<< <i>While there is no absolute formular or perfect method for induction, some which might be easy to base an evaluation upon are; Did he get 3000 hits in a career, was he a lifetime .300 hitter, did he garnish at least 400 HRS, was his career OB% .400 or better, was his SLG% at least .500 ? Maybe single season accomplishments might prevail, did he ever lead his league in HRs, BA, RBIs, perhaps Stolen Bases, ever hit .400, get 50 HRs in a year, did he ever win a MVP award ? Did he ever hold any all-time records, either single season or career or post-season ?
Most, not all, HOFers have done/accumulated at least one or more of the aforementioned feats. Hodges and Santo have not. >>
I've got no serious disagreemet with several of the things listed here, but the bottom line is that the HOF is supposed to honor the best players not the marginal players from the best teams and not the marginal players who got to play in the smallest ballparks. And there is not much on this list or, sad to say, on many of the HOF voters' lists that differentiates between these players.
Ron Santo was better than Gil Hodges. Ron Santo was MUCH better than Gil Hodges. Ron Santo was better than most of the players in the HOF. Ron Santo was better than most of the players at his own position who are in the HOF. I'm not even going to provide the false courtesy of adding an "IMO" to those statements; those are facts and I'd much rather do my part to make people aware of them than make them feel better about not being able to see them.
If you've got a list, whether formal or not, of what makes a player worthy of the HOF and Ron Santo does not meet the standards of your list, then your list ain't cutting it. Ron Santo is not a "borderline" HOFer, he is closer to meeting the Ruth-Wagner-Johnson standard that Mark discussed than he is to meeting just a minimum standard.
If we could make just one change - rescind the voting rights of any writer who never voted for Santo but cast at least one vote for Jim Rice - then we would largely eliminate the problem of HOF voters who don't have any idea what they're doing and future travesties like this might never come up again. But that still leaves it up to the VC to correct this travesty, and anyone for whom the HOF holds any meaning at all should be hoping that they will.
And I'd make the case for Torre, too, but (1) someone already did, and (2) there is almost no chance at all that Torre won't get in the HOF. His qualifications are pretty overwhelming - he's got a HOF managerial record AND a playing career that was better than Gil Hodges' (although not quite HOF-level). He's a shoo-in, and deservedly so.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Maris,Kaat,Santo,Hodges and where is Blyleven? Is he in? >>
Blyleven's 100% deserving, but he will likely (hopefully) get in before he has to go to the veteran's committee.
"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."
"If we could make just one change - rescind the voting rights of any writer who never voted for Santo but cast at least one vote for Jim Rice - then we would largely eliminate the problem of HOF voters who don't have any idea what they're doing and future travesties like this might never come up again."
Gee, I think one might feel Jim Rice is a viable candidate, when compared to Santo, a writer could possibly have voted for him once, and might still reatain his voting rights for that opinion.
Rice, is still eligible, he has not yet been denied by the regular process, as Santo has been. When Jim Rice came to the plate he was an awesome presence, ( once broke/cracked a bat on a checked swing ) his popularity and power can more readily be associated with "FAME" than Santo. The writers should also look at some achivements, not only a player's perception.
Rice: MVP award once, Sliver Slugger award twice, Led in HRs 3 times, Led in RBIs twice. Santo: none
Rice has a higher lifetime BA , more HRs and more RBIs and a better SLG% than Santo. Rice bests Santo for single season highs also. Rice batted higher than the league adjusted average by a greater margin than Santo, same for SLG % Rice did have 406 total bases one season, quite a feat, whether in Fenway, Candlestick or Yellowstone National Park. Rice did average about 2 homers more per year at home than on the road, over his career, not a real big difference.
A method of HOF evaluation devised by Bill James, a baseball guru of the utmost, is the HOF Monitor. A Jamesion rate of 100 relates to a "good" chance for induction, a score of 130+ rates a "virtual cinch". Santo has a 88.0 score, while Rice has 146.5.
A writer might have an argument to pick Rice over Santo.
Santo is well known for his tirade to Don Young for dropping a ball in 69 while in the pennant race, somewhat unfamilar to Santo of course, he later apologized in the press, but was a demoralizing factor when the club was not playing well. In Dick Allen's book "Crash", Dick relates that when Santo came to the Whitesox he was very harsh to the younger players and was somewaht disrutive to the team overall. Just mentioned to show Santo was not always Mr. nice guy as some might feel. Ty Cobb was not also, so not really a big deal, but perhaps interesting to note.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
I'm a big fan of Santo. He would get my 1 vote for induction to the HOF (veteran's committee candidates only). But if we're comparing Santo to Rice, I think Rice is clearly more deserving. I'm not going to bore anyone with statistic soup. This is all you need to know about Jim Rice:
A total of SIX top 5 finishes in the MVP voting. Now that's dominant!!!
"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."
Skinpinch, calling skinpinch, are you there, skinpinch? Over?
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>Rice: MVP award once, Sliver Slugger award twice, Led in HRs 3 times, Led in RBIs twice. Santo: none Rice has a higher lifetime BA , more HRs and more RBIs and a better SLG% than Santo. Rice bests Santo for single season highs also. Rice batted higher than the league adjusted average by a greater margin than Santo, same for SLG % Rice did have 406 total bases one season, quite a feat, whether in Fenway, Candlestick or Yellowstone National Park. Rice did average about 2 homers more per year at home than on the road, over his career, not a real big difference. >>
All true, and yet the fact remains that Santo was a better player than Jim Rice. You make no mention of OBP, DPs or fielding which is why your list points to the wrong conclusion. On the other hand, if you're making the argument that third basemen who play their position great ought not have any advantage over outfielders/DHs who play their position adequately in a HOF vote then, well, never mind.
<< <i>A method of HOF evaluation devised by Bill James, a baseball guru of the utmost, is the HOF Monitor. A Jamesion rate of 100 relates to a "good" chance for induction, a score of 130+ rates a "virtual cinch". Santo has a 88.0 score, while Rice has 146.5. >>
Lest this leave the wrong impression, Bill James devised the HOF Monitor to predict who WOULD make the HOF, not who DESERVED to make the HOF. Bill James would laugh uncontrollably at the notion that Jim Rice DESERVES to be in the HOF more than Ron Santo. Or, he might cry - I'm not sure which.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The HOF Monitor, created by James, does IN FACT show Rice at 146.5 is more likely to be in the HOF rather than Santo at 88.0, whether he laughs, crys, or passes gas, does not change his own system for evaluation into the hall, and his opinion that Rice is more likely to get into it.
There is also a well known system of HOF worth, called BLACK INK, the avearage for HOF batters is 27, Santo calculates to 11, Rice gets 33. Another group of baseball stat people, not sportswriters, agree that Rice is HOF material, and Santo is not.
GRAY INK is yet another popular way to evaluate HOF worth, the average for HOF batters is144, Ron Santo gets by with a 147, while Jim Rice powers in with 176.
Baseball-Reference.com lists ten "Similar Batters" for every hitter. It chooses ten similar to Rice and ten similar to Santo. Rice has 4 HOFers included on his similar list, there are no HOFers on the list of batters similar to Santo.
I still feel a writer who thinks Rice might be a good choice, and thinks Santo may not be, should not automatically be removed from ever voting again !
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
And I just don't get the argument that because Miller Huggins is in Torre should be in. We could probably get another 100 into the HOF with the argument that so and so is in and he is as good as so and so.
