Players in the HOF who shouldn't be
Jersey
Posts: 542
in Sports Talk
Who would you remove if you could?
Wise men learn more from fools than fools learn from the wise.
0
Comments
Fred Lindstrom
Enos Slaughter
George Kell
just to start......
Steve
JS
Not that I want Kirby Puckett out of the Hall of Fame, I just don't like how he got the Koufax treatment. Yeah, he was injured, but how in the heck was that any different than Fred Lynn being injured? I would change them two around. For instance...
Here is the Batter Runs(with situations taken into account), and adjusted for park....
Puckett......239
Lynn..........250
Puckett has appx 7,700 plate appearances, and Lynn appx 7,800.
The reason Puckett gets in is because the assumption is made that the injury cost him more years(which it did), but Lynn's injuries cost him too, and probably more since Lynn missed a lot of time in his prime, while Puckett missed zero time during his prime and basically missed what would have been his old man years. This is a double standard...and the funny thing is that if the voters waited a couple of more years, Puckett would have cost himself the Hall.
Defensively, it is a toss up.
It is things like this that bother me, and Puckett was a first ballot, while Lynn wasn't even close. How on earth can the voting disparity be that high between these two players?
The main thing I ask, is that they STOP putting guys in WHO ARE NOT AS GOOD AS OTHERS WHO ARE ALSO WAITING TO GET IN!!! Don't be stupid and put Sutter in instead of Blyleven or Gossage. Don't be stupid and put Rice and Dawson in ahead of a number of guys who are more worthy.
You can't change who is in, and it isn't necessarily a good thing to put guys in because they are better than 'mistakes' who are in. But there is no excuse for putting guys like Sutter in, when two better pitchers from his own era are ignored.
I would love to vote Mazeroski OUT!
<< <i>I meant to say that some guys pitchers ~700 innings PER SEASON around the turn of the century. >>
Wierd thing, I was looking at this very stat last night.
Single Season IP Leaders
Will White holds the single season record with 680 innings! He went 43-31 that year, and won 40 or more games 3 times. Truly a vastly different world then.
Steve
If I understood correctly some post listed a few players who might NOT be HOF worthy. Both played after 1901.
BIll Terry ? A lifetime .341 hitter, very few better ever ! The last .400 hitter the National League has seen.
Ed Walsh ? The lowest ERA of ALL-TIME, no pitcher of any era ever did better ! The last 40 game winner baseball has seen.
Phil Rizzuto , Bobby Doerr, Bill Maz, Travis Jackson, and several others are in, and probably should not be.
I agree it is too late to cry over spilt milk, but lets stop putting in marginal, good, or very good players. It is the Hall of fame , FAME represents outstanding ability, the ability to be a league leader, the ability to outdistance your peers, it should not be a reward for popularity, sympathy, or a selection to compenasate for no clear candidates.
First, that's a pretty good list. Of course, the HOF would be very different from what it has always been (and was intended to be) if everyone on your list was excluded, but it would truly be an honor to be in your HOF.
For the sake of consistency, though, there's a few players worth pointing out. If you want to exclude Dean, Walsh and Waddell - presumably because they didn't play long enough - I don't see how you keep in Sandy Koufax. Absent the enormous advantage that pitching in Dodger Stadium gave him, he is indistiguishable from these others. They are all worthy HOFers by current standards, but I think they would all have to go together by your standards.
Also, Arky Vaughn? Now if your intention is to remove distinctions between positions then maybe he has to go. But if Vaughn goes, the only shortstop you could reasonably have left is Wagner. And you've got several shortstops left, including Ozzie Smith. Nobody loves Ozzie more than I do, but there is no way in the world to cook the figures to put Ozzie Smith ahead of Arky Vaughn. Granted, Smith played longer; but even with all those extra years he wasn't able to match the game-winning production of Vaughn.
You've also got several pitchers left in your HOF that weren't as good as Phil Niekro. Niekro doesn't get half the respect he deserves, mostly because he pitched in hitter's parks and also because he played on mostly lousy teams when he was in his prime.
Finally, I've got no problem with you kicking out Bill Terry; he was not half the player that his batting average makes him appear to be. But he was almost exactly the same player as George Sisler, except that Geroge Sisler hung around several extra years after he wasn't very good anymore. Those two should be in or out (I'd vote for out) together.
Always amazes me how certain people find some way to NOT want to have Sandy Koufax in the Hall of Fame. Usually it's jackasses who have some ulterior motive, having nothing to do with baseball.
