Hall of Fame Undeservings
HCS
Posts: 61 ✭✭
Enough threads on who should be in the hall of fame...How about who is not deserving but slipped in in the 4 major sports? Sorry, I just don't have enough time to follow bowling.
0
HCS
Posts: 61 ✭✭
Comments
Phill Rizzuto (Hits 1588, BA .273)
Pee Wee (Hits 2170, BA .269)
Don Drysdale (Wins 209 Loss 166)
Jim Bunning (Wins 224 Loss 184)
Ralph Kinner (Hits 1451, BA .279)
Johnny Mize (Hits 2011)
Bill Mazeroski (Hits 2016, BA .260)
Red Schoendienst (Hits 2449, BA .289)
yes VARGHA
Joe Tinker (Hits 1695, BA .263)
And yes STEVE D>>>>>
Rick Ferrells (Hits 1692, BA .281)
See ya,
Mark
ebay (bbcards4me)
Or, a player must achieve certain minimum stats to be even eligible for consideration. This way, guys with less than 2,000 hits can't get in.
Maz
Pee Wee
Rizzuto
Ashburn
Sutton
George Kelly
Roger Bresnahan
Mize
Maranville
Travis Jackson
Kaline (maybe)
Schoendienst
For basketball when Scottie Pippen gets in you can put him on this list too.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
How about Mark McGwire and his 583 HR
and his 1626 Hits ..... .263 BA
Over 1/3 of his hit are homers....Do you honestly think this man belongs in the HOF!
I don't...he does ONLY 1 thing and it happens to be the thing most people go to see. HIT HR'S
I'm sorry, but you need to be a complete player to be in the HALL.
You must HIT, FIELD, RUN and THROW
Most people would laugh at the thought of Jose Canseco making the Hall...but look at his #'s to McGwires!
Jose 1877 HIts (251 more that Mac's) .266 BA (3 points higher than Mac's) 1407 RBI's (Mac's has 7 more)
200 SB's (188 more than Mac's) 1186 Runs scored (19 more than Mac's)
The only thing that McGwire beat Jose is HR'S Mac has 583 to Jose's 462 for 121 difference.
Jose Played 17 YRS Mac Played 16 YRS
I also don't think players who played most of their carrers at DH deserve to be in...Like Harold Baines, Rafael Palmeiro and I would have to give Paul Molitor a second look.
Things that make you go Hummmmmmmmmmmmmm!
Mark
Ebay (bbcards4me)
They should only allow BBWAA to vote.
I would have to disagree on Al Kaline....
3007 hits...399 HRS.....297 BA.
Those are better than half the players in the HOF
Mark
The 2 guys who stick out most in my mind, because they were somewhat recent inductees are Ozzie Smith and Dennis Eckersley, and we've had this conversation before on here, but Ozzie Smith is one of the most one dimensional players in the Hall of Fame... aside from his glove, and the fact that every other shortstop in the NL during the 80's was a complete zero (including Concepcion, who played his best ball during the 70's), toss in a few flips, and this guy is nothing more than a slick fielding shortstop with pizzazz.
And Eckersley was never a dominating pitcher except for only one or two seasons. Every other season, he was equivalent to a guy like Frank Tanana as a starter, and not even close to as good as Bruce Sutter as a reliever, and neither of them are in the HOF and neither deserve to be.
The other guys who were pointed out here were obvious, and I agree that most of them do not deserve a place in the HOF. I also agree with getting rid of the Veteran's committee. Players should have 5 opportunities for entrance, in the 5 consecutive years after they have been retired for 5 seasons. After that, it's not going to happen and it should not even be a question.
and I'm going to throw out another name and then run for cover!
SANDY KOUFAX...............165 WINS 87 LOSS...He played for 12 season and the first 6 seasons are very poor, the last 6 seasons are great.
I'm sorry but you need to play more than 12 season to be in the HOF
I know he arm problems that made him retire early, but if we used "what if" several players would be in the HOF
"What If" Don Gullett arm doesn't have a bad rotator cuff! Wins 109 50 loss, for a very good Big Red Machine team and later to the Yankees. Would he be in the Hall? SURE!