And Fandango, you yourself make the argument that he had a mediocre managerial record until he jumped into bed with Deep Pockets George.
Griffins - Veeck I agree with. Finley nearly destroyed his franchise.
Yes, he gave baseball the DH and World Series games at night (assuming those two are positives), but this is the same man whose ideas of innovation included a mule as an on-field mascot, sheep grazing behind the outfield, colored baseballs, phantom injuries in the playoffs, selling all his superstars for cash (oh wait, Harry Frazee came up with that first), hideous uniforms, sparking a player revolt that resulted in firing the manager and releasing one of his top hitters, ordering players to try to hit more home runs, "That would have been a home run in Yankee Stadium," making up nicknames, having a mechanical rabbit pop out of the ground to deliver baseballs to the uumpire, paying players to grow mustaches, and the designated runner.
He knew nothing about the game, and he meddled - a lot.
Seriously, how bad an owner do you have to be to have your manager quit after winning the World Series to try to go to another team?
And I just don't get the argument that because Miller Huggins is in Torre should be in. We could probably get another 100 into the HOF with the argument that so and so is in and he is as good as so and so.
And Fandango, you yourself make the argument that he had a mediocre managerial record until he jumped into bed with Deep Pockets George.
Dav >>
Dav, sometimes when your are expected to win, it makes your job more difficult...the added pressure of the owners and the fans, the high expectations...this makes the accomplishment of winning (4 out of 5 years) even more impressive....Its not easy dealing with prima dona millionaires.....
and remember, Miller Huggins is not just in the Hall, he is considered one of the best Managers ever! AND SO WILL TORRE
<< <i>And I just don't get the argument that because Miller Huggins is in Torre should be in. We could probably get another 100 into the HOF with the argument that so and so is in and he is as good as so and so. >>
I agree that, as stated, this is a poor argument and it in fact leads to several hundred additional "Hall of Famers" who were better than George Kelly or Dave Bancroft, etc. But if we tweak the argument to say so-and-so #1 is in the HOF - and deserves to be in the HOF - and so-and-so #2 is as good as so-and-so #1, therefore so-and-so #2 ought to be in, then I think that's a valid position to take.
So the issue isn't just that Miller Huggins is in, but also whether he deserves to be in. On the other hand, with Torre, we have a man who not only went on to a managerial career comparable to many other HOF managers, but who also had a playing career comparable to many other HOF players (and one which was so clearly better than Jim Rice's that I will not insult anyone's intelligence by making a detailed case). I personally think that Torre qualifies for the HOF solely as a manager, but I can see that a reasonable case could be made that he falls just short. I also think that Torre the player fell just short of a HOF career, but I can see that a reasonable case could be made that he just cleared the bar. What I can not see is that there is a reasonable case to be made for keeping Torre the player AND manager out of the HOF, and I've yet to see a reasonable case made.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Yet another year of disappointments....apparently the "committee" and the people submitting the list of candidates believe there are no turn of the century players to enshrine. C'mon...what about Jesse Tannehill, Bobby Veach, and Gus Weyhing just to name a few that at least deserve closer scrutiny.
I guess I'm glad none of these would appear on the ballet. I mean, how can I expect a player to analyze the achievements of these careers some 80 years later. The average Hall of Famer is no more qualified to vote than the average joe. Great ballplayers, sure, but how many of them can really look at the career numbers across the decades with a true understanding of league averages, etc.
They can't even manage to elect somebody Santo from their own era that are surely deserving.
I wouldn't want these guys doing my taxes, writing laws, or voting on any pre 1930s ballplayer. The system is corrupt and as stated above a colossal waste of time.
Oh well, I get to be angry for yet another year.
Shawn
Shawn
55 Topps - 26.7% / 5.91 / #67 cf hey! I'm workin' on it !
The Hall of Fame is for the Best of the Best--the committee made an excellent choice--noone. >>
Well Dav, you got your wish.....
Just out of curiosity, where do you place Pujols on an all-time list of greats, and do you think pujols (if he puts in 8 more years like the first 6) will be considered a top 5 player of all time?
I actually echo Dav's comment -- I think I said in the beginning of this thread that there should be a choice for "no one", but that wasn't a polling choice.
As for Pujols -- I personally think that there is too short of a history to make any meaningful indication of his long-term potential to be one of the best of all time. He has played six seasons. If he gets hit by a bus tomorrow, it will be tragic and the baseball world will have lost one of its reigning superstars. But there are too many players that, for a variety of reasons, never perform splendidly over the long-term despite a superstar beginning. I think a good comparison is Ralph Kiner. A Hall of Famer, Kiner was never as dominant in a single season as Pujols is. But Kiner had a six-year stretch when he was king of baseball. Had he been able to maintain that dominance for 12-18 seasons, he might have been one of the best of all time. But he played the minimum ten seasons to get enshrined, and one may wonder what might have been. Bottom line: Pujols is great -- but too early to tell. Even Ken Griffey Jr. will not likely be considered as one of the best of all time, simply because of his recurrent injuries, dating all the way back to 1995.
I am actively buying MIKE SCHMIDT gem mint baseball cards. Also looking for any 19th century cabinets of Philadephia Nationals. Please PM with additional details.
<< <i>The Hall of Fame is for the Best of the Best-- >>
Well no, obviously, it's not.
If the powers that be decide retroactively to make it so - and kick out four score or more of the current enshrinees who aren't fit to tie Santo's laces - then I'm fine with that, and Santo can be excluded.
If instead they decide to continue on as they always have - without any of this "Best of the Best" fantasy nonsense - then I'm fine with that, but then Santo has to get in.
What we have is neither of the above, and is frankly just plain stupid.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I think that on balance, Mike and Dav tend to be correct. With the watering down of the standards for induction, you're seeing strange things happen with the voting, both on the Vets Committee and in the regular selection process. As I posted on the other board, how does Ron Santo get 57 votes and Rocky Colavito only 5, when their respective numbers are fairly similar? The position difference between the two is not worth a 52 vote gap. Without knocking Santo (though I don't believe he deserves induction), was it a PR campaign on his behalf that explains this?
Same thing with the regular process. No one knows quite what to do with the grouping of Gossage, Blyleven, Rice, Dawson, and others because although all of them were very, very good players, the opinions range widely as to whether they are deserving. If inductions were strictly limited to the no-doubters of the game such as Ripken, Gwynn, et al., we could simply hail them as nice players but not quite HOF material. But since the horse is now out of the barn with the inductions of Maz and others in the last 10 years, we're going to see these debates continue for some time.
As for modern players with less than 7-8 years experience, there shouldn't even be a discussion yet. And that includes Pujols. Let's see he and others put up HOF caliber numbers for an extended period (10 years minimum) and then let the talk begin.
Stay classy,
Ron
Ron Burgundy
Buying Vintage, all sports. Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
<<<If the powers that be decide retroactively to make it so - and kick out four score or more of the current enshrinees who aren't fit to tie Santo's laces - then I'm fine with that, and Santo can be excluded.>>>
80? Isn't that a bit over the top? 10 or 15, maybe. 80, no way. And, I don't see any 3rd basemen (HOFers) whom I would pick Santo over frankly.
