Who in the Baseball Hall of Fame do you believe absoultely does NOT belong there, and why?

Estil

As much of a baseball history buff that I am, I can't really come up with a good answer; the best I can come up with is Catfish Hunter, cuz it seemed like all he had going for him was five 20 win seasons, but I'm sure someone here will come along and explain his other credientials.

I believe Bill James' Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame? book would be excellent read, if the local library here ever has the heart to carry it.

MikeyLikesIt

Estil,
Bill James' book was excellent. I'll have to go back and see who he thought didn't belong as I don't remember off the top of my head. I have an extra copy of thta book. PM me if you want it.

MikeyLikesIt

And he actually talks about Catfish. He justifies his selection because he was SO dominant for such GREAT teams during those 5 years.

In his opinion (and mine), that carries more weight than someone like Gaylord Perry or Don Sutton who held on for just long enough to get 300 wins before they needed a cane.

joestalin

If Rizzuto wasn't a Yankee he wouldn't be in. Gary Carter is a joke too

JS

Volver

Tony Perez

dallasactuary

For players voted in by the writers Catfish Hunter is as good a choice as any; what separated Hunter from mediocrity was an outstanding assortment of teammates and little else. He is among the very worst players in the HOF.

But he's not the worst; that "honor" would go to any one of three players voted in by the Veteran's Committee in the 1970's, all of whom played for the NY Giants:

Fred Lindstrom (hit .311 for his career)
George Kelly (100 RBI five times)
Rube Marquard (73-28 in three-year stretch)

I also have no objection to Bruce Sutter as the best choice since as good as he was he didn't play anywhere near long enough to make a serious case for the HOF.

With only one vote, I pick George Kelly since he did not play a skill position, only had 6500+ plate appearances, ran poorly, and his 10% better than average power was the single only thing he could do better than the average player. For a more modern comparison, George Kelly is similar to Dan Driessen or Bruce Bochte, although Driessen was clearly better than Kelly. But that's the kind of thing that happens when you count 100 RBI seasons as if they mean anything.

Estil

<< <i>Tony Perez >>



DEFEND your choices please. Don't just post a guy's name, explain why he does not belong. After all, if the question was the opposite (who DOES belong that is not in yet), no one would take this response very seriously:

Bert Blyleven

But they would if I gave evidence supporting his induction (mainly his career wins/strikeouts/shutouts).

jaxxr

I pretty much agree with Dallas' views on a few guys perhaps not quite HOF worthy.
My overall view is, well that's been done and too bad, but let's not allow any more "borderline" players, or even guys the voters passed on for 15 consecutive years, the Hall is diluted enough.

However I do question a statement made in that post.

"But that's the kind of thing that happens when you count 100 RBI seasons as if they mean anything."

Well they certainly do mean something. It is a traditional baseball benchmark and represents one run for about every game and 1/2 played. The object of a baseball game is to score the most runs. Actual runs scored is a valuable indicator, runs driven in do represent some degree of influence on the game's result. A pitcher's main object, for winning, is to prevent runs. A batter must try to produce runs, score them, drive them in, or set up a possiblty to have them scored.

Sometime lost in the enamor of some offshoot or hybred stats, is the way games are actually decided. Too often we may lose sight that what really counts, is the actual amount of runs scored, not the hits, walks, strikeouts, percentages, stolen bases, potential runs, basrunner advances, double plays, outs made, or many other factors, which may contribute to or lessen the quantity of runs scored.

Darin

Every month when this question is asked, I always say Rabbit Maranville. And everybody always lists players that were excellent compared to him. Rabbit hit .258 for his career in a time when hitting .400 for a season was not uncommon. And his OB percentage was .318. To give you an idea of how inept he was at scoring runs, Derek Jeter(who by the way is not overrated) has already scored 22 more runs than Rabbit while playing 990 less games!

Estil

So how did Rabbit get in?

EDIT: According to his HOF plaque, he had (at least at the time) played in more games at SS and had more at-bats, with a respectible 2600 hits over a 23 year career, and was on the 1914 Miracle Braves championship team.

Volver

<< <i>

<< <i>Tony Perez >>





<< <i>

<< <i> DEFEND your choices please. Don't just post a guy's name, explain why he does not belong. After all, if the question was the opposite (who DOES belong that is not in yet), no one would take this response very seriously: >>



Tony Perez - No problem

* Lifetime batting average of .279 (only hit over .300 twice in his career)
* Only once finished in the top 5 of the MVP voting
* Never lead his league, let alone all of baseball in any offensive or defensive stat (unless you count grounded into double plays one year)
* Post season batting average of .234
* The Reds could have very easily won without him as he was hardly the glue in their lineup

Harold Baines, Dave Parker and Andre Dawson were far better players than Perez.