Good tread!
Mark
I love Koufax, don't get me wrong.
But when you compare Koufax to Puckett. I must disagree.
Koufax was a Pitcher who played 1 day out of every 4 or 5
Puckett played every day.
you said 12yrs is long enough to see the greatness in both players. Once again I agree, but Koufax played in 397 games in his career, Puckett played in 1783.
Koufax's first six season his total record was (36 wins 40 loss)
Puckett on the other hand a career BA of .318 he never batted below .295 in any season. He also had 2,305 hits over 12 seasons.
I guess what I'm trying to say is "yes Koufax was a great if not the greatest player from 1960 to 1966, but before that, he was a losing pitcher. As for Puckett he was very good from day 1 and not only was he a great hitter, he was a great fielder and he had to play every day."
I put this in the same arguement as "should pitchers win the MVP"...I say No, they have the Cy Young award for pitchers and don't compare a player who is on the field once every 4 to 5 days, to a player who is out on the field every day.
Boy I love these type of threads!
Take care,
Mark
The man's name is Mike Gartner, and although I know he scored 708 career goals, he just happened to play a career that spanned almost entirely through the most offensive era in the sport. Take these stats:
--1 end of season All-Star appearance (not the middle of the year All-Star game, but in the NHL for years they've had the first team All-Star and the 2nd team All-Star and this joker made the first team ONCE).
--1 50 goal season. Throughout the 1980's many years there would be 20++ players scoring 50 goals a year, and there are many players who have scored 50+ goals numerous times that would never even get consideration. This guy did it ONCE and he was regarded as a goal scorer?
--his first 10 years in the league his team won 1 (it might actually be 0, I'm not positive) playoff series--that's a HOFer?
--1 100 point season--ONE! Again, throughout the 1980's the top 10 would be ALL 100 point scorers and the year he did it he had 102 points! What a joke!
I'm a big hockey fan and it has always bothered me that this guy is in, although there are some guys in the baseball HOF who don't belong there either. Gartner is the #1 most over-rated, non-deserving member of any professional HOF in my mind though, and believe me, in hockey there have been some real doozies!
Jay
O. Smith, Rizzuto, Reese, Puckett, Schalk, Ferrell, Schoendienst and Eckersley.
Now the most non-deserving football Hall-of-Famer has got to be Lynn Swann. You've got to be freakin' kidding me with that one. The guy never had more than 880 receiving yards in a season and only finished with 5,462. He made the Hall because of a few acrobatic catches he made in the Super Bowl. Then, of course, Stallworth had to be inducted because Swann got in. That's how these hall of fames get diluted.
Most of the other names named are fair game. But you have to remember 3 things.
First, at the time they were elected, there were X fewer years of baseball played, and so their achievements were fresher, and the characters more alive. All most people know about Ralph Kiner today is his Bush-like malapropisms and grammatical errors while the Mets broadcaster, but he led the NL in homers his first 7 years. Can you imagine if today's card market existed in 1949? Kiner would be like Albert Pujols.
Second, remember that HOF voting was, and still is, a continuing evolution. The current BBWAA system has only been in place for 25 years or so. The first few decades of the hall, it was in a great state of flux. This shows in a number of fairly odd selections in the 30s-40s. Also, character and circumstance are always big X-factors. For the same reasons Joe Jackson and Rose are completely excluded, and it took Orlando Cepeda a lot longer than it might have otherwise, some "good guys" like Smith and Puckett get an extra boost. It's also one of the resons why Don Drysdale (209-166) is regarded much better than Milt Pappas (209-164), though Dandy Don's extra 700Ks and 0.50 lower ERA might also have something to do with it.
Third, many of the names listed are Vet Committee selections. The Vet Committee is just a big social group with the same politics as the local Rotary Club. I'll vote for your guy next year if you vote for my guy this year. The more friends your guy has, the better chance your guy has of being elected, and stats are usually a secondary consideration. Rob Neyer did a nice article on this a couple years ago when the new format was rolled out. He speculated that within the next couple elections, the only Vet selections would be NL guys from the 60s-70s, because Joe Morgan basically rules the committee, and that's when he played. This is why Frank White, who was almost as good as Maz and a similar hitter, won't get in. One solid-gold-glove at 2B per generation, thanks.