Here read this and then I want a retraction of your statement "I don't see how you keep in Sandy Koufax"
Copied from the Wikipedia:
Between 1961-1966, Koufax won eighteen major awards. This slew of awards included the 1963 National League MVP Award, the 1963 NL Pitchers' Triple Crown, and the 1963 Cy Young Award. In 1965, Koufax again won the NL Triple Crown and the Cy Young Award. The following year, Koufax added another NL Triple Crown and Cy Young Award to his trophy case. In fact, Koufax led the entire Majors in wins, strikeouts and earned run average in all three of his Triple Crown seasons. He also won all three of his Cy Young Awards by a unanimous vote, during an era when the award went to the single-best pitcher in the Majors. (In 1967, the year after Koufax retired, the practice began of honoring two pitchers, one in the National League and one in the American League.)
Koufax appeared in four separate World Series competitions while with the Dodgers. The team won three of those championships and Koufax helped by winning four games. One of Koufax's most notable career moments occurred during the 1965 World Series. Koufax, an American Jew, refused to pitch Game 1 because game day fell on Yom Kippur, the Jewish High Holiday.
In recognition of his accomplishments on the field, the Dodgers retired the number 32. This was the number Koufax wore during his career.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Koufax
-
Here's some more for ya. Let's see the retraction!
Career Highlights
Second in career no-hitters (4)
One of 17 pitchers to throw a perfect game (1965)
Set single-season record with 382 strikeouts (now is 2nd behind Nolan Ryan's 383 in 1973)
Holds single-season record for most shutouts by a left-handed pitcher (11), breaking previous record (9) set by Babe Ruth in 1916
Led National League in ERA 5 years in a row
Led National League in strikeouts 4 times
Led National League in shutouts 3 times
Led National League in wins 3 times
0.95 ERA in 4 World Series
6 All-Star appearances
NL MVP Award (1963)
Cy Young Award (One award for both leagues until 1967. All 3 times he was unanimously selected.) 3 times (1963, 1965, 1966)
World Series MVP 2 times (1963, 1965)
And I don't GAF what your excuse is...wouldn't matter if Koufax pitched ten more years and never won another game - these facts for a pitcher are more, much more, infinitely more than good enough to be noted as one of the top pichers of all time. You wanna argue that he isn't the top pitcher of all time?...fine...but to state "I don't see how you keep in Sandy Koufax" for any reason is pathetic beyond words.
Your retraction will be expected shortly.
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.
I don't agree at all that Koufax is "indistinguishable" from those other pitchers, sorry.
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.
<< <i>Since 1901 the rules of baseball have remained basically the same. With the inception of the American League, it is considered the start of modern baseball. It is quite difficult to deterimine the true merit of a player who played most or all of his career prior to 1901. >>
In reality 1893 is probably a better starting date. That was the last major rule change to make it baseball "as we know it," moving the pitcher's mound back to 60 feet 6 inches.
But because it's more convenient to equate "modern" with "20th century" and the formation of the AL, we use 1901 instead even though baseball in 1901 was essentially identical to baseball in, say, 1899.
That was and still is one of the greatest feats a hitter can possibly achive. I think MOST baseball "experts" would agree with the Hall's selections of Sisler in 1939, and Terry in 1954. Only seven men in modern history have hit for a higher career average than Terry, counting Terry, it's 8 better than Sisler. Would anyone think the HOF should only include the top six in career batting average ?l
Bill Terry hit .401 in 1930 no National leaguer has done it since, only the great Ted Williams hit .400 after Memphis Bill.
George Sisler hit .407 in 1920 and .420 in 1922 ( only two ever men hit higher in a season since 1901).
ANY player who can get a batting average ( while not all-inclusive nor without flaws, it is still considered the most important stat for a hitter )of .333 for a lifetime is superb. That indeed IS Hall of Fame stuff. The act of hitting a baseball, as Teddy Ballgame once said, is probably the hardest single thing to do in all sports. To be able to get a hit one third of the time throughout your entire lifetime in the major leagues is truly remarkable.
Even more remarkable to me is the fact that any individual with even the slightest bit of appreciation for baseball history, could even possibly question the HOF worthiness of a .341 or a .340 lifetime batting average, or somehow make a correlation with people like Bill Mazerowski, Bobby Doerr, and the like !!!!!
<< <i>Nobody said that Koufax shouldn't be in the HOF. What Dallas said was that he didn't see how you could keep Koufax in if you took out Walsh, Waddell and Dean. That, if anything, is the argument that you should be debating; not whether or not Sandy Koufax, based on the current criteria for HOF induction, is a worthy member. >>
I clearly understood Dallas' point....and my point is that Koufax shouldn't be involved in ANY discussion about not being in the Hall of Fame, no matter what the criteria for the discussion because clearly Sandy Koufax is one of the best pitchers of all time.