It has to be the best of the best and just because there were mistakes in the past, there has to be a commitment to a standard at some point. Santo does not meet the standard. He's close, very close. He was a very good all-around baseball player. But if you look at all the HOF 3rd basemen, you tell me who is less deserving than Santo. We can't settle for mediocrity or even very good. We get that everywhere else. It's too bad some of the non deserving players got in but let's not let anymore in, please!!!
Mark B.
Seeking primarily PSA graded pre-war "type" cards
My PSA Registry Sets
34 Goudey, 75 Topps Mini, Hall of Fame Complete Set, 1985 Topps Tiffany, Hall of Fame Players Complete Set
The HOF elections are good for baseball, generates interest in the game, and allows one to enrich his insight on some past players.
As posted prior, I belive the Hall is diluted enough already and am satisfied no one not deemed worthy via the regular process, got enshrined.
There are some "errors" with regard to a few members, and a degree of contrversey will always exist. I don't agree that because so-and-so is in, therfore so-and-so #2 should be in. Any HOFer should be worthy on his own merits. Two wrongs do not make a right.
An aside: Shoeless Joe Jackson was banned from baseball for life. His life is over, done, finished, complete. Should not his ban be over ? I wish people would show more interest in getting him into the Hall, rather than fellows who were on the ballot many times and failed.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
cravetopps - There are not many thirdbaseman in the Hall to begin with. But if you want to know who Santo was clearly better than I would list the following: Freddy Lindstrom, George Kell, Jimmy Collins, and Pie Traynor. It is debateable on whether he is better than Paul Molitor, Brooks Robinson, Wade Boggs and Home Run Baker. The only 3 Hall of Fame thirdbaseman who are clearly better than Santo are Eddie Mathews, George Brett and Mike Schmidt.
At the expense of angering Santo Nation, would we even be talking about Santo had he played his career for the Kansas City A's, or the Senators? I think he was a fine player, perhaps a borderline HOF'er. I can guarantee you that had Bert Blyleven amassed 3701 strikeouts pitching for the Yankees, Mets, or Red Sox, he'd have a bust in Cooperstown by now.
Ron
Ron Burgundy
Buying Vintage, all sports. Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
<< <i>At the expense of angering Santo Nation, would we even be talking about Santo had he played his career for the Kansas City A's, or the Senators? >>
Would we be talking about him? Probably not. Would the HOF voters be talking about him? Certainly not. Would people who understand how great he was independent of what team he played for and that he had to play in the deadball era be talking about him? You betcha. Which is, of course, the problem. HOF voters are, as a rule, no better equipped to measure how great a player was than anyone else: they do not understand which statistics measure personal greatness and which measure team greatness, and they are as easily swayed by a performance in a single postseason series as any other fan. No, "four score" is not an exaggeration; Santo was THAT good and he, and we, deserve HOF voters who can easily tell that he was a better player than, for example, Pie Traynor.
And, speaking for Santo nation, what makes us angry is this "best of the best" crap being applied to Santo when (1) the people saying it don't understand how to tell who the best players were in the first place, (2) it's a standard that clearly has never applied in the past, and (3) some of the same people will turn around and say that Jim Rice or Jack Morris deserves to be in the HOF. Ron Santo was not Babe Ruth or Honus Wagner and he does not belong in a HOF where those two define who is eligible; he also was not Joe DiMaggio or Stan Musial, but those two don't define the HOF we actually have, either. What he was was one of the best third basemen of all time and one of the best players of his era and he meets the actual standards for induction that have applied to every other player who came before him and after him.
<< <i>I can guarantee you that had Bert Blyleven amassed 3701 strikeouts pitching for the Yankees, Mets, or Red Sox, he'd have a bust in Cooperstown by now. >>
I'm not sure you're right. The only way to reconcile Blyleven's career with his exclusion from the HOF is a complete loss of higher brain function on the part of the voters. Even a Yankee couldn't be certain of overcoming that.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Santo's value was clearly higher than Brook's even with the defense figured in. I would argue that Pie Traynor did have over 1200 RBI's in only 15 full seasons and hit .320 in a high average era but it still is a good mark. Santo creamed both Pie and Brooksie in most offensive categories well all actually. I think if you take the best 10 years for all 3rd baseman there would be very few in history you would take over Santos. Even at that I voted for Jim Kaat as I still can't understand how longevity is a negative to pitching stats. If someone is still good enough to pitch at an advanced age and win games that's a plus right?
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
~"I can guarantee you that had Bert Blyleven amassed 3701 strikeouts pitching for the Yankees, Mets, or Red Sox, he'd have a bust in Cooperstown by now."
Ron - While Blyleven should be in the Hall regardless of who he pitched for - please name some Yankees, Red Sox and Mets players who were selected by the writers that should not be in the Hall. There have been some biased selections over the years but I would be curious to see who you think from those teams should not have been selected.
<< <i>Ron - While Blyleven should be in the Hall regardless of who he pitched for - please name some Yankees, Red Sox and Mets players who were selected by the writers that should not be in the Hall. >>
We can start out with Phil Rizzuto. The ONLY reason I am not appalled by his inclusion is the fact that Reese is in too. Yuck and double yuck!
"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."
Enos Slaughter was a Yankee Phil Rizzuto was a Yankee Joe Sewell was a Yankee Pee Wee Reese was a Dodger Johnny Mize was a Yankee/Giant Ernie Lombardi was a Dodger/Giant Freddy Lindstrom was a Giant/Dodger Tony Lazzeri was a Yankee Lefty Gomez was a Yankee
That is a list of what I would call second-tier Hall of Famers who were at least partially helped by a) their major city affilliations and b) the Old Boys' network of the Veterans' Committee. I think Lazzeri and Reese are perhaps the best of that list -- but that is a list of players who were all very good, definitely stars, but not what I would call first-rate Hall of Famers.
I am actively buying MIKE SCHMIDT gem mint baseball cards. Also looking for any 19th century cabinets of Philadephia Nationals. Please PM with additional details.
<< <i>Enos Slaughter was a Yankee Phil Rizzuto was a Yankee Joe Sewell was a Yankee Pee Wee Reese was a Dodger Johnny Mize was a Yankee/Giant Ernie Lombardi was a Dodger/Giant Freddy Lindstrom was a Giant/Dodger Tony Lazzeri was a Yankee Lefty Gomez was a Yankee
That is a list of what I would call second-tier Hall of Famers who were at least partially helped by a) their major city affilliations and b) the Old Boys' network of the Veterans' Committee. I think Lazzeri and Reese are perhaps the best of that list -- but that is a list of players who were all very good, definitely stars, but not what I would call first-rate Hall of Famers. >>
None of those guys were elected by the writers.
Personally, I think Johnny Mize is by far the best of that list, and probably a first-rate HOFer.
Here are Mize's career numbers: 15 seasons, 1884 games, 6443 at bats, 1118 runs, 2011 hits, 367 doubles, 83 triples, 359 HR, 1337 RBI, 856 BB, 524 K, .312 BA, .397 OBP, .562 SLG, 3621 TB.
Statistically: 1 batting title, 2 2nds, and 3 more top 5 finishes; 6 top 5 finishes in OBP; 9 times in the top 3 in slugging, including 4 times leading the league in a 5-year span; 9 times in the top 3 in OPS, including 3 straight years in 1st place; led the league in runs once, with 4 more top 5 finishes; 4 times in the top 5 in hits; led the league in total bases 3 straight years, and finished 2nd 4 other times; led the league in doubles once and triples once, with 2 other top 3 finishes in each category; 4 HR titles (2 shared with Kiner) and 5 other top 5 finishes; led the league in RBI 3 times, with 5 other top 5 finishes; 3 top 5 finishes in walks; led the league 4 times in extra base hits, with 4 other top 3 finishes; led the league in times on base once, with 3 other top 5 finishes.