2005 Origins Old Judge Brown #/20 and Black 1/1s, 2000 Ultimate Victory Gold #/25
2004 UD Legends Bake McBride autos & parallels, and 1974 Topps #601 PSA 9
Rare Grady Sizemore parallels, printing plates, autographs
Nothing on ebay
I see a lot of anti-closer sentiment in this thread, too. Just because a player isn't a starting pitcher or everyday player, doesn't lessen their impact on the game. Ask any pitcher, and the general consensus is that the last 3 outs are by far the hardest. That pressure is why there are so few dominant closers in the game.
I don't think you can give people passes because their careers are shortened by injury...does this mean we let Terrell Davis in because he was on his way to 10,000 yards? It's just a dangeous slope to travel down.
Of course some guys of today like Palmeiro and McGriff just quietly stayed healthy and put up decent numbers. They sort of snook up on you because neither was really dominate (and this is reflected in MVP votings from year to year). So no in my opinion they don't jazz me about being in the hall.
A guy like Frank Thomas does intrigue me for the hall. He has had his injury problems but for a period of time he was the most dominating hitter in the game. And that has to be taken into account.
I've never really looked too closely at hall of famers who weren't deserving. I was suprised when I bought a Rick Ferrell 1939 playball and discovered he was in the hall. And I remember years back reading an extensive article on Rabbit Maranville and how he was an all glove no stick infielder that likely shouldn't have made the cut.
Sorry to cubs fans but the Tinker-Evers-Chance thing was more famous and revered then it likely should have been. To me Mack's 100K infield was more impressive. Don't get me wrong though I like Evers and Chance...
<< <i>Talk about pretty average....
How about Mark McGwire and his 583 HR
and his 1626 Hits ..... .263 BA
Over 1/3 of his hit are homers....Do you honestly think this man belongs in the HOF!
I don't...he does ONLY 1 thing and it happens to be the thing most people go to see. HIT HR'S
I'm sorry, but you need to be a complete player to be in the HALL.
You must HIT, FIELD, RUN and THROW
Most people would laugh at the thought of Jose Canseco making the Hall...but look at his #'s to McGwires!
Jose 1877 HIts (251 more that Mac's) .266 BA (3 points higher than Mac's) 1407 RBI's (Mac's has 7 more)
200 SB's (188 more than Mac's) 1186 Runs scored (19 more than Mac's)
The only thing that McGwire beat Jose is HR'S Mac has 583 to Jose's 462 for 121 difference.
Jose Played 17 YRS Mac Played 16 YRS >>
Well, if you go looking for only the stats where they're similar, you can (surprise!) show that they're similar. Where they are NOT similar are in the two most important stats for judging a hitter: on-base percentage (McGwire .394, Canseco .353) and slugging percentage (McGwire .588, Canseco .515). In other words, McGwire was much harder to get out, and when you didn't get him out, he did far more damage.
Bill James has them ranked 3rd (McGwire) and 36th (Canseco) at their respective positions for their careers. Of course, reasonable people can rank them somewhat differently, but I do not see how reasonable people could rank Canseco even in the same ballpark as McGwire - they were not even close.
Killebrew was #5 on the HR list when he retired after the 1975 season and didn't get in until 1984. I know his avg was only .256 but he was an MVP, had 9 100 RBI seasons etc.
Make some of them wait a little. What's the rush to get in a player like McGriff (if you thin he's deserving), Palmeiro and McGwire.
<< <i>Of course some guys of today like Palmeiro and McGriff just quietly stayed healthy and put up decent numbers. They sort of snook up on you because neither was really dominate (and this is reflected in MVP votings from year to year). So no in my opinion they don't jazz me about being in the hall. >>
I'm a little tired of seeing Palmeiro lumped in with Fred McGriff as a guy who "put up decent numbers" for a long time.
Consider the numbers:
- Palmeiro had 9 seasons of 38 HRs or more, including 4 over 40 with a career-high of 47. McGriff had 0. His career high was 37 HRs.