-
<< <i>
<< <i>Nobody said that Koufax shouldn't be in the HOF. What Dallas said was that he didn't see how you could keep Koufax in if you took out Walsh, Waddell and Dean. That, if anything, is the argument that you should be debating; not whether or not Sandy Koufax, based on the current criteria for HOF induction, is a worthy member. >>
I clearly understood Dallas' point....and my point is that Koufax shouldn't be involved in ANY discussion about not being in the Hall of Fame, no matter what the criteria for the discussion because clearly Sandy Koufax is one of the best pitchers of all time.
- >>
Then I assume what you are arguing is that Koufax is better than Walsh, Waddell and Dean? Because if this is so, then your prior posts highlighting Koufax's accomplishments don't address his value relative to these other three players.
Aside from being Stan Musial's crony, what did he do that was deserving of the Hall? When does his name EVER come up as one of the top 20 2nd basemen of all time? Ok, he won 1 World Series as a manager, so has Bob Brenly and Mike Scioscia. Hes been in baseball a million years, so has Don Zimmer.
People still seem to argue that Sandberg was not deserving although he has the highest fielding average and most homers of all-time for a second baseman when he retired. What did Red do?
I just dont understand it, but do see how it was one of the elections that helped put the old veterans committee out of business.
Steve
<< <i>I read somewhere that 1920 was the start of the modern era as we know it today. >>
If you consider the end of the dead-ball era to coincide with the modern era, it would be.
Obviously I struck a nerve but that was not my intention. Koufax is clearly a HOFer by the standards of the HOF, and I never said otherwise. But I was addressing the hypothetical HOF that would result from kicking out the dozens of players that were suggested get kicked out.
And I stand by my statement that any HOF that does not have room for Ed Walsh, Dizzy Dean and Rube Waddell could not have room for Koufax. They were all tremendous pitchers - for a VERY short time by HOF standards. Yes, Koufax has impressive numbers - have you looked at Walsh's? Both of them benefit from the conditions in which they pitched. Walsh pitched when league ERAs were less than 2.5; Koufax pitched in a ballpark that lowered his ERA by as much as 2 runs in some seasons (he had an ERA of almost 3 on the road in 1964 - at home it was 0.85; his career ERA is 2.70; at Dodger Stadium it was 1.37). If we were to go into a really detailed analysis it may be possible to show that Koufax was the better pitcher, but the difference would be tiny.
Over the course of their careers, these pitchers allowed fewer runs than an average pitcher as follows:
Dean: 201
Koufax: 225
Waddell: 247
Walsh: 267
Now, we can go from there to evaluate their best seasons, their best three seasons, their postseason play, their hitting, etc., but one would really have to cherry-pick numbers that make Koufax look good, and ignore the ones that make him look not so good to get him ahead of that pack, let alone way ahead.
Again, all great pitchers, and all deserving of the HOF. But, IF Walsh et. al. don't qualify, then Koufax doesn't qualify either.
<< <i>stevek -
Obviously I struck a nerve but that was not my intention. Koufax is clearly a HOFer by the standards of the HOF, and I never said otherwise. But I was addressing the hypothetical HOF that would result from kicking out the dozens of players that were suggested get kicked out.
And I stand by my statement that any HOF that does not have room for Ed Walsh, Dizzy Dean and Rube Waddell could not have room for Koufax. They were all tremendous pitchers - for a VERY short time by HOF standards. Yes, Koufax has impressive numbers - have you looked at Walsh's? Both of them benefit from the conditions in which they pitched. Walsh pitched when league ERAs were less than 2.5; Koufax pitched in a ballpark that lowered his ERA by as much as 2 runs in some seasons (he had an ERA of almost 3 on the road in 1964 - at home it was 0.85; his career ERA is 2.70; at Dodger Stadium it was 1.37). If we were to go into a really detailed analysis it may be possible to show that Koufax was the better pitcher, but the difference would be tiny.
Over the course of their careers, these pitchers allowed fewer runs than an average pitcher as follows:
Dean: 201
Koufax: 225
Waddell: 247
Walsh: 267
Now, we can go from there to evaluate their best seasons, their best three seasons, their postseason play, their hitting, etc., but one would really have to cherry-pick numbers that make Koufax look good, and ignore the ones that make him look not so good to get him ahead of that pack, let alone way ahead.