Bill James measurements: Black Ink 50; Gray Ink 202; HOF Standards 47; HOF Monitor 175.
His most similar player statistically is Hank Greenberg. Until Todd Helton, he was Greenberg's most similar player statistically.
All-time leaderboards - he's 20th all-time in slugging percentage, and among players who retired before 2000, he's 8th. [The only "old-timers" ahead of him are Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, DiMaggio, and Hornsby. The next 3 "old-timers" behind him are Musial, Mays, and Mantle. His batting average is 84th all time. His OBP is 69th all time. His OPS is 20th all time - 10th among players who retired before 2000 (the same 7 as slugging percentage, plus Mantle and Musial). He's 65th all time in HR and 76th in RBI. He's 85th all time in extra base hits, and 67th all time in fewest AB per HR.
Here's how he was thought of among his contemporaries: 10-time all-star, Babe Ruth Award (World Series MVP), 6 top-10 MVP voting finishes, including 2 2nds and a 3rd.
In 1939, when he finished 2nd, he was clearly the top hitter, but Bucky Walters pulled off a pitching Triple Crown in leading the Reds to the pennant. In 1940, when he finished 2nd again, he got robbed. Had Bucky Walters, who finished 3rd that year, won it again, we could shrug it off because he was once again clearly the league's best pitcher (led in wins and ERA), but Reds 1B Frank McCormick was so clearly inferior to Mize that the 16 voters who gave McCormick 1st place votes should have had their voting privileges revoked. Here's a comparison: BA: Mize .314 (5th), McCormick .309 (7th) OBP: Mize .404 (3rd), McCormick .367 (not in top 10) SLG: Mize .636 (1st), McCormick .482 (tied 9th) OPS: Mize 1.040 (1st), McCormick .849 (not in top 10) games - both men had 155, tied for 2nd in the league AB: Mize 579 (6th), McCormick 618 (led league) plate appearances: Mize 666 (4th), McCormick 676 (3rd) runs: Mize 111 (2nd), McCormick 92 (8th) hits: Mize 182 (3rd), McCormick 191 (tied 1st) total bases: Mize 368 (1st), McCormick 298 (2nd) doubles: Mize 31 (not in top 10), McCormick 44 (1st) triples: Mize 13 (tied 3rd), McCormick 3 (not in top 10) HR: Mize 43 (1st), McCormick 19 (tied 5th) RBI: Mize 137 (1st), McCormick 127 (2nd) BB: Mize 82 (5th), McCormick 52 (not in top 10) SB: Mize 7, McCormick 2 (neither was in top 10) singles: Mize 95 (not in top 10), McCormick 125 (4th) extra base hits: Mize 87 (1st), McCormick 66 (2nd) times on base: Mize 269 (tied 1st), McCormick 248 (6th) HBP: each man had 5 (tied for 8th) McCormick did lead the league in sacrifices, with 20, in GDP, with 23, and in outs, with 451. Mize wasn't in the top 10 in any of those categories, but did lead in fewest at bats per HR, at 13.5. The year he finished 3rd, Mize was significantly more valuable than Bob Elliott, who finished 1st, and likely more valuable than Ewell Blackwell, who finished 2nd (Blackwell was probably not even the best pitcher - I give that honor to Warren Spahn), but Ralph Kiner, who finished 6th, deserved the award. [I cannot fathom why Dodger catcher Bruce Edwards (.295 BA, 9 HR, 80 RBI, 53 runs), who finished 4th, received any votes, let alone 3 1st place votes.]
Oh, and Mize missed 3 years in the prime of his career (ages 30-32) to World War II.
Mize deserves to be remembered as the second best hitter in the entire NL during the 40s (behind only Musial).
Yes, Johnny Mize definately is a good HOF choice. Does anyone think that Maz has caused this old timer backlash? I think he was a good choice as it showed that the HOF is more than just about hitting statistics but I am sure alot of you felt he was not worthy. I do think that from 1957 until 1967 it is hard to find another 2nd baseman that people would have rated higher in the NL.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
<< <i>Enos Slaughter was a Yankee Phil Rizzuto was a Yankee Joe Sewell was a Yankee Pee Wee Reese was a Dodger Johnny Mize was a Yankee/Giant Ernie Lombardi was a Dodger/Giant Freddy Lindstrom was a Giant/Dodger Tony Lazzeri was a Yankee Lefty Gomez was a Yankee >>
First, thank you NickM for the defense of Mize - he has no business on a list like this, he was truly a great player. (And while he was no Johnny Mize, I have trouble calling Pee Wee Reese undeserving, too. He certainly would not have made it playing in Cincinatti or Pittsburgh, but I think he deserved induction wherever he played.)
Second, what about George Kelly (NYG), Bobby Doerr (BOS), Ross Youngs (NYG), Travis Jackson (NYG), Dave Bancroft (NYG, BSN & BRO), Rube Marquard (NYG), Red Ruffing (NYY), and Earle Combs (NYY)? I'd venture to say that the vast majority of undeserving and borderline HOFers played in NY or Boston.
It is indeed easy to pick on the VC for their picks, but then again nearly every one of these laughably undeserving HOFers was more deserving than Jim Hunter or Bruce Sutter - so the writers have no reason to brag, either.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<<<First, thank you NickM for the defense of Mize - he has no business on a list like this, he was truly a great player. (And while he was no Johnny Mize, I have trouble calling Pee Wee Reese undeserving, too. He certainly would not have made it playing in Cincinatti or Pittsburgh, but I think he deserved induction wherever he played.)>>>
Lombardi on the list of 2nd tier players?? Come on guys. I wouldn't put Gomez on that list either but I won't argue with most of your other choices. I don't necessarily agree with them but one could make a case, clearly. Makes me wonder how much influence seeing someone over and over again in the post season, particularly the WS, helps the borderline players make the HOF. "He must be great, I see him in the WS every year!!!".
Good stuff.
Mark B.
Seeking primarily PSA graded pre-war "type" cards
My PSA Registry Sets
34 Goudey, 75 Topps Mini, Hall of Fame Complete Set, 1985 Topps Tiffany, Hall of Fame Players Complete Set
<< <i>Lombardi on the list of 2nd tier players?? Come on guys. I wouldn't put Gomez on that list either >>
They're similar in that they were both tremendously good players for a few years, and very good players for a few more years and then..... nothing. Gomez piched a little more than 2,500 innings and Lombardi batted a little more than 6,000 times.
Gomez is one good season ahead of Andy Messersmith and Lombardi, considering how poor a catcher he was, is maybe one good season ahead of Del Crandall. On the other hand, Gomez is several good seasons behind Luis Tiant and Lombardi is several good seasons behind Ted Simmons. All of these guys were fine players but I don't think any of them has ever been confused with a top-tier HOFer.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Enos Slaughter was a Yankee Phil Rizzuto was a Yankee Joe Sewell was a Yankee Pee Wee Reese was a Dodger Johnny Mize was a Yankee/Giant Ernie Lombardi was a Dodger/Giant Freddy Lindstrom was a Giant/Dodger Tony Lazzeri was a Yankee Lefty Gomez was a Yankee **************************************************************************************
Reese was far more deserving than Rizzuto. He had a much longer productive carreer. He had a higher OBP, higher slugging, played in 500 more games, and scored 500 more runs. They were both short and played SS on good to great teams, but they were not the same player. Reese was clearly superior.