- Palmeiro had 10 seasons of 104 RBIs or more, including 2 over 140 with a career-high of 148. McGriff had 5 over 104, with a career high of 107.
While their 162-game averages are basically identical (.291, 33, 106 for Palmeiro vs .285, 33, 103 for McGriff), this is because McGriff essentially was the same player for his entire career whereas Palmeiro improved significantly the second-half of his.
Let's not forget that Palmeiro also won 3 Gold Gloves (though the 3rd was a complete joke).
I'd take Palmeiro over McGriff any day.
Tabe
<< <i>Ray Schalk >>
He's in for his contributions to the game outside of statistics - namely, he invented all the equipment catchers use.
Tabe
But I do love these kind of threads!
Mark
ebay (bbcards4me)
Cummings may not have invented the curve-ball, it is in dispute, but he did become very famous for throwing it in his own time - not decades later. Before there was a National League, Cummings was one of the best pitchers in the National Association and when he wasn't pitching there, he was "barnstorming" around the country giving exhibitions of his curveball - most famously at Harvard where much was written about the "egg-heads" being baffled by the pitch. So, he may or may not have invented the curveball, but he was certainly the one who made it famous. I believe he was also the President of the first official "minor league" once the National League was established.
Ray Schalk, as noted, while a good catcher, would never have gotten into the HOF except for his "extra" contributions to catching equipment.
Maybe, like they do for the broadcasters, there should be a separate "wing" of the HOF for these guys to avoid, a hundred years down the road, "If Ray Schalk is in, then Jim Sundberg should be in, too."
It sounds more like he was an innovator of playing the position.
However, in looking for that, I found an interesting article about Schalk that believes his induction was a sham.
Article About Veterans Committee
Kind of interesting. You could remove the two people listed and insert other comparisons just as easily.
Shane
I think that almost every player inducted by the Veteran's Committee after 1981 is borderline undeserving.
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/lists/inducted.htm[L=Here's the link.]
My next point is more philosophical.
It's difficult for me to think of many players that I saw during my lifetime that I thought ranked with the greats. I started following baseball in 1969 when I was 8 so I never saw Mantle or Mays in his prime, but certainly their mystique is undeniable. Maybe Mike Schmidt, Nolan Ryan and Steve Carlton. I saw these players and remember thinking, "This guy is a Hall of Famer."
I can't say I thought that when I watched Ozzie Smith or Kirby Puckett or Ryne Sandberg or even Wade Boggs.
So here's my question for the younger board members born in 1981--20 years after me. Let's assume that you started following baseball in 1989, who are the players from the generation before you that have the Hall of Fame mystique?
And for the guys who are my age and older. Do we tend to romanticize the players from an earlier time, while giving short shrift to today's players?
I think I do.
<< <i>Ive looked and looked but can seem to find any reference to Ray Schalk inventing any piece of catchers equipment. Maybe that was Roger Bresnahan? >>
Blech. You're right, I was thinking of Bresnahan not Schalk. I have no idea why Schalk is in there
Tabe
It is likely that childhood heroes will always be remembered as bigger than reality as it was seen through a child's eyes. Has anyone ever visited an old neighborhood where you grew up as an adult? The streets, the houses, shops, everything seem smaller than one remembers. I grew up a Dodger fan and was a huge Garvey fan. To this date, I think he is a hall of famer. Stats wise, he is not on top of any category, but his importance to the Dodgers in the 70's was so great that he was idolized by millions of fans.
Howard
Sorry - misfire - see below
CEO, Collectors Universe, Inc.
I agree wholeheartedly with you!!!
Unfocused, impulsive collector of everything ...
I think this is a subject that should be discussed far more often. We tend to not want to question what has been done but, honestly, the HOF voting has some major problems.
There is no real definition. Some say you need dominance for some sustained period time, which allows for Kiner (who led the league in homers over and over again until an injury stopped his career) but not Maris - I personally agree with this stance.
Others say it can also be longevity that helps a player. The Suttons, Perez-types of the world - and maybe there is some validity to that point as well.
The key, however, is really looking at the numbers closely. It's very important. As long as the player put up some strong career numbers - in my opinion - production on a per game basis is far more important than raw carrer accumulation and production against the time period is important too.