Darin

Rabbit must have gotten in mainly for his defense. The 2,600 hits aren't that respectible since he had well over 10,000 at bats.

MantleMarisFordBerra

<< <i>If Rizzuto wasn't a Yankee he wouldn't be in. Gary Carter is a joke too

JS >>




I don't get the Gary Carter hate...for a good 15 year period, he was one of the two best catchers in baseball. (the other being Fisk) Add to that his 3 Gold Gloves, Rookie Of The Year, All-Star game heroics (2 time MVP) & part of the legendary '86 Mets, he's in no prob IMHO.

Skinpinch

Jaxxr, RBI do mean something, BUT ONLY when you equalize the number of runners on base for each player. When one guy comes up with 50 more runners on second base than another guy, that is where the major problems come into play.

The second main problem is overweighting the player who drove in the run, and underweighting the players who got on to make it possible. Many times a player gets a walk or single and doesn't score or drive in a run, but they are just as important in creating that run. To give the 100 RBI man all the credit isn't tell the truth of how runs are created.


If a guy hits a double, but has crummy teammates, and he neither drives in a run with it, nor scores a run wtih it, then runs scored and RBI make him look meaningless, when it is his teammates who are.

Outs made don't add to the total of runs made, BUT THEY PREVENT MORE RUNS FROM BEING MADE.

Again, all that isn't a mystery as one can tell exactly how often x leads to x. The main thing when judging a player is to not judge him based on what his teammates did or didn't do.

dallasactuary

jaxxr - to add to what skinpinch posted, consider Kelly's 1922 season (107 RBI's) and Ron Fairly's 1963 season (77 RBI's). You want to give credit to Kelly for driving in 100 where you are not giving credit to Fairly for driving in less, in my words "as if that means something". You say it means something because driving in runs is what wins games, and obviously you're right (as long as you give credit to the others who contributed). But in 1922 the average team scored 5.00 runs per game, so Kelly drove in the equivalent of 21 games worth of runs; in 1963 the average team scored 3.81 runs per game, so Fairly drove in the equivalent of 20 games worth of runs. Throw in that Kelly played in a slight hitter's park and Fairly played in a pitcher's park and they had the SAME season. I'll repeat: George Kelly did NOTHING in 1922 that Ron Fairly did not do in 1963. To give "credit" to Kelly for passing an arbitrary round number when the identical "credit" is not given to Fairly is simply wrong. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Ron Fairly would not have driven in 100 or more runs as often as Kelly did had he been given the much more favorable circumstances that Kelly enjoyed. Look at their entire careers and it is clear to me that while neither one of them belongs anywhere near the HOF, Ron Fairly was the better player.

It can not be repeated often enough: counting up 100 RBI seasons is entirely meaningless when determining how good a player was. Entirely meaningless.

Brian48

Only one name consistently comes to mind in recent years - Tony Perez. I love the guy, but he is no HOF'er. A great example of someone getting in due to clever and persistent campaigning by his supporters.

Brian48

<< <i>Harold Baines, Dave Parker and Andre Dawson were far better players than Perez. >>



You can add Jim Rice onto that list as well.

ziggy29

<< <i>However I do question a statement made in that post.

"But that's the kind of thing that happens when you count 100 RBI seasons as if they mean anything."

Well they certainly do mean something. It is a traditional baseball benchmark and represents one run for about every game and 1/2 played. The object of a baseball game is to score the most runs. Actual runs scored is a valuable indicator, runs driven in do represent some degree of influence on the game's result. A pitcher's main object, for winning, is to prevent runs. A batter must try to produce runs, score them, drive them in, or set up a possiblty to have them scored. >>

I agree with this. I think a better point, though, is that these numbers need to be put into context.

100 RBI in a pitcher-dominated era, such as the pre-Ruthian dead ball era (or 1968 for that matter), is impressive.

100 RBI in 1930 wasn't nearly as impressive.

If someone drove in 100 runs three times in a career from (say) 1902 to 1918, I'd consider that likely more impressive than someone who did it five times from 1925 to 1940 (or in the current era, for that matter).