Lombardi vs. Del Crandall? Sorry. Not even close. MVP and 2 batting crowns puts him in. Marginal fielder, yes. One of the best hitting catchers in history, unquestionably.
Mark B.
Seeking primarily PSA graded pre-war "type" cards
My PSA Registry Sets
34 Goudey, 75 Topps Mini, Hall of Fame Complete Set, 1985 Topps Tiffany, Hall of Fame Players Complete Set
My pick for the most undeserving HOFer is Waite Hoyt.
He was basically an average pitcher who just happened to have Murderer's Row hitting behind him. Take out his 1921-1929 time with the Yankees, and his career record is 82-86 over basically 11 seasons. He led the league in wins once (with the '27 Yankees), in WHIP once, and in saves once (and saves were not a recognized stat then).
His record with the Yankees looks great - until you compare it to his team's average. If you multiply his number of decisions each year by the team's winning percentage that year, he's 2 total wins above the statistical average for that entire period.
There is not a Yankee bias among the writers or even an east coast bias. Most of the absurd selections were made by the veterans committee and more spefically by certain members of the committee who influenced the vote. Most everybody mentioned certainly applies but if you eliminated the veterans committee vote of 1970 to 1977 you would eliminate a great number of the Hall of Famer people complain about. Combs, Haines, Hafey, Marquard, Kelley, Bancroft, Youngs, Kelly, Bottomley, and Fred Lindstrom were all elected during this time period. Their advantage was not where they played but that Frankie Frisch or Bill Terry was their friend.
Comments
<< <i>While there is no absolute formular or perfect method for induction, some which might be easy to base an evaluation upon are;
Did he get 3000 hits in a career, was he a lifetime .300 hitter, did he garnish at least 400 HRS, was his career OB% .400 or better, was his SLG% at least .500 ?
Maybe single season accomplishments might prevail, did he ever lead his league in HRs, BA, RBIs, perhaps Stolen Bases, ever hit .400, get 50 HRs in a year, did he ever win a MVP award ?
Did he ever hold any all-time records, either single season or career or post-season ?
Most, not all, HOFers have done/accumulated at least one or more of the aforementioned feats. Hodges and Santo have not. >>
I've got no serious disagreemet with several of the things listed here, but the bottom line is that the HOF is supposed to honor the best players not the marginal players from the best teams and not the marginal players who got to play in the smallest ballparks. And there is not much on this list or, sad to say, on many of the HOF voters' lists that differentiates between these players.
Ron Santo was better than Gil Hodges. Ron Santo was MUCH better than Gil Hodges. Ron Santo was better than most of the players in the HOF. Ron Santo was better than most of the players at his own position who are in the HOF. I'm not even going to provide the false courtesy of adding an "IMO" to those statements; those are facts and I'd much rather do my part to make people aware of them than make them feel better about not being able to see them.
If you've got a list, whether formal or not, of what makes a player worthy of the HOF and Ron Santo does not meet the standards of your list, then your list ain't cutting it. Ron Santo is not a "borderline" HOFer, he is closer to meeting the Ruth-Wagner-Johnson standard that Mark discussed than he is to meeting just a minimum standard.
If we could make just one change - rescind the voting rights of any writer who never voted for Santo but cast at least one vote for Jim Rice - then we would largely eliminate the problem of HOF voters who don't have any idea what they're doing and future travesties like this might never come up again. But that still leaves it up to the VC to correct this travesty, and anyone for whom the HOF holds any meaning at all should be hoping that they will.
And I'd make the case for Torre, too, but (1) someone already did, and (2) there is almost no chance at all that Torre won't get in the HOF. His qualifications are pretty overwhelming - he's got a HOF managerial record AND a playing career that was better than Gil Hodges' (although not quite HOF-level). He's a shoo-in, and deservedly so.
<< <i>Maris,Kaat,Santo,Hodges and where is Blyleven? Is he in? >>
Blyleven's 100% deserving, but he will likely (hopefully) get in before he has to go to the veteran's committee.
Gee,
I think one might feel Jim Rice is a viable candidate, when compared to Santo, a writer could possibly have voted for him once, and might still reatain his voting rights for that opinion.
Rice, is still eligible, he has not yet been denied by the regular process, as Santo has been. When Jim Rice came to the plate he was an awesome presence, ( once broke/cracked a bat on a checked swing ) his popularity and power can more readily be associated with "FAME" than Santo. The writers should also look at some achivements, not only a player's perception.
Rice: MVP award once, Sliver Slugger award twice, Led in HRs 3 times, Led in RBIs twice. Santo: none
Rice has a higher lifetime BA , more HRs and more RBIs and a better SLG% than Santo. Rice bests Santo for single season highs also.
Rice batted higher than the league adjusted average by a greater margin than Santo, same for SLG %
Rice did have 406 total bases one season, quite a feat, whether in Fenway, Candlestick or Yellowstone National Park. Rice did average about 2 homers more per year at home than on the road, over his career, not a real big difference.
A method of HOF evaluation devised by Bill James, a baseball guru of the utmost, is the HOF Monitor. A Jamesion rate of 100 relates to a "good" chance for induction, a score of 130+ rates a "virtual cinch".
Santo has a 88.0 score, while Rice has 146.5.
A writer might have an argument to pick Rice over Santo.
Santo is well known for his tirade to Don Young for dropping a ball in 69 while in the pennant race, somewhat unfamilar to Santo of course, he later apologized in the press, but was a demoralizing factor when the club was not playing well. In Dick Allen's book "Crash", Dick relates that when Santo came to the Whitesox he was very harsh to the younger players and was somewaht disrutive to the team overall. Just mentioned to show Santo was not always Mr. nice guy as some might feel. Ty Cobb was not also, so not really a big deal, but perhaps interesting to note.
A total of SIX top 5 finishes in the MVP voting. Now that's dominant!!!
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>Rice: MVP award once, Sliver Slugger award twice, Led in HRs 3 times, Led in RBIs twice. Santo: none
Rice has a higher lifetime BA , more HRs and more RBIs and a better SLG% than Santo. Rice bests Santo for single season highs also.
Rice batted higher than the league adjusted average by a greater margin than Santo, same for SLG %
Rice did have 406 total bases one season, quite a feat, whether in Fenway, Candlestick or Yellowstone National Park. Rice did average about 2 homers more per year at home than on the road, over his career, not a real big difference.
>>
All true, and yet the fact remains that Santo was a better player than Jim Rice. You make no mention of OBP, DPs or fielding which is why your list points to the wrong conclusion. On the other hand, if you're making the argument that third basemen who play their position great ought not have any advantage over outfielders/DHs who play their position adequately in a HOF vote then, well, never mind.
<< <i>A method of HOF evaluation devised by Bill James, a baseball guru of the utmost, is the HOF Monitor. A Jamesion rate of 100 relates to a "good" chance for induction, a score of 130+ rates a "virtual cinch".
