Options
Hall of Fame Omissions
shagrotn77
Posts: 5,566 ✭✭✭✭
What (or who) are the biggest Hall of Fame omissions in each of the four major sports?
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
0
Comments
Joe
Robert
Any high grade OPC Jim Palmer
High grade Redskins (pre 1980)
Shoeless Joe, on the other hand, may not have 'thrown' the world series, but he did accept money from those who wanted it thrown. That (to me) warrants his banishment.
Baseball: Santo
Football: Guy
Basketball: Dantley
Hockey: Brent Sutter
I really don't follow any other sports.
He also should be collecting residual checks from all these bums who are paid 3-5 million per year to bat below the mendoza line and play as the 3rd utility infielder for a team 28 games out of first with a month to go in the season!
Seriously though. Rose would be a no brainer! After T. Perez, O. Cepeda, B. Maz was elected the people on the fence is starting to thin out. I was thinking about maybe Tony Oliva or Al Oliver (don't laugh) he has 2743 hits, .303 lifetime batting average, 1326 RBI's.
I would take out Phil Rizzuto in a heartbeat (1588 hits and .273BA) along with Pee Wee Reese and his 2170 hits and .269BA....but that is a different thread! lol...........
Take care,
Mark
ebay (bbcards4me)
This old thread is pretty insightful too.
Brian
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
I'd say Glenn Anderson in hockey, but his omission is not really a glaring one.
Baseball: Joe Jackson, Bert Blyleven, Jim Rice, Jim Kaat, Tommy John, Al Oliver
Basketball: Dennis Johnson, Dominique Wilkins (9th in scoring), Adrian Dantley (17th in scoring, 54% FG for CAREER! @ 6'5"
Erik
in baseball jim kaat
basketball dunno
hockey ditto on the dunno
Here is another thought. I think that the Hall of Fame, at least in baseball, should be totally reorganized. I think there should be levels. How many levels is debateable. Maybe have 3 levels. Have 20 of the best of the best at this level. (Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Walter Johnson, Hank Aaron, etc.) Then have a moderate level of superstars, but not the best (Yastrzemski, Banks, McCovey, etc). Then have a third level of ones that deserve to be in the Hall, but barely make it or ones that aren't household names (Fergie Jenkins, Tony Perez, Rollie Fingers, etc). There would be a renewed interest and stir up a lot of debate and conversation. Just a thought, not original with me, though.
Shane
how in the world he is in i have no clue
Ive never understood why he is in the Hall of Fame as he was a slightly better than average player and manager of only 2 pennant winners (1 World Title). There are tons of others that could meet that criteria. If its for longevity, then Zimmer should be right next to him.
Red, Rizzuto, Bobby Doerr and Mazeroski were probably the final undoing of the former veterans committee.
Baseball: Blyleven, Hodges
Football: Monk, Guy
Basketball: Dominique and Dantley
Hockey, I just don't know. I think it's weird how some guys (Gretzky, Lemieux) get elected immediately, with no waiting period, but Bourque and Roy have to wait. By the wau, anyone know what the waiting period is hockey? 3 years maybe?
I also think it was crazy to retire #99 for the whole league. Who else would dare to wear it? The closest I ever saw was Brian Lawton. He wore #98 and was mocked and ridiculed for it.
<< <i>and a 4th level would include that ferrel guy wes or rick im not sure
how in the world he is in i have no clue >>
It's Rick, and in the years when his name appeared on the regular HOF ballot he never received more than one vote. The Veteran's Committee must have been smoking something when they put him in. Interestingly, though, you could make a pretty good case that Wes should be in the HOF.
<< <i>If I had 2 votes for each sport:
Baseball: Blyleven, Hodges
Football: Monk, Guy
Basketball: Dominique and Dantley
Hockey, I just don't know. I think it's weird how some guys (Gretzky, Lemieux) get elected immediately, with no waiting period, but Bourque and Roy have to wait. By the wau, anyone know what the waiting period is hockey? 3 years maybe? >>
Cubfan,
I actually agree with you. There are a bunch that fall into that category. If you put those guys in, why in the world wouldn't you put Roger Maris in? Sure, he doesn't have the career numbers, but EVERYBODY knows who Roger Maris is. He had one of the most memorable seasons in history.