This is one of the things that is screwing Ron Santo out of Cooperstown, IMO. He played in a mostly pitcher-dominated era. If you normalized Santo's offensive production to that of a player in the 1930s or today, you'd be talking about a lock for the Hall. Compare Santo's numbers *relative to his era* with someone like Pie Traynor (who played in an offensive era) and it's not even close. Santo blows him away. Santo was much better than Traynor offensively relative to his peers.

jaxxr

Runs do count,
and they are more likely to be driven in by a good hitter with primarily a high BA, rather than one who primarily draws a lot of walks.
If, as skin suggests, one batter has 50 more runners on second bae, if he walks every time, while adding to his OB% , he willl NOT drive in a single run. BA is still more important than the number of walks a player gets.

Walks or on base percentage for players who are slugs on the basepath, do mean very less than they do to an average runner or a good baserunner.

"Santo was much better than Traynor offensively relative to his peers"
We all agree, I think, that most outs are bad, especially strikeouts. Ron Santo struck out 235 more times than he walked, Pie Traynor walked 194 more times than he struckout. Traynor stole 158 bases, Santo stole 35 times with a very poor 46% rate. Traynor hit .320 which was 25 points above the adjusted league average, Santo hit .277 a 9 point better margin. Ron did get on base exactly the same as Traynor, .362, both above their peers adjusted averages, although Ron was by a greater amount, 19 points. It is likely a poor runner getting on base by a walk, will less often score a run than a good runner, and walks rarely drive in runs. It is likely a better hitter and runner like Traynor, will drive in more runs and probably score more runs. Runs are the ultimate goal for offense.

Ave RBIs per season; Traynor 106, Santo 96, Average runs scored per season Traynor 99, Santo 82, Average percentage points above the league average in hitting, Traynor 25, Santo 9.

Skinpinch

Getting on base for a slugger is slightly less valuable than a speedster, not very less(though at the extremes of each end it could be).

Jaxxr, if a number three hitter comes up with a man on second base and draws a walk every time, what situation does that leave? That now leaves runners on first and second for a hitter who is most likely 95% as good(or better) as the guy who just got walked. That guy has the same chance to drive that runner in from second in, BUT now he also has another runner to possibly drive in. It is clearly an advantage for the offense. Alll these hitters that are talked about are all middle of the order type hitters. This extra guy on base must be weighed by the increased possiblility of the DP(and it is in the good measurements).

In the case a guy has an absolutely TERRIBLE hitter behind them, then the pitcher is going to give him the unintentional intentional walk. It is extremely rare to have this situation for a middle of the order hitter. A number eight hitter in the NL is an example of more what you are talking about.

Again, it is no mystery. Based on the millions of play by play chances, you know what the run expectancy is for a man on second, as opposed to a man on 1st and second, and YES you can figure it out based on the level of the hitter behind. But that variable is so small(unless it is the pitcher behind), that it really isn't a bother to worry about.

Jaxxr, strikeouts are not much different than contact outs(save for man on 3rd/less 2 outs). If one wants to ignore the millions of play by play data that shows it, then a simple exercise is to measure an exteme strikeout guy vs. an exteme contact guy, and see EXACTLY how often their outs moved runners up. Simply measure Bill Buckner vs. Mike Schmidt and you will be very surprised at what you find.

But I repeat, YOU MUST factor in the increased double plays that result from guys who make more contact, in this case Mike Schmidt 156, Bill Buckner 247. So if you take into account the small handful of runners that Buckner moved from first to second, or second to third, those are basically completely wiped out(and then some) by the increased double plays.

Sac Flies 107 for Schmidt, 98 for Bucks. So you know right there that Schmidt leads him already in driving in a man from third/less than two outs. All that is left is how many ground outs that Buckner hit to drive in a man from third. It doesn't happen as often as people think.

Finally, the unseen factor of a strikeout/walk type guy vs. a contact guy...THE NUMBER OF PITCHES HE MAKES THE PITCHER THROW! The free swingers don't make the pitchers work nearly as much as the high walk high strikeout guys. This effect isn't even taken into account for the numbers. You can check the pitches per at bat to see this.

ziggy29

<< <i>"Santo was much better than Traynor offensively relative to his peers"
We all agree, I think, that most outs are bad, especially strikeouts. Ron Santo struck out 235 more times than he walked, Pie Traynor walked 194 more times than he struckout. Traynor stole 158 bases, Santo stole 35 times with a very poor 46% rate. Traynor hit .320 which was 25 points above the adjusted league average, Santo hit .277 a 9 point better margin. Ron did get on base exactly the same as Traynor, .362, both above their peers adjusted averages, although Ron was by a greater amount, 19 points. It is likely a poor runner getting on base by a walk, will less often score a run than a good runner, and walks rarely drive in runs. It is likely a better hitter and runner like Traynor, will drive in more runs and probably score more runs. Runs are the ultimate goal for offense.