Santo has a 88.0 score, while Rice has 146.5. >>
Lest this leave the wrong impression, Bill James devised the HOF Monitor to predict who WOULD make the HOF, not who DESERVED to make the HOF. Bill James would laugh uncontrollably at the notion that Jim Rice DESERVES to be in the HOF more than Ron Santo. Or, he might cry - I'm not sure which.
There is also a well known system of HOF worth, called BLACK INK, the avearage for HOF batters is 27, Santo calculates to 11, Rice gets 33. Another group of baseball stat people, not sportswriters, agree that Rice is HOF material, and Santo is not.
GRAY INK is yet another popular way to evaluate HOF worth, the average for HOF batters is144, Ron Santo gets by with a 147, while Jim Rice powers in with 176.
Baseball-Reference.com lists ten "Similar Batters" for every hitter. It chooses ten similar to Rice and ten similar to Santo. Rice has 4 HOFers included on his similar list, there are no HOFers on the list of batters similar to Santo.
I still feel a writer who thinks Rice might be a good choice, and thinks Santo may not be, should not automatically be removed from ever voting again !
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Veeck over both of them.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
And I just don't get the argument that because Miller Huggins is in Torre should be in. We could probably get another 100 into the HOF with the argument that so and so is in and he is as good as so and so.
And Fandango, you yourself make the argument that he had a mediocre managerial record until he jumped into bed with Deep Pockets George.
Dav
Santo
Hodges
Rice
Dick Allen
Blyleven
Kaat
All deserving imo.
Yes, he gave baseball the DH and World Series games at night (assuming those two are positives), but this is the same man whose ideas of innovation included a mule as an on-field mascot, sheep grazing behind the outfield, colored baseballs, phantom injuries in the playoffs, selling all his superstars for cash (oh wait, Harry Frazee came up with that first), hideous uniforms, sparking a player revolt that resulted in firing the manager and releasing one of his top hitters, ordering players to try to hit more home runs, "That would have been a home run in Yankee Stadium," making up nicknames, having a mechanical rabbit pop out of the ground to deliver baseballs to the uumpire, paying players to grow mustaches, and the designated runner.
He knew nothing about the game, and he meddled - a lot.
Seriously, how bad an owner do you have to be to have your manager quit after winning the World Series to try to go to another team?
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>Seriously, how bad an owner do you have to be to have your manager quit after winning the World Series to try to go to another team? >>
Ask Johnny Keane!
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
<< <i>Owners in the HOF--ugh!
And I just don't get the argument that because Miller Huggins is in Torre should be in. We could probably get another 100 into the HOF with the argument that so and so is in and he is as good as so and so.
And Fandango, you yourself make the argument that he had a mediocre managerial record until he jumped into bed with Deep Pockets George.
Dav >>
Dav, sometimes when your are expected to win, it makes your job more difficult...the added pressure of the owners and the fans, the high expectations...this makes the accomplishment of winning (4 out of 5 years) even more impressive....Its not easy dealing with prima dona millionaires.....
and remember, Miller Huggins is not just in the Hall, he is considered one of the best Managers ever! AND SO WILL TORRE
<< <i>And I just don't get the argument that because Miller Huggins is in Torre should be in. We could probably get another 100 into the HOF with the argument that so and so is in and he is as good as so and so.
>>
I agree that, as stated, this is a poor argument and it in fact leads to several hundred additional "Hall of Famers" who were better than George Kelly or Dave Bancroft, etc. But if we tweak the argument to say so-and-so #1 is in the HOF - and deserves to be in the HOF - and so-and-so #2 is as good as so-and-so #1, therefore so-and-so #2 ought to be in, then I think that's a valid position to take.
So the issue isn't just that Miller Huggins is in, but also whether he deserves to be in. On the other hand, with Torre, we have a man who not only went on to a managerial career comparable to many other HOF managers, but who also had a playing career comparable to many other HOF players (and one which was so clearly better than Jim Rice's that I will not insult anyone's intelligence by making a detailed case). I personally think that Torre qualifies for the HOF solely as a manager, but I can see that a reasonable case could be made that he falls just short. I also think that Torre the player fell just short of a HOF career, but I can see that a reasonable case could be made that he just cleared the bar. What I can not see is that there is a reasonable case to be made for keeping Torre the player AND manager out of the HOF, and I've yet to see a reasonable case made.
Managerial Leaders
Manager Wins
1) Connie Mack* 3731
2) John McGraw* 2763
3) Tony LaRussa 2297
4) Sparky Anderson* 2194
5) Bobby Cox 2171
6) Bucky Harris* 2157
7) Joe McCarthy* 2125
8) Walter Alston* 2040
9) Leo Durocher* 2008
10) Joe Torre 1973
Seeking primarily PSA graded pre-war "type" cards
My PSA Registry Sets
34 Goudey, 75 Topps Mini, Hall of Fame Complete Set, 1985 Topps Tiffany, Hall of Fame Players Complete Set
I just read The Boys of Summer, by Roger Kahn - great book - and new found appreciation of Gil Hodges, who would also get my vote.
Larry
Nobody
again!
Topps Baseball 1967
Mike Payne's 300 Great Cards
MVPs in their MVP years
and T206???
Steve
I guess I'm glad none of these would appear on the ballet. I mean, how can I expect a player to analyze the achievements of these careers some 80 years later. The average Hall of Famer is no more qualified to vote than the average joe. Great ballplayers, sure, but how many of them can really look at the career numbers across the decades with a true understanding of league averages, etc.
They can't even manage to elect somebody Santo from their own era that are surely deserving.
I wouldn't want these guys doing my taxes, writing laws, or voting on any pre 1930s ballplayer. The system is corrupt and as stated above a colossal waste of time.
Oh well, I get to be angry for yet another year.
Shawn
55 Topps - 26.7% / 5.91 / #67 cf
hey! I'm workin' on it !
The Hall of Fame is for the Best of the Best--the committee made an excellent choice--noone.
<< <i>Hooray!
The Hall of Fame is for the Best of the Best--the committee made an excellent choice--noone. >>
Well Dav, you got your wish.....
Just out of curiosity, where do you place Pujols on an all-time list of greats, and do you think pujols (if he puts in 8 more years like the first 6) will be considered a top 5 player of all time?
As for Pujols -- I personally think that there is too short of a history to make any meaningful indication of his long-term potential to be one of the best of all time. He has played six seasons. If he gets hit by a bus tomorrow, it will be tragic and the baseball world will have lost one of its reigning superstars. But there are too many players that, for a variety of reasons, never perform splendidly over the long-term despite a superstar beginning. I think a good comparison is Ralph Kiner. A Hall of Famer, Kiner was never as dominant in a single season as Pujols is. But Kiner had a six-year stretch when he was king of baseball. Had he been able to maintain that dominance for 12-18 seasons, he might have been one of the best of all time. But he played the minimum ten seasons to get enshrined, and one may wonder what might have been. Bottom line: Pujols is great -- but too early to tell. Even Ken Griffey Jr. will not likely be considered as one of the best of all time, simply because of his recurrent injuries, dating all the way back to 1995.
<< <i>The Hall of Fame is for the Best of the Best-- >>
Well no, obviously, it's not.
If the powers that be decide retroactively to make it so - and kick out four score or more of the current enshrinees who aren't fit to tie Santo's laces - then I'm fine with that, and Santo can be excluded.
If instead they decide to continue on as they always have - without any of this "Best of the Best" fantasy nonsense - then I'm fine with that, but then Santo has to get in.
