jim O'Rourke were much better, but not up to the level of some of the guys who are routinely "overlooked" today. Suffice it to say that if you looked at their careers alongside those of Staub, Oliver, Lynn, Garvey, Mattingly, and several dozen other players from any era, you'd be hard pressed to say why the HoFers stand out. And then it died down, with the occasional howler (Ray Schalk?) until the days when Frankie Frisch controlled the Veterans Committee. You got dubious entries like Harry Hooper and Waite Hoyt, but also really bad choices like Rube Marquard, Jesse Haines, Lefty Gomez, before bottoming out with Jim Bottomley, High Pockets Kelly, and the incomprehensible Ross Youngs.
So yes, the selections of Hunter, Rice, Ferrell, Morris, Baines, Kaat, Mazeroski, Rizzuto, and most of the relief pitchers are terrible. But they don't bring the Hall any lower than it was ten years after it was established and can't bring it any lower than it was in the Frisch days.
nah
chaz
The mention of Bill Buckner in a HOF discussion made me cry.
Fun fact: the 1925 Giants roster included 7 Hall of Famers. In addition to Frisch and Terry, who caused such a colossal mess on the Veteran's Committee, there was Travis Jackson, High Pockets Kelly, Fred Lindstrom, Hack Wilson, and Ross Youngs. You could make a pretty fine list of the worst Hall of Famers with nothing but 1925 Giants.
The MLB HOF and the players that have been fortunate to be enshrined therein merely represent part of MLB history... not the entire history of the game. There is much to be learned and appreciated in terms of looking at careers of those players that are on the outside looking in. And this statement by no means is made cast dispersions on the HOF. Instead, it is made as an attempt to merely insure that those on the outside looking in do not loose their rightful place in MLB history. Whether Steve Garvey, Reggie Smith or Rocky Colavito belong in the HOF is not as important as just recognizing these players for their career accomplishments. They should not be reduced to a footnote or a misplaced belief that they were not excellent players. I suspect a player group of their peers would easily confirm their worthy talent.
While this thread expanded to include some players that made a name for themselves- perhaps not to the satisfaction of those that have a misplaced yardstick or simply rely on numbers/statistics to either prove a point of inclusion or argue certain players simply wallow in the stench of mediocrity- MLB is more than that. MLB remains an evolutionary process as the game has changed and likely will continue to change. And those changes simply can not be retrofitted to the past for purposes of comparison. There is a rich history. Some of which is clearly unjust. And those critical factors should provide an inspiration to insure that more of the MLB story that made the game what it is remains center stage instead of just the story of the selected few.
Because this is actually the Trading Card Forum and not the Sports forum, I'll write here and now that I would rather own cards of players that I see as important in terms of how MLB progressed. Players that will never be in the HOF but had moments/seasons that defy how they managed to achieve success. As an example- look at the 1939 as well as the 1945 season for Dutch Leonard. Look at Buddy Lewis, Buddy Myer and even George Case. It is players such as these that set the bar to measure greatness of the day. And yet today, I suspect very few would recognize their names, their positions or why they even matter. Baseball cards are merely pieces of the puzzle that memorialize MLB for various seasons. Overlooked or missing pieces really lead to an inaccurate or incomplete account of who was important and why at that specific point in time. There can easily be differences in the opinions that folks may hold as to who should be in or out of the HOF, but it should not come at the expense of reducing the entire historical record.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Well written and a great read.