Ave RBIs per season; Traynor 106, Santo 96, Average runs scored per season Traynor 99, Santo 82, Average percentage points above the league average in hitting, Traynor 25, Santo 9. >>

We can all pick and choose out stats. Here's mine to pick and choose; let's let the jury decide:

Slugging (you left this one out, wonder why?): Santo was 65 points higher than the league; Traynor just 19 points.
OBP (which you hinted at but didn't give specifics): Santo 28 points higher than league average; Traynor 9 points above league average.
Put these together and you get...

OPS: Santo 93 points above league average; Traynor 28 points above league average.
OPS+ : Santo 125, Traynor 107.

That is a significant difference, far more significant than difference in speed on the bases IMO.

You say "scoring runs" is the ultimate goal, and I agree, but when comparing two eras in which one era scores 40% more runs than another, someone scoring 40% more runs in the higher-scoring era is doing just as well as the person scoring fewer runs in the lower-scoring era. Put another way, scoring/driving in 140 runs in Traynor's era was about like scoring/driving in 100 in Santo's era. With the numbers you gave above, Santo both scored AND drove in a greater percentage of the league's total runs than Traynor when you consider the number of runs per game scored in each era.

In short, the advantages Traynor had over Santo in batting average and speed are, IMO, dwarfed by Santo's huge era-adjusted advantage in OPS. (93 points!!!) And any nominal advantage Traynor had in scoring and driving in runs is MORE than lost after normalizing for overall run production in each player's era.

The defense rests. Santo was a superior offensive producer compared to Traynor, I believe, based on the preponderance of your evidence and mine.

[Edit to add: I'm not saying all this to "diss" Traynor. I'm using it to show how underrated Santo really is, largely because of the low offense of his era. Traynor just happened to be an easy comparison because he played the same position and he played in a time of very high offense.]

jaxxr

"Getting on base for a slugger is slightly less valuable than a speedster, not very less(though at the extremes of each end it could be)."

Well of course that's usually true, I believe you may have thought "slugs" was short for sluggers in my point, however I was actually trying to compare poor baserunners to an animal.

Many sluggers are not slugs, slow moving snail-like creatures, on the basepath. Guys like Mays, Bonds, Sisler, Arod , and many more, could run AND hit. A poor basrunner does make his walks less effective. His value as a hitter , despite a good OB% , is probably less valuabe than a guy with good speed and a good BA. Again, walks from a snail or slug-like baserunner do not equate to being a good hitter.

Surpised that fouling off pitches, as was mentioned, does not get much talk. If a guy can go to a 3-2 count and foul off 5 or 6 more pitches, he is making a true contribution to his team's likelyhood of winning, via pitcher removal possibiliy increase. Of course this may not ALWAYS be a good thing, a very fine contact hitter might force the No. 4 starter to be yanked for Dennis Eckersley or Hoyt Wilhelm !!!

Skinpinch

Ziggy, you happened to pick and choose two very good measurments. If you were building a house, the SLUG% and OB% would be like the floor, walls, and ceiling. All the other smaller things mean something, but they are more like the floor trim .

The only thing better than the OPS+ measurment are the Linear Weights Batter Runs, and then the best is the situational Batter Runs...but that stuff is more time consuming and not readily available.

dallasactuary

<< <i>The defense rests. Santo was a superior offensive producer compared to Traynor, I believe, based on the preponderance of your evidence and mine. >>


The only part of your statement I would quibble with is the "I believe" part; that Santo was a superior offensive producer is simply fact - as you demonstrated.

jad22

Dizzy Dean
Rizzuto
Tony Perez (sucks)

jaxxr

Pie never had a diluted, expansion laden pitching staff to bat against, Ron Santo did.

Ron got his best RBI year in 1969 right in conjuntion with BB's second expansion, his first 100 RBI year was 1965, only 3 seasons removed from the NL's first expansion. Hitting against guys who should have been in triple A ball was not a feature Traynor could enjoy.
I wouldn't be soooo sure Santo was much better a hitter.

Pie still betterd the the league adjusted BA over his career by a greater margin than Santo, with some Padres and Expos to hit and walk against. Walks for a guy like Santo do pad his OB%, but Ron was a very poor runner, stole only 35 bases ever..at a whopping 46% rate. Pie was a better than average runner. Ron stuck out more than be walked, Pie walked more than he struck out. Seems Ron may not be a very much better offensive player than Pie.