Shane
He has good lifetime stats, played on Championship Teams in both leauges, and was a fine individual, as well as twice the MVP.
No feat in sports had more continual pressure than his chase of the Babe's 60. This was THE record in baseball, perhaps in all of sports. Thats alone should merit induction.
As said before, the Hall is a bit over-stocked or somewhat diluted. There is no way at all any member will be taken out, therefore with some of the members already there, Maris would be good company.
Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose ?........of course they belong.
There are many undeserving players enshrined because of their popularity. It's a disgrace Sandberg isn't in.
For years I complained about Paul Krause and Carl Eller but they finally made it. Too bad it took so long. I suspect Sandberg will be in soon also.
HOF Quarterbacks Football
Football - ditto Art Monk. Great guy too.
Hoops - Dominique Wilkens. Maybe some day.
Pucks - Brent Sutter.
Regards.
Unfocused, impulsive collector of everything ...
I would agree with Santo as well and might stretch with Hodges. There just arent that many multiple all-star position players out there.
But it appears that the new veterans committee is going to be extremely strict and maybe overly strict in the next few elections to correct the terrible choices of the past few years.
Football: Art Monk
Basketball: Dominque Wilkins (I thought he wasn't eligible for HOF yet?), and Artis Gilmore
Hockey: Rogie Vachon- I think he has like 400 wins as a goalie, and is still not in, probably because he played most of his career on the west coast for the L.A. Kings when they weren't good in the 70's.
Hockey: Vachon is an excellent choice. He was totally penalized for playing most of his career in a non-hockey market. No way should Bourque or Roy be exempted from the 3-year waiting period. I thought it was a very poor choice to allow Lemieux and Gretzky to waltz right in, and hopefully in the wake of them both coming out of retirement to play again, the powers that be never pull that stunt again.
I think the arguement that 'well so-and-so has been on the outside looking in for X amount of years' is a very dangerous one at best.
I think the true definition of a HoF'er should be someone who dominated (not just did well, but dominated) at his position for a sustained period of time.
I don't think being brilliant for 5 or 6 years should warrant HoF consideration. Terrell Davis is a perfect example, as is Thurman Munson....both players excelled, but their careers didn't last long enough (in my mind) to warrant HoF induction. Don't get me wrong, I think very highly of both players (especially Munson), but the HoF should be a very select group.
It's the same reasoning I despised the Veteran's Committee, and why I think that after 5 years of not being voted in, your name should be removed from the vote. There seems to be this sentiment (especially among players that were very popular) that if they stick it out long enough, they will eventually make it in. I disagree with that.
There is the argument that people always bring up about how 'so-and-so is better than this guy in the HoF'. That (to me) again holds no water. I think any player worth considering to the HoF should be able to stand on his own, and not have to resort to comparison to other players in the hall.
I think Ray Guy should be in...I think punters (and kickers) are kind of like relievers (and soon to be DH's) in baseball. They aren't typically seen as a critical component to the game, but is that really an excuse? Edgar Martinez may be the best DH the game has even known, but the knock on him is he didn't play in the field. That shouldn't matter. MLB has the DH rule, and whether or not you agree with it he has dominated it. The same with Ray Guy. The best damn punter who played, and people look down on him and don't feel he is worthy because he was 'just' a punter. He played the position better than anyone, he should be in.
<< <i>I thought it was a very poor choice to allow Lemieux and Gretzky to waltz right in, and hopefully in the wake of them both coming out of retirement to play again, the powers that be never pull that stunt again. >>
Don Coryell
Ray Guy
Art Monk
Ken Stabler
John Hadl
In baseball, I'd pick:
Bert Blyleven
Goose Gossage
Bruce Sutter
Jim Rice
Andre Dawson
Don't know enough about basketball and hockey.