Again, all great pitchers, and all deserving of the HOF. But, IF Walsh et. al. don't qualify, then Koufax doesn't qualify either. >>
I had a feeling a retraction wasn't coming
Your point about the higher ERA on the road is interesting, however I would have to imagine that most pitchers in general have a higher ERA on the road. And just because Koufax had a tremendous ERA at home, shouldn't mean he should be denegraded for his higher ERA on the road - and I know you didn't say that or mean that.
Note also that it's not like Koufax got elected because he "might" have been great, despite the "for a VERY short time by HOF standards" - the accomplishments as I think we agree were more than worthy for a Hall of Famer pitcher even if he had pitched say ten more years in a sub par manner - that was my main point.
-
You have brought up another new stat, and I am truly somewhat interested, may I ask some details ?
"Over the course of their careers, they allowed fewer runs than an average pitcher"
Are the numbers you listed the actual fewer runs, in other words Ed Walsh allowed 267 fewer runs than an average pitcher, and Dizzy Dean allowed 201 fewer, so Walsh was 66 runs a better perfomer ? Is this stat a one year average, so that the quantity of seasons Walsh and Dean pitched would balance out, no advantage for a couple extra years in allowing fewer runs ?
What constitutes an average pitcher ? The total pitching of the entire league? The total pitching of the entire league less the team of the pitcher in question ? The total pitching of the league less only the particular pitcher in question ? All .500 winning percentage pitchers ?
Are starting and relief pitching included equally? Ed Walsh did, in fact, lead the AL in saves 3 or 4 different seasons.
By fewer runs are we talking "earned" runs, or all runs in total ?
And lastly is there a source or website available where I might be able to look into this aspect of pitching in more detail without the drudgery of looking it up myself ? Thanks.
jaxxr - the "runs less than average" is something that's fairly easy to calculate from the stats on baseball-reference.com. That website shows each pitcher's career ERA and the average league ERA adjusted to reflect the parks that each pitcher pitched in. Take the difference between those numbers, multiply by the number of innings pitched and divide by 9. The result is the number of earned runs a pitcher allowed fewer than an average pitcher would have allowed in his place. In general, a career figure of 200 is at the low end of the HOF and the Walter Johnsons and Cy Youngs have figures up to 3 or 4 times higher.
Before anyone jumps down my throat for something I didn't say - there are lots of flaws with using this stat by itself. But it is probably the single best stat if you had to use just one to compare pitchers. It inherently takes account of efffectiveness, differences in eras and ballparks, and longevity in a single stat. Like most stats, it can be highly misleading when used with 19th century pitchers, especially the ones who pitched 500+ innings per season. It also shows that a pitcher has negative value in any year that he is worse than average, so pitchers who hang around too long - like Carlton or Gaylord Perry - can see their totals dwindle down at the end.
You can also use it season by season, and it is as good a way as any of determining who had the best single seasons or multi-year runs. You can calculate the stat for relief pitchers, too, but comparing relief pitchers to starting pitchers using this stat favors the relief pitcher - as does comparing ERAs.
I am familar with bb ref.com, but can't seem to find the numbers which would be needed to figure runs allowed vs, the league average.
Perhaps I am too unsophisticated or lazy to get the numbers. Possibly If you would be so kind as to send me a PM ( so as not to bore most members, I would guess ) on specifics, whenever you have a chance, it would be greatly appreciated.
A somewhat similar stat is "Adjusted ERA plus" a weighted pitching stat., using it, one could then add/subtract/divide/whatever some league figures to arrive at runs allowed vs average ? I briefly tried but it did not work for me.
The Adjusted ERA plus stat does rank Ed walsh as the 3rd best starting pitcher in the HOF; Grove 148, W. Johnson 146 Walsh 145. The other pitchers you mentioned show Waddell has a 134 number, Koufax is 131 and Dean has 130.
<< <i><<< I don't see how you keep in Sandy Koufax >>>
Here read this and then I want a retraction of your statement "I don't see how you keep in Sandy Koufax"
Copied from the Wikipedia:
Between 1961-1966, Koufax won eighteen major awards. This slew of awards included the 1963 National League MVP Award, the 1963 NL Pitchers' Triple Crown, and the 1963 Cy Young Award. In 1965, Koufax again won the NL Triple Crown and the Cy Young Award. The following year, Koufax added another NL Triple Crown and Cy Young Award to his trophy case. In fact, Koufax led the entire Majors in wins, strikeouts and earned run average in all three of his Triple Crown seasons. He also won all three of his Cy Young Awards by a unanimous vote, during an era when the award went to the single-best pitcher in the Majors. (In 1967, the year after Koufax retired, the practice began of honoring two pitchers, one in the National League and one in the American League.)