In their respective last full seasons 33 and 72, Pie drove in 103 runs, the NL average runs per team was 613, he got 17%. Santo drove in 73 runs, the NL average runs per team was 671, he got he got 11%. In 1970 the NL average runs per team was 731, several years in Santo's "era" actually produced more runs per team, than in Traynor's "era".

aro13

jaxxr - Traynor drove in 82 runs in 1933 not 103. In 1973 Santo drove in 77 runs not 73. The average runs per team would have to be adjusted for Santo's era as the teams played 8 more games.

Skinpinch

Jaxxr, with all due respect, Traynor had much less competition to face than Santo. That has been laid out clearly many times.

You are overblowing Santo's 'padding' his OB% as if that is meaningless. His baserunning ability might affect a smidge, but he wasn't a slug. It is nowhere near enough to cover the large offensive advantage he has over Traynor.

As Ziggy said, you are seemingly conveniently leaving out big pieces of the puzzle and only focusing on one thing...a batting average.

Traynor was barely above average in both OB and SLG.

jaxxr

Whoops, I used 1931, which was not his last full season. I was incorrect.

I still feel 35 lifetime stolen bases at a worsre than half rate of only 46% is a poor baserunner, both in total and percentagewise. Perhaps a slug is a bit harsh but much more than a "smidge" below average.

The expansion of baseball has brought into the majors, players and pitchers who would have still been triple A at best. Santo played through two expansion times, he had his BEST RBI year in the one which added two new teams with several sub-par or below average pitchers, this is a fact, not an opinion.

It is some people's opinion, not a fact, that the time frame baseball had diluted expansion talent, and had much more competetion from other pro sports for the best athletes, was somehow better stocked with major leaguers.

While not all on this board feel Traynor was a better PLAYER than Santo, many do, including the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Estil

<< <i>Dizzy Dean
Rizzuto
Tony Perez (sucks) >>



Care to tell us why?

Gonblott

Mickey Mantle















****

Late April fools joke

PSASAP

The argument that Santo played against a diluted talent pool, caused by expansion, could just as easily be used against Traynor. Traynor played his entire career prior to 1947, when only the best white players were allowed to compete, and they were not necessarily the best players in the country at the time.

jad22

Tony Perez doesn't belong because he was far less dominant than Jim Rice who gets screwed every year.
Rizzuto was inductioned solely on the fact that he was a Yankee and that he had friends on the veterans commitee.
Dizzy Dean
18-15
20-18
30-7
28-12
24-13
So he really only had 3 good seasons. Denny McLain had similiar stats but nobody would seriously consider electing him to the hall. Here are there best 5 seasons.
16-6
20-14
17-16
31-6
24-9

mnolan

this is why gary carter is in
AN EXUBERANT ON-FIELD GENERAL WITH A SIGNATURE SMILE WHO WAS
KNOWN FOR CLUTCH HITTING AND ROCK-SOLID DEFENSE OVER 19 SEASONS.
HIS TIRELESS WORK ETHIC AND DURABILITY LED TO THE ALL-TIME RECORD FOR
TOTAL CHANCES BY A CATCHER, AND NATIONAL LEAGUE RECORDS FOR GAMES
CAUGHT, PUTOUTS, AND YEARS LEADING THE LEAGUE IN PUTOUTS. AN
11-TIME ALL-STAR, TWICE THE GAME MVP. EARNED THREE GOLD GLOVE AWARDS
AND CLUBBED 324 HOME RUNS. A CATALYST FOR THE EXPOS POSTSEASON
BERTH IN 1981 AND A KEY TO THE METS 1986 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP.

dallasactuary

<< <i>Dizzy Dean
18-15
20-18
30-7
28-12
24-13
So he really only had 3 good seasons. Denny McLain had similiar stats but nobody would seriously consider electing him to the hall. Here are there best 5 seasons.
16-6
20-14
17-16
31-6
24-9 >>



Here is a perfect example of why looking at W/L records is not just useless - as it would be if it told you nothing - but actually worse than useless, because what it does tell you leads to the opposite conclusion than the one you should reach.

In about the same number of innings, Dean allowed 201 fewer earned runs to score than an average pitcher would have given those same innings while McLain saved 6 runs. Yes, not a typo, 6 runs. Any comparison that even includes the W/L record is off to a bad start; if any comparison is even helped a little bit by considering it, I am not sure what that comparison might be.

jad22

I should have mentioned that only 3 seasons of good numbers does not make a hall of famer. Shouldn't there be a longer period of excellence.
Does Roger Maris get in?