What we have is neither of the above, and is frankly just plain stupid.
Same thing with the regular process. No one knows quite what to do with the grouping of Gossage, Blyleven, Rice, Dawson, and others because although all of them were very, very good players, the opinions range widely as to whether they are deserving. If inductions were strictly limited to the no-doubters of the game such as Ripken, Gwynn, et al., we could simply hail them as nice players but not quite HOF material. But since the horse is now out of the barn with the inductions of Maz and others in the last 10 years, we're going to see these debates continue for some time.
As for modern players with less than 7-8 years experience, there shouldn't even be a discussion yet. And that includes Pujols. Let's see he and others put up HOF caliber numbers for an extended period (10 years minimum) and then let the talk begin.
Stay classy,
Ron
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
80? Isn't that a bit over the top? 10 or 15, maybe. 80, no way. And, I don't see any 3rd basemen (HOFers) whom I would pick Santo over frankly.
It has to be the best of the best and just because there were mistakes in the past, there has to be a commitment to a standard at some point. Santo does not meet the standard. He's close, very close. He was a very good all-around baseball player. But if you look at all the HOF 3rd basemen, you tell me who is less deserving than Santo. We can't settle for mediocrity or even very good. We get that everywhere else. It's too bad some of the non deserving players got in but let's not let anymore in, please!!!
Seeking primarily PSA graded pre-war "type" cards
My PSA Registry Sets
34 Goudey, 75 Topps Mini, Hall of Fame Complete Set, 1985 Topps Tiffany, Hall of Fame Players Complete Set
As posted prior, I belive the Hall is diluted enough already and am satisfied no one not deemed worthy via the regular process, got enshrined.
There are some "errors" with regard to a few members, and a degree of contrversey will always exist. I don't agree that because so-and-so is in, therfore so-and-so #2 should be in. Any HOFer should be worthy on his own merits.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
An aside:
Shoeless Joe Jackson was banned from baseball for life. His life is over, done, finished, complete. Should not his ban be over ? I wish people would show more interest in getting him into the Hall, rather than fellows who were on the ballot many times and failed.
Ron
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Ron
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
<< <i>At the expense of angering Santo Nation, would we even be talking about Santo had he played his career for the Kansas City A's, or the Senators? >>
Would we be talking about him? Probably not. Would the HOF voters be talking about him? Certainly not. Would people who understand how great he was independent of what team he played for and that he had to play in the deadball era be talking about him? You betcha. Which is, of course, the problem. HOF voters are, as a rule, no better equipped to measure how great a player was than anyone else: they do not understand which statistics measure personal greatness and which measure team greatness, and they are as easily swayed by a performance in a single postseason series as any other fan. No, "four score" is not an exaggeration; Santo was THAT good and he, and we, deserve HOF voters who can easily tell that he was a better player than, for example, Pie Traynor.
And, speaking for Santo nation, what makes us angry is this "best of the best" crap being applied to Santo when (1) the people saying it don't understand how to tell who the best players were in the first place, (2) it's a standard that clearly has never applied in the past, and (3) some of the same people will turn around and say that Jim Rice or Jack Morris deserves to be in the HOF. Ron Santo was not Babe Ruth or Honus Wagner and he does not belong in a HOF where those two define who is eligible; he also was not Joe DiMaggio or Stan Musial, but those two don't define the HOF we actually have, either. What he was was one of the best third basemen of all time and one of the best players of his era and he meets the actual standards for induction that have applied to every other player who came before him and after him.
<< <i>I can guarantee you that had Bert Blyleven amassed 3701 strikeouts pitching for the Yankees, Mets, or Red Sox, he'd have a bust in Cooperstown by now. >>
I'm not sure you're right. The only way to reconcile Blyleven's career with his exclusion from the HOF is a complete loss of higher brain function on the part of the voters. Even a Yankee couldn't be certain of overcoming that.
Eh, it worked out for Phil Rizzuto.
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
Ron - While Blyleven should be in the Hall regardless of who he pitched for - please name some Yankees, Red Sox and Mets players who were selected by the writers that should not be in the Hall. There have been some biased selections over the years but I would be curious to see who you think from those teams should not have been selected.
<< <i>Ron - While Blyleven should be in the Hall regardless of who he pitched for - please name some Yankees, Red Sox and Mets players who were selected by the writers that should not be in the Hall. >>
We can start out with Phil Rizzuto. The ONLY reason I am not appalled by his inclusion is the fact that Reese is in too. Yuck and double yuck!
Phil Rizzuto was a Yankee
Joe Sewell was a Yankee
Pee Wee Reese was a Dodger
Johnny Mize was a Yankee/Giant
Ernie Lombardi was a Dodger/Giant
Freddy Lindstrom was a Giant/Dodger
Tony Lazzeri was a Yankee
Lefty Gomez was a Yankee
That is a list of what I would call second-tier Hall of Famers who were at least partially helped by a) their major city affilliations and b) the Old Boys' network of the Veterans' Committee. I think Lazzeri and Reese are perhaps the best of that list -- but that is a list of players who were all very good, definitely stars, but not what I would call first-rate Hall of Famers.
<< <i>Enos Slaughter was a Yankee
Phil Rizzuto was a Yankee
Joe Sewell was a Yankee
Pee Wee Reese was a Dodger
Johnny Mize was a Yankee/Giant
Ernie Lombardi was a Dodger/Giant
Freddy Lindstrom was a Giant/Dodger
Tony Lazzeri was a Yankee
Lefty Gomez was a Yankee
That is a list of what I would call second-tier Hall of Famers who were at least partially helped by a) their major city affilliations and b) the Old Boys' network of the Veterans' Committee. I think Lazzeri and Reese are perhaps the best of that list -- but that is a list of players who were all very good, definitely stars, but not what I would call first-rate Hall of Famers. >>
None of those guys were elected by the writers.
Personally, I think Johnny Mize is by far the best of that list, and probably a first-rate HOFer.
Here are Mize's career numbers: 15 seasons, 1884 games, 6443 at bats, 1118 runs, 2011 hits, 367 doubles, 83 triples, 359 HR, 1337 RBI, 856 BB, 524 K, .312 BA, .397 OBP, .562 SLG, 3621 TB.
Statistically: 1 batting title, 2 2nds, and 3 more top 5 finishes; 6 top 5 finishes in OBP; 9 times in the top 3 in slugging, including 4 times leading the league in a 5-year span; 9 times in the top 3 in OPS, including 3 straight years in 1st place; led the league in runs once, with 4 more top 5 finishes; 4 times in the top 5 in hits; led the league in total bases 3 straight years, and finished 2nd 4 other times; led the league in doubles once and triples once, with 2 other top 3 finishes in each category; 4 HR titles (2 shared with Kiner) and 5 other top 5 finishes; led the league in RBI 3 times, with 5 other top 5 finishes; 3 top 5 finishes in walks; led the league 4 times in extra base hits, with 4 other top 3 finishes; led the league in times on base once, with 3 other top 5 finishes.
Bill James measurements: Black Ink 50; Gray Ink 202; HOF Standards 47; HOF Monitor 175.
His most similar player statistically is Hank Greenberg. Until Todd Helton, he was Greenberg's most similar player statistically.
All-time leaderboards - he's 20th all-time in slugging percentage, and among players who retired before 2000, he's 8th. [The only "old-timers" ahead of him are Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, DiMaggio, and Hornsby. The next 3 "old-timers" behind him are Musial, Mays, and Mantle. His batting average is 84th all time. His OBP is 69th all time. His OPS is 20th all time - 10th among players who retired before 2000 (the same 7 as slugging percentage, plus Mantle and Musial). He's 65th all time in HR and 76th in RBI. He's 85th all time in extra base hits, and 67th all time in fewest AB per HR.
Here's how he was thought of among his contemporaries:
10-time all-star, Babe Ruth Award (World Series MVP), 6 top-10 MVP voting finishes, including 2 2nds and a 3rd.
In 1939, when he finished 2nd, he was clearly the top hitter, but Bucky Walters pulled off a pitching Triple Crown in leading the Reds to the pennant. In 1940, when he finished 2nd again, he got robbed. Had Bucky Walters, who finished 3rd that year, won it again, we could shrug it off because he was once again clearly the league's best pitcher (led in wins and ERA), but Reds 1B Frank McCormick was so clearly inferior to Mize that the 16 voters who gave McCormick 1st place votes should have had their voting privileges revoked.
Here's a comparison:
BA: Mize .314 (5th), McCormick .309 (7th)
OBP: Mize .404 (3rd), McCormick .367 (not in top 10)
SLG: Mize .636 (1st), McCormick .482 (tied 9th)
OPS: Mize 1.040 (1st), McCormick .849 (not in top 10)
games - both men had 155, tied for 2nd in the league
AB: Mize 579 (6th), McCormick 618 (led league)
plate appearances: Mize 666 (4th), McCormick 676 (3rd)
runs: Mize 111 (2nd), McCormick 92 (8th)
hits: Mize 182 (3rd), McCormick 191 (tied 1st)
total bases: Mize 368 (1st), McCormick 298 (2nd)
doubles: Mize 31 (not in top 10), McCormick 44 (1st)
triples: Mize 13 (tied 3rd), McCormick 3 (not in top 10)
HR: Mize 43 (1st), McCormick 19 (tied 5th)
RBI: Mize 137 (1st), McCormick 127 (2nd)
BB: Mize 82 (5th), McCormick 52 (not in top 10)
SB: Mize 7, McCormick 2 (neither was in top 10)
singles: Mize 95 (not in top 10), McCormick 125 (4th)
extra base hits: Mize 87 (1st), McCormick 66 (2nd)
times on base: Mize 269 (tied 1st), McCormick 248 (6th)
HBP: each man had 5 (tied for 8th)
McCormick did lead the league in sacrifices, with 20, in GDP, with 23, and in outs, with 451. Mize wasn't in the top 10 in any of those categories, but did lead in fewest at bats per HR, at 13.5.
The year he finished 3rd, Mize was significantly more valuable than Bob Elliott, who finished 1st, and likely more valuable than Ewell Blackwell, who finished 2nd (Blackwell was probably not even the best pitcher - I give that honor to Warren Spahn), but Ralph Kiner, who finished 6th, deserved the award. [I cannot fathom why Dodger catcher Bruce Edwards (.295 BA, 9 HR, 80 RBI, 53 runs), who finished 4th, received any votes, let alone 3 1st place votes.]
Oh, and Mize missed 3 years in the prime of his career (ages 30-32) to World War II.
Mize deserves to be remembered as the second best hitter in the entire NL during the 40s (behind only Musial).
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Seeking primarily PSA graded pre-war "type" cards
My PSA Registry Sets
34 Goudey, 75 Topps Mini, Hall of Fame Complete Set, 1985 Topps Tiffany, Hall of Fame Players Complete Set
<< <i>Enos Slaughter was a Yankee
Phil Rizzuto was a Yankee
Joe Sewell was a Yankee
Pee Wee Reese was a Dodger
Johnny Mize was a Yankee/Giant
Ernie Lombardi was a Dodger/Giant
Freddy Lindstrom was a Giant/Dodger
Tony Lazzeri was a Yankee
Lefty Gomez was a Yankee
>>
First, thank you NickM for the defense of Mize - he has no business on a list like this, he was truly a great player. (And while he was no Johnny Mize, I have trouble calling Pee Wee Reese undeserving, too. He certainly would not have made it playing in Cincinatti or Pittsburgh, but I think he deserved induction wherever he played.)
Second, what about George Kelly (NYG), Bobby Doerr (BOS), Ross Youngs (NYG), Travis Jackson (NYG), Dave Bancroft (NYG, BSN & BRO), Rube Marquard (NYG), Red Ruffing (NYY), and Earle Combs (NYY)? I'd venture to say that the vast majority of undeserving and borderline HOFers played in NY or Boston.
It is indeed easy to pick on the VC for their picks, but then again nearly every one of these laughably undeserving HOFers was more deserving than Jim Hunter or Bruce Sutter - so the writers have no reason to brag, either.
Lombardi on the list of 2nd tier players?? Come on guys. I wouldn't put Gomez on that list either but I won't argue with most of your other choices. I don't necessarily agree with them but one could make a case, clearly. Makes me wonder how much influence seeing someone over and over again in the post season, particularly the WS, helps the borderline players make the HOF. "He must be great, I see him in the WS every year!!!".
Good stuff.
Seeking primarily PSA graded pre-war "type" cards
My PSA Registry Sets
34 Goudey, 75 Topps Mini, Hall of Fame Complete Set, 1985 Topps Tiffany, Hall of Fame Players Complete Set
<< <i>Lombardi on the list of 2nd tier players?? Come on guys. I wouldn't put Gomez on that list either >>
They're similar in that they were both tremendously good players for a few years, and very good players for a few more years and then..... nothing. Gomez piched a little more than 2,500 innings and Lombardi batted a little more than 6,000 times.
Gomez is one good season ahead of Andy Messersmith and Lombardi, considering how poor a catcher he was, is maybe one good season ahead of Del Crandall. On the other hand, Gomez is several good seasons behind Luis Tiant and Lombardi is several good seasons behind Ted Simmons. All of these guys were fine players but I don't think any of them has ever been confused with a top-tier HOFer.
Phil Rizzuto was a Yankee
Joe Sewell was a Yankee
Pee Wee Reese was a Dodger
Johnny Mize was a Yankee/Giant
Ernie Lombardi was a Dodger/Giant
Freddy Lindstrom was a Giant/Dodger
Tony Lazzeri was a Yankee
Lefty Gomez was a Yankee
**************************************************************************************
Reese was far more deserving than Rizzuto. He had a much longer productive carreer. He had a higher OBP, higher slugging, played in 500 more games, and scored 500 more runs. They were both short and played SS on good to great teams, but they were not the same player. Reese was clearly superior.
Seeking primarily PSA graded pre-war "type" cards
My PSA Registry Sets
34 Goudey, 75 Topps Mini, Hall of Fame Complete Set, 1985 Topps Tiffany, Hall of Fame Players Complete Set
He was basically an average pitcher who just happened to have Murderer's Row hitting behind him. Take out his 1921-1929 time with the Yankees, and his career record is 82-86 over basically 11 seasons. He led the league in wins once (with the '27 Yankees), in WHIP once, and in saves once (and saves were not a recognized stat then).
His record with the Yankees looks great - until you compare it to his team's average. If you multiply his number of decisions each year by the team's winning percentage that year, he's 2 total wins above the statistical average for that entire period.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.