For example, consider this - Jim Rice and Jose Canseco both drove in runs at a much higher per game rate than noted HOFers Tony Perez, Dave Winfield and even guys like Musial and Mays. I am not saying they deserve to be in or are better by any means - I am just saying that most people have no idea. They just assume that Rice and Canseco were "just" sluggers - they were also great run producers too. Injuries ruined Canseco's career. Many people forget, love him or hate him, he was the most feared hitter in the game for years and was a pretty good all-around player for a solid amount of time. Rice was also a feared hitter for a while but just faded suddenly.
There are a lot of misleading stats. Batting average is perhaps the most overrated statistic of all-time. Getting hits matters most if you get those hits at the right time. I would rather have Andre Dawson go 1-4 with a 3-run double than have Tony Gwynn go 4-4 with 4 singles - no runs scored and no RBI's.
The bottom line is that the voting is a mess because there are a lot of players who are already in that are inferior players, clearly, compared to the likes of Dawson, Canseco, Rice and even Dale Murphy but it's a tough subject. The media portrays many of the post-1980 era players in a "certain" light and the criticisms are not fair in many cases. We glorify many of the old-time players but look at some of there numbers - some of them are not even close but they got in - now what do we do? We have little footage to look at as well.
I believe that there is a place for a guy like Joe Carter or Tony Perez (a current HOFer). No, they were not legends but the HOF is not necessarily for only legends. If that were the case, the HOF might be 20-25 players deep with few addition over time. A guy like Joe Carter is not a legend but a very, very, very good ballplayer who accumulated enough in terms of numbers to make him a career standout. I am not even sure I would personally vote for him but I just want to make the point. It cannot just be Ruth, Mays, Mantle and Williams - the HOF needs to honor excellent players that fell below legendary status.
The reason is that they have already put so many "questionable" guys in already - just check out some of those numbers - There are a host of players from the 1st half of the 20th Century that have very poor numbers in comparison to those who have been snubbed. It's a joke.
My fear is that there are a lot of excellent players who will be snubbed over time because the voters do not look into the numbers that matter or have personal issues with some of the players. It's just a real shame. I could make a killer starting lineup with non-HOFers at each position that could crush a HOF team with relative ease - that just doesn't seem right.
Great topic guys - I could go on forever on this one.
Joe Orlando
PSA President
CEO, Collectors Universe, Inc.
Ok, I have settled down now......Kaline? Al Kaline should not be in the hall of fame?
YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS! 3007 Hits (At the time he acheived this, he was only the
12th player to do so!), 399 HRs, 10 Straight Gold Gloves (That includes
the two seasons he had 242 consecutive ERRORLESS games in the ouffield), .297
Lifetime average....15 All Star games......Not to mention the respect of nearly every single
ballplayer who ever played with OR against him....
I think you better go back to BASEBALL SCHOOL before you make that statement!
Going forward, the bar has been raised for many guys such as Rice, Murphy, Dawson...who played in an era where sports medicine and playing conditions gave an assist. They were great, consistently, but not devastating. Not to take anything away from them....I hope they get voted in at some point in time. But versus a Kiner (most HR's any player 1940's), a Koufax (most ungodly pitcher in the 60's), a Snider (home run leader of the 50's)....they have tough company for comparision as a player of dominance.
I ramble...IMO....Regards.
Unfocused, impulsive collector of everything ...
I agree that you can't overlook a great player just because their stats are not legendary. I have copied a post I made on a similiar thread.
"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."
The "levels" in the Hall of Fame would help distinguish legends from great players. Sure a guy like Tony Perez may deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, but he is not even in the same universe as Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, or Willie Mays.
Shane
Pee Wee Reese and Phil Rizutto along with Mazeroski strike me as guys who were above average that played weak hitting positions for championship teams. They're more like Pro Football Hall of Famers, whereby if the weight of you playing for a champion often far outweighs what you've done as an individual.
Does Earl Weaver belong in the Hall of Fame as a manager? Now there's a "position" where winning it all should have more weight than what your overall record year-to-year is all about.
Erik