CDsNuts

I'm only going with players I saw play, which is the most relavent information. I really don't feel confident arguing about Three Finger Brown's credentials when the guy played 70 years before I was born. You can argue strictly on stats, but it's obvious that many of the inductees aren't in there on stats alone.

Take a guy like Ozzie Smith- Stats aren't anything to brag about over his career, but most would argue he should be in without much argument. This is because he played with charisma and passion, and was the unquestioned team leader of a few championship teams. You could say the same about Kirby Puckett to a lesser degree.

Bruce Sutter- I saw him pitch on more than a few occasions and nothing he did ever struck me as memorable. It's not like it was an incredible shock if he blew a save (like Eck or Rivera). The fact that he was one of the first guys to be used strictly as a closer and did it well for a long period of time (long enough to rack up a lot of saves), doesn't merit HOF induction. I'd vote for Gossage over Sutter in a heartbeat because he was immensly intimidating/dominant, and was a key player on several playoff/WS teams.

Tony Perez- I don't see being the 6th or 7th best player on a dynasty being HOF-worthy. Again, he's a guy that played a long time and was always productive, but that would be the modern-day equivalent of Bernie Williams getting in.

Phil Niekro- The guy threw a knuckleball well, which is why he was able to pitch for about 85 years. However, you didn't exactly circle the date on the calendar when he came to town to pitch, and he was caught cheating on several occasions. No way he belongs.


Lee

Boopotts

One thing to consider in the case of Sutter-- and I'm not arguing that he should be in-- is that he's often cited as the 'inventor' of the split fingered fastball. If you actually do introduce a new-and legal-pitch to the game then that should probably count for something.

dallasactuary

<< <i>Phil Niekro- The guy threw a knuckleball well, which is why he was able to pitch for about 85 years. However, you didn't exactly circle the date on the calendar when he came to town to pitch, and he was caught cheating on several occasions. No way he belongs.
>>


Man, just when I think I'm making progress convincing people that Bert Blyleven belongs in the HOF somebody has to go and knock a HOF pitcher even better than Blyleven. The only reason nobody circled the date Niekro pitched is that nobody ever cared who was pitching for the Braves. Niekro never won a Cy Young, but he deserved three or four; he toiled away for so many seasons with a W/L like 19-18 when the rest of the team was 50-75 that he never got the press that most of his great contemporaries on better teams got. For the decade of the 1970's, Niekro was 13 games over .500 on a team that was 171 games under .500 without him. Luckily, in Niekro's case, the HOF voters saw past the W/L record to the great pitcher behind it. Blyleven has not been so lucky.

If you're looking for comparable pitchers to Niekro, the closest you'll find are Steve Carlton and Gaylord Perry. If Phil Niekro doesn't belong, then we're talking about a mighty small HOF.

grote15

Luckily, in Niekro's case, the HOF voters saw past the W/L record to the great pitcher behind it. Blyleven has not been so lucky.

Niekro definitely belongs in the Hall. My guess is that he got more recognition than Blyleven because he achieved the "magic number" of 300 wins and there are writers who will automatically vote a guy into the Hall if he has 300 wins, regardless. I'm not saying that there are any 300-win pitchers who DON'T belong in the Hall (I don't feel there are any), but that if Blyleven had been able to eke out those additional 13 wins, he'd be in HOF long ago. That just seems to be how the voting goes in a case like that.

CDsNuts

No HOF pitcher was more hittable than Niekro. When the quality of your start depends on how the wind is blowing, you really aren't what I would call dominating. He had a few seasons where he got Cy Young votes, but Carlton won four Cy Young's outright. They both pitched roughly the same amount of years, and Carlton had 11 more wins, 30 fewer losses, 800 more strikeouts, and a .13 lower ERA. Granted the Phillies were better than the Braves, but a dominant pitcher will do well no matter what team he's on (Ryan, Seaver, Jenkins, etc...). Being on a bad team is no excuse for having that many .500 and below seasons. Regardless of how bad the Braves were, if Niekro were a dominating pitcher, he would've had a better W/L record.

Any decent pitcher that pitches 20+ years should get 300 wins. In my eyes, 300 wins alone should not get you into the Hall. And when you depend on the help of your salive to throw pitches, that doesn't help your case either.

Lee

dallasactuary

<< <i>No HOF pitcher was more hittable than Niekro. >>


He pitched in a park known as "the launching pad" for goodness sake. Even so, your statement is simply false.