Steve
Unfocused, impulsive collector of everything ...
PETER EDWARD ROSE
if the facts showed he bet AGAINST the reds i'd say no.
<< <i>Axtell - you make many good points that I do not disagree with. One question though - according to your logic, Sandy Koufax does not deserve to be in the HOF. Should he be or not? Regards. >>
I know it's considered heresy, but yes, I would not have included Koufax if I were voting. Yes he dominated when he pitched, however, it was such as short period of time, and yes, you could project out that he would have had a very fruitful career. He just didn't play well long enough to merit consideration.
Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB SO HBP WP BFP ERA *lgERA *ERA+
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+------+----+----+----+---+----+----+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+
1955 19 BRO NL 2 2 12 5 4 2 2 0 41.7 33 15 14 2 28 30 1 2 183 3.02 4.08 135
1956 20 BRO NL 2 4 16 10 1 0 0 0 58.7 66 37 32 10 29 30 0 1 261 4.91 3.96 81
1957 21 BRO NL 5 4 34 13 12 2 0 0 104.3 83 49 45 14 51 122 2 5 444 3.88 4.15 107
1958 22 LAD NL 11 11 40 26 7 5 0 1 158.7 132 89 79 19 105 131 1 17 714 4.48 4.11 92
1959 23 LAD NL 8 6 35 23 6 6 1 2 153.3 136 74 69 23 92 173 0 5 679 4.05 4.22 104
1960 24 LAD NL 8 13 37 26 7 7 2 1 175.0 133 83 76 20 100 197 1 9 753 3.91 3.99 102
1961 25 LAD NL 18 13 42 35 2 15 2 1 255.7 212 117 100 27 96 269 3 12 1068 3.52 4.35 124
1962 26 LAD NL 14 7 28 26 2 11 2 1 184.3 134 61 52 13 57 216 2 3 744 2.54 3.63 143
1963 27 LAD NL 25 5 40 40 0 20 11 0 311.0 214 68 65 18 58 306 3 6 1210 1.88 3.02 161
1964 28 LAD NL 19 5 29 28 1 15 7 1 223.0 154 49 43 13 53 223 0 9 870 1.74 3.25 187
1965 29 LAD NL 26 8 43 41 2 27 8 2 335.7 216 90 76 26 71 382 5 11 1297 2.04 3.26 160
1966 30 LAD NL 27 9 41 41 0 27 5 0 323.0 241 74 62 19 77 317 0 7 1274 1.73 3.28 190
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+------+----+----+----+---+----+----+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+
12 Yr WL% .655 165 87 397 314 44 137 40 9 2324.3 1754 806 713 204 817 2396 18 87 9497 2.76 3.63 131
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+------+----+----+----+---+----+----+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+
162 Game Avg 15 8 37 30 4 13 3 0 222.0 167 77 68 19 78 229 1 8 908 2.76 3.63 131
Career High 27 13 43 41 12 27 11 2 335.7 241 117 100 27 105 382 5 17 1297 1.73 4.35 190
He had a truly amazing 5 year run to end his career, but is 5 years really a career worthy of HoF consideration?
I know I know I am going to be branded a heretic, as there are some huge Koufax fans out there....but put into proper context, I just can't see rewardng 5 years worth of pitching with a HoF nod.
(sorry about the formating, just never seems to copy over well.)
Also remember, those magic numbers were not very well established when many HOFers were inducted. I think just how people "felt" about a player was a much larger factor than it is now, in our stats-obsessed sports culture.
The induction committee had their reasons at the time. The passage of years may have made those reasons less obvious to those of us who can't fully appreciate the emotional impact (or the intangibles) of that player, but we shouldn't look back at that player's career stats and say "Nope, not good enough."
We can use career HRs or wins or K's or whatever to be the defining criteria NOW (though I wouldn't like it). But I think we have to cut some slack for the inductors and inductees of the past. In some cases they went with their gut, rather than a stat line, and that's just fine with me.
In Basketball Wilkins.
Steve