I agree that many stars of the 70s and 80s for the most part just aren't of a high enough caliber among all-time greats to be considered for the Hall. Among the names being tossed around -- Dawson, Trammell, Rice, Garvey, Lynn, Sutter, John, Kaat, Buckner, Oliver, Lolich, Gossage, and many other guys with long fruitful careers -- the lack of strong career stats, lack multiple "impact" seasons, and abundance of other better contemporary players will keep all these guys out with the possible exception of Rice. The only reason he isn't there now is because he was a pr*ck with the press. (I think the adjective "surly" was most often used to describe him.)
I think there is another element at play as well. With the advent of free agency, many of these guys played for 4 or 5 teams during their careers. They never became the "icon" of a franchise. Plus, some played for poor small market teams that held back their notoriety. I think with today's players moving from team to team wil not bee too much of a detriment to their HOF status because ALL players move from team to team today. But in the 70s, stars like Oliver, Buckner, Gossage, were competing for "idolhood" against the likes of teammates who played their entire careers for one franchise (almost): Stargell, Brooks, Yaz, Bench, Killebrew, Aaron, Gibson. I think this adds tarnish to their overall luster. Only the true megawatt stars that jumped around could outshine the tarnish: Reggie, Ryan, Carew, Seaver.
Notice that guys like Brett, Yount, and Ozzie wre ushered in quickly. Do you think because they were associated with on franchise so strongly, that this helped their image as a great of the game? I think so.
CON, Your point is an outstanding one! There are players whose reputation is much greater than their actual careers were simply because they became a part of a cities landscape. Think of even middle of the road players that are considered legendary by some teams , Rusty Staub, The Dodgers 70's infield, Jose Cruz Sr., Dave Concepcion, Larry Bowa, etc. These were all very good players but many of them have legend status in given cities. As that changed in the late 70's early 80's people saw players for only what they did that day and so if you were less than a superstar they were treated that way. Like those you mentioned, you had to be truly great to overcome the moving.
You are also right in that it won't matter anymore because it's now strange for a player to stay with a team. I do believe though, that for some reason, the baseball writers will be much more generous to this group than they were to the previous gneration. You hear of guys being locks for the hof that, in my mind, don't measure up with others that are still missing. Or, maybe it's me, maybe I still see guys with a kids eyes. I still don't think anyone ever hit the ball harder than Dave Parker!
Collecting anything and everything relating to Roger Staubach
I agree that playing for one team and establishing themselves as a piece of the city has definitely had an impact on the way we look at players and their reputation. Myself, being from Detroit, I have a personal bias toward Alan Trammell simply because he was the greatest shortstop ever to play for the Tigers, and for 20 years, he was there. In my honest opinion, does Alan Trammell have HOF numbers, absolutely not, but when comparing him to players like Ozzie Smith and Robin Yount, his stats were very similar to both, he does deserve a spot in the HOF on those grounds, which is where my argument stemmed from. Heck, many Detroit fans around here thought Lou Whitaker was going to go have a good shot at getting in when he was eligible just because he was a household name for nearly 20 years also. Of course, Whitaker wasn't even close to a HOF calibur player, but was immortalized here, as was Jack Morris. Now, Morris is a different story because he was good while he was here for 14 years, and he was plenty good once he left as well. I personally think that Jack Morris was the most dominant pitcher in the AL during the entire decade of the 80's right up through 1992. The fact that he won 3 WS rings for 3 different teams says a lot, and his personal 4-2 record in the WS with 3 CG's in 7 starts and a 2.96 ERA should go a long way in determining a Hall Of Famer... it means not only was he good, he was great when it meant the most.
I thought so too! Ryno will get into the Hall one of these years... he's just gonna have to wait until no big names are up for election. If Mazeroski can make it there, it'd be a travesty to overlook Ryno.
Frank As a big Oz fan - I'm in agreement with you - a rare gem - a fielding % only reflects that ratio of outs to errors - more important is a close study of his ability to make the out that others would NEVER get to - these plays SAVE runs and thus is complimentary to providing offense that his bat didn't provide. This is a great debate and I'm really enjoying it. Some writers have commented on this special attribute of Oz in their vote - he has won a lot of games with his glove. Mike
Comments
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
I think there is another element at play as well. With the advent of free agency, many of these guys played for 4 or 5 teams during their careers. They never became the "icon" of a franchise. Plus, some played for poor small market teams that held back their notoriety. I think with today's players moving from team to team wil not bee too much of a detriment to their HOF status because ALL players move from team to team today. But in the 70s, stars like Oliver, Buckner, Gossage, were competing for "idolhood" against the likes of teammates who played their entire careers for one franchise (almost): Stargell, Brooks, Yaz, Bench, Killebrew, Aaron, Gibson. I think this adds tarnish to their overall luster. Only the true megawatt stars that jumped around could outshine the tarnish: Reggie, Ryan, Carew, Seaver.
Notice that guys like Brett, Yount, and Ozzie wre ushered in quickly. Do you think because they were associated with on franchise so strongly, that this helped their image as a great of the game? I think so.
Your point is an outstanding one! There are players whose reputation is much greater than their actual careers were simply because they became a part of a cities landscape. Think of even middle of the road players that are considered legendary by some teams , Rusty Staub, The Dodgers 70's infield, Jose Cruz Sr., Dave Concepcion, Larry Bowa, etc. These were all very good players but many of them have legend status in given cities. As that changed in the late 70's early 80's people saw players for only what they did that day and so if you were less than a superstar they were treated that way. Like those you mentioned, you had to be truly great to overcome the moving.
You are also right in that it won't matter anymore because it's now strange for a player to stay with a team. I do believe though, that for some reason, the baseball writers will be much more generous to this group than they were to the previous gneration. You hear of guys being locks for the hof that, in my mind, don't measure up with others that are still missing. Or, maybe it's me, maybe I still see guys with a kids eyes. I still don't think anyone ever hit the ball harder than Dave Parker!
Great point about playing for one franchise, but then why isn't Ryne Sandberg in the Hall of Fame. I thought he would be a lock. Apparently not.
Shane
I thought so too! Ryno will get into the Hall one of these years... he's just gonna have to wait until no big names are up for election. If Mazeroski can make it there, it'd be a travesty to overlook Ryno.
<< <i>Did you ever see Ozzie play? >>
Frank
As a big Oz fan - I'm in agreement with you - a rare gem - a fielding % only reflects that ratio of outs to errors - more important is a close study of his ability to make the out that others would NEVER get to - these plays SAVE runs and thus is complimentary to providing offense that his bat didn't provide. This is a great debate and I'm really enjoying it. Some writers have commented on this special attribute of Oz in their vote - he has won a lot of games with his glove.
Mike