<< <i>When the quality of your start depends on how the wind is blowing, you really aren't what I would call dominating. >>


Huh?



<< <i>He had a few seasons where he got Cy Young votes, but Carlton won four Cy Young's outright. >>


This is my personal pet peeve. Because Niekro got screwed out of the multiple Cy Young Awards he deserved by sportswriters in the past, we are supposed to treat their ignorance as gospel forever. I would hope we would all prefer to think for ourselves.



<< <i>They both pitched roughly the same amount of years, and Carlton had 11 more wins, 30 fewer losses, 800 more strikeouts, and a .13 lower ERA. >>


All true. But how does Carlton's W/L compare to his team's W/L and how does his ERA compare to an average park-adjusted ERA? Do you care? If not, why am I having this discussion with you?



<< <i>Granted the Phillies were better than the Braves, but a dominant pitcher will do well no matter what team he's on (Ryan, Seaver, Jenkins, etc...). Being on a bad team is no excuse for having that many .500 and below seasons. Regardless of how bad the Braves were, if Niekro were a dominating pitcher, he would've had a better W/L record. >>


I've long since realized that when my first instinct is that a post must surely be a joke, I am almost always wrong. But, other than a joke, how else to explain your inclusion of Nolan Ryan in your list? He is the poster child for great pitchers with W/L records that look ordinary (8-16 while leading the league in ERA; does that ring a bell?) "Granted the Phillies were better than the Braves" is sort of like "granted there's gravity, but he should still be able to float" - I'm not sure how or why I'm supposed to take it seriously.



<< <i>Any decent pitcher that pitches 20+ years should get 300 wins. In my eyes, 300 wins alone should not get you into the Hall. >>


But who said counting up wins matters? It wasn't me; I think it was you. Wait, here it is, from 30 seconds ago: " Carlton had 11 more wins". Let's just agree not to look at W/L records anymore, since they don't tell us anything useful.



<< <i>And when you depend on the help of your salive to throw pitches, that doesn't help your case either. >>


I wasn't aware that Niekro had been accused of throwing a spitball (well, PHIL Niekro anyway), although I do remember the emery board incident. If the allegations of ball-doctoring are the reason that you think Niekro doesn't belong in the HOF then I disagree, but that's obviously just a difference in opinion. That Niekro doesn't deserve to be in the HOF because he wasn't a good enough pitcher, though, is just plain unsupportable.

CDsNuts

- Clearly this is an emotional issue for you. All I'm saying is I never felt Niekro was really that special, but since he was able to put up decent numbers for 20 years, they voted him in. Take Tim Wakefield, add another 10 years of pitching and a couple 20 win seasons and you have Phil Niekro's career. Did you ever watch a Braves game and say to yourself "Wow, that Phil Niekro is special"? I didn't. But I have said the same thing while watching Carlton, Ryan, Clemens, Maddux, etc.... I just never felt that Niekro had that special trait that sets apart very good players from great players. To me, Niekro was a very good player, nothing more. The fact that he was very good for a long period of time is what got him into the Hall.

- Exactly which years should he have won the Cy Young over the other candidates?

- << When the quality of your start depends on how the wind is blowing, you really aren't what I would call dominating. >> - On a windy day, the knuckleball is harder to hit.

- " Carlton had 11 more wins"- You took this out of context. The fact that Carlton had 11 more wins really means nothing, but paired with the fact that he had 40 less losses is relevant information. The total number of wins in a career is not really that telling of a pitcher's quality throughout his peak years. For example, Niekro has more wins than Seaver, Palmer, Gibson, Koufax and Jenkins, and most would argue that those pitchers were all better than Niekro.

- Yes, he pitched in a hitter's park and played for a bad team. That should be taken into account, and I think it was in the Hall voting. Also, I was thinking of Joe Niekro in terms of cheating, not Phil. My mistake.


Lee

mikeschmidt

I think everyone should be kicked out of the Hall of Fame but for Efra Manley.

No one else truly, in my mind, epitomizes the quintessential Hall of Famer like Manley does.

dallasactuary

<< <i>- Clearly this is an emotional issue for you. All I'm saying is I never felt Niekro was really that special, but since he was able to put up decent numbers for 20 years, they voted him in. Take Tim Wakefield, add another 10 years of pitching and a couple 20 win seasons and you have Phil Niekro's career. Did you ever watch a Braves game and say to yourself "Wow, that Phil Niekro is special"? I didn't. But I have said the same thing while watching Carlton, Ryan, Clemens, Maddux, etc.... I just never felt that Niekro had that special trait that sets apart very good players from great players. To me, Niekro was a very good player, nothing more. The fact that he was very good for a long period of time is what got him into the Hall.

- Exactly which years should he have won the Cy Young over the other candidates?

- << When the quality of your start depends on how the wind is blowing, you really aren't what I would call dominating. >> - On a windy day, the knuckleball is harder to hit.

- " Carlton had 11 more wins"- You took this out of context. The fact that Carlton had 11 more wins really means nothing, but paired with the fact that he had 40 less losses is relevant information. The total number of wins in a career is not really that telling of a pitcher's quality throughout his peak years. For example, Niekro has more wins than Seaver, Palmer, Gibson, Koufax and Jenkins, and most would argue that those pitchers were all better than Niekro.

- Yes, he pitched in a hitter's park and played for a bad team. That should be taken into account, and I think it was in the Hall voting. Also, I was thinking of Joe Niekro in terms of cheating, not Phil. My mistake.


Lee >>



Yes, I get emotional about these things; just ignore that part because I can't help myself.

A few things, though, before I let this go.

1. You say "Yes, he pitched in a hitter's park and played for a bad team. That should be taken into account, ...", but then you don't acknowledge what that means. To evaluate Niekro's career properly, the ball park effects are not just some incidental thing - they are absolutely essential. And while W/L records don't mean much, they are completely misleading without considering the team's W/L. Niekro has both a better ERA and a better W/L record than Carlton once you adjust for things that are out of the pitcher's control. We can disagree about how much weight we want to put on a pitcher's best season, or best three seasons, or entire career, or whatever, and come to a different conclusion about whether Steve Carlton or Phil Niekro was the better pitcher; but to think of them as in different classes of pitcher entirely I don't think is reasonable.

2. Phil Niekro was the best pitcher in the National League in 1967; Mike McCormick won the Award because he won the most games - he was not among the 10 best pitchers. Niekro was the best pitcher in the NL in 1974; Mike Marshall won the Award because.... I won't even to pretend to understand why. Niekro was the best pitcher in the NL in 1978; Gaylord Perry won the Award because he won the most games - he was not among the 10 best pitchers. In 1979, Niekro led the league in wins - the standard that was used to deny him Awards in the past - and they gave the Award to Bruce Sutter for reasons known but to God.

3. Tommy John, Jerry Reuss, Joe Niekro, Charlie Hough, Frank Tanana; those guys put up "decent" numbers for 20+ years and nobody is arguing that they belong in the HOF (maybe with John somebody is, but somebody is wrong). Phil Niekro put up great numbers for 10-15 years and very good numbers for five or so more years. There's a huge difference.

Brian48

Wow. All this talk about Phil Niekro and no one's griped about Don Sutton yet.

markj111

I have to agree that if Steve Carlton is the baseline of HOF pitchers, then there would be precious few in. There are several people in the HOF whose credentials I question, but it never occurred to me that someone would doubt Niekro's qualiications. Fortunately for him, the voters agreed. He sailed in fairly early with 80% of the vote. I believe he was elected in the 4th or 5th year of eligibility. Niekro exceeds Bill James' HOF standards and monitor for the average HOFer.


If you want to question pitchers in the HOF, I believe the line starts with Hoyt, Haines,Chesbro, Marquard and Sutter.

As a side note, Joe Morgan was elected with "only" 82% of the vote. He was much more valuable that Gwynn, who received a % in the upper 90s.

Estil

As one of the strongest Blyleven supporters you'll ever find (he's at the very top of my list of eligible players who belong in the HOF), I believe the main thing that's hurt his chances was the lack of name recognition. I mean, he was never exactly a household name, but at the same time, 287 wins is 287 wins. 3701 strikeouts is 3701 strikeouts. And lastly, 60 shutouts!?!? In today's game you'd be lucky just to get half that many complete games in your career.

Skinpinch

Aside for the very flawed measurement of W/L record putting Niekro's career into unfair light, there is another notion at work...the Mel Allen/Rusty Staub notion.

Much like many people think Mel Allen was only known for being the host of This Week in Baseball, people have a similar notion that Rusty Staub was only some pretty good pinch hitter, and that Phil Niekro was only some 65 yr old looking 45 year old guy who just floated knuckle balls up there and prayed.

dallasactuary

Yeah, I'm not sure how many people picture the guy who struck out over 500 people in 1977-78 when they think of Niekro. I forget how old I am somtimes; thanks for reminding me.

Estil

You can't "kick someone out" of the Hall of Fame. That's a honor that can never be taken away.