Koufax appeared in four separate World Series competitions while with the Dodgers. The team won three of those championships and Koufax helped by winning four games. One of Koufax's most notable career moments occurred during the 1965 World Series. Koufax, an American Jew, refused to pitch Game 1 because game day fell on Yom Kippur, the Jewish High Holiday.
In recognition of his accomplishments on the field, the Dodgers retired the number 32. This was the number Koufax wore during his career.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Koufax
- >>
If we start asking people to retract their opinions on here, this is going to be a pretty boring message board.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
It's your list, so if you want to exclude Vaughn it's fine with me. But if Vaughn goes, how can any shortstop but Wagner stay? Maybe Ozzie if you just have to have the greatest fielder of all-time in your HOF, but you've still got George Davis, Joe Cronin, Lou Boudreau and Dave Bancroft (I suspect you just overlooked him) in there. You've set the bar higher at shortstop by kicking out Vaughn than you've set it at any other position it seems to me. And you've set it lower at first base, by not kicking out Sisler, than anywhere else, too. Sisler's career was a little longer than Vaughn's, but Vaughn was great for twice as long as Sisler.
I'll let it go now, I promise.
I think you misread Baseball's post. He stated that "many" on the list did not have longevity, not ALL of them. I am quite sure Eckersley and Niekro weren't who he had in mind when he wrote that.
By the way, how much do "Magic Numbers" affect all of this? Some of them used to be benchmarks and have transformed into being kind of sacred. Would most voters vote in, say, Julio Franco if he plays enough additional years to get 3001 hits? Or Jamie Moyer plays ten more years and gets to 300? Then there is the flipside of that fact (which has been hotly debated on the Blyleven thread), how many BELOW the Magic Number is still "good enough" ? Isn't all of this kind of silly, this fascination with a specific number being an (unwritten but well documented) automatic?
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
Football: Lynn Swann
<< <i>Joe Cronin - he's there because he did put up over and 1400 RBIs (498 more than Arky with only 957 more ABs). Obivously his teammates helped but that disparity can't be ignored, at least for me, being that he is a SS. I realize some of the raitios and metrics favor Arky and this is where 2-3 more years would have made the difference in my opinion.
Geroge Davis - the ballplayers from that era are all mysterious as far as I'm concerned and I don't know a whole lot about them but he also put up 1537 Runs and 1437 RBIs, a lot for a SS. He also stole 616 bases. It is more impressive than most of his contemporaries at any position. Another impressive thing with him is his defensive stats compared to the league, at a time when they had obviously inferior equipment. His FA was .940 vs .923 and he had a RF of 5.84 vs. 5.49.
>>
While Cronin was driving in more runs, Vaughn was scoring more; in total, Vaughn was creating more runs than Cronin. But Cronin did play longer so lets just say we have a difference of opinion on these two.
George Davis was a fine player - clearly deserving of the HOF by current standards - but his runs and RBI totals are mostly a product of when he played. In the years when Davis was racking up his big numbers, an average team was scoring over 6.5 runs a game; when Vaughn was in his prime, the average team scored less than 4.5 runs per game. Account for that, and Vaughn's runs produced translate into a LOT more games won than Davis' do. And I think you'd be surprised at how few leaderboard appearances Davis has - less than half as many as Vaughn despite a longer career. In the context of their times, Davis' numbers are great for a shortstop, Vaughn's are simply great.
{Note to self: add Official Defender of Arky Vaughn to business cards.}
That's a good point. There are certain "milestones" in baseball that guarantee HOF enshrinement and 300 wins or 3,000 hits are two of them. However, it always seems that a lot of players like Franco and Moyer play long enough to get relatively close to those milestones but they always seem to come up short for one reason or another. It's funny how that seems to work out, especially for the 3,000 hits as I can't think of anyone in the HOF with 3,000 hits that I think doesn't deserve to be there. There are many guys, on the other hand, with between 2,500 to 2,900 hits that are nowhere near getting into the HOF, like Rusty Staub for one example.
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.
But the interesting thing is, as Grote says, there is not a 3000 hit player in the HOF currently that is undeserving. But it seems logical to say that that won't always be the case (besides Palmeiro, whose candidacy is uncertain for reasons other than performance).
Do we think voters are thoughtful enough to vote this way or will they rubber stamp players who reach certain milestones regardless?
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !