My 1970's Mega Super Star Team...the HOF....and outright disgut.

Hoopster

I find it now an appropriate time to reflect on the HOF, its players they inducted, and the players they have simply ignored. They have a chosen a few players to be remembered for posterity, while other players who are or were 99% as good(and often times BETTER) were left to be forgotten.

We have had debates on who is worth remembering, who is worth inducting, or doesn't belong. The conclusion I am drawing is that the HOF is not an appropriate entity, nor is it doing its job well enough in remembering players.

Since todays Hall of Fame vote contained mostly players from the 70's, I want to post my all Mega 70's Super Star team. This is a team consisting of players who were the envy of other players in the league, the idols of fans and children everywhere, and considered by most to be the best at their respective position in the mid to late 70's. They have MVP's, All Star apperances, gold gloves, and numerous Post Season acclaim among them. Here they are by position...

C Thurman Munson
1B Steve Garvey
2B Bobby Grich
3B Graig Nettles
SS Dave Concepcion
LF George Foster
CF Fred Lynn
RF Dave Parker
DH Jim Rice

RHP Luis Tiant
LHP Ron Guidry

CL Goose Gossage

Look at that team! With the exception of Grich, and possibly Nettles or Tiant, those players were considered the Pinnacle among their respective positions in the mid to late 70's.

They were the guys who most kids would claim themselves to be in the local Whiffle Ball game. A kid makes a running grab in his centefield sandlot game...and he was Fred Lynn. Another kid hits a line drive HR, and he was Jim Rice. A play in the hole...who else would you be other than Dave Concepcion? Nobody! Hit a HR and then do a circus catch at 3B, you were Graig Nettles! Yeah a few years later you may have been Schmidt, but not in 1976! The leader of the local game? I am Thurman Munson!

Oh and maybe not considered the absolute best, but certainly the most immitated? Luis Tiant! Just ask Carmen Ronzonni!

In the baseball card world, Jim Rice, Fred Lynn, Thurman Munson, and of course Steve Garvey(of Rockey Denis and Rube Walker fame).

With the exception of the Red Sox players on the team, they all have won at least one World Series ring, and have been to the post season numerous times...some producing legendary performances like Thurman Munson. We can forgive the Red Sox players for not completing that criteria, but nobody can forget that team; their main stars of Lynn and Rice...and the theatre they gave us in the post season.

But they have all been ignored, deemed unworthy of immortalizing. Why? Many because they failed to play just enough years to reach an arbitrary statistical milestone. So if Dave Parker had hung around for just a couple more seasons as platoon player, he would now be deemed worthy enough to remember because he would have 3,000 hits? That is insane.

Some of them had the gall to stop being an a legend when they hit age 36? Is that why they aren't in? Maybe...but the Hall chooses other guys, NONE MORE REVEERED than these guys, who petered out as well and yet are enshrined.

Why Tony Perez and not Steve Garvey? What's the difference? There isn't. Garvey was the man. Perez was outstanding. Yet Garvey will fall to the wayside...it just isn't right. He was everything Perez was, and maybe more. He was certainly the American Idol before Simon Cowell came along.

So some of them were worth four runs a year less than Reggie, or Brett...

But none of them were worth anything less in the hearts of America's fans and youngster in their day, and they are all just as worthy to be remembered...and you know what? A team of these guys vs. a team of all the Hall of Famers from that era...I'd like to buy a ticket for that! We are looking at 52-48 out of a 100 baby. A slippery slope if I have ever seen one.

P.S. Goose has jumped over, good for him!

softparade

Interestingly, when Jim Rice retired .... at THAT TIME .... there were only 13 players who hit 20 plus homers every year for 10 straight seasons. ALL of them are HOF'ers except Jim Rice. Forget the seasons that happened AFTER he retired.

Dave Parker is a guy I just mentioned in the other HOF thread .... he can be compared with Rice and by most accounts was a better "all around" player then Rice. He does not get a sniff though ....

Hoopster

Soft,

These guys were the cats meow! That OF and DH are just freakin awesome! Those four guys in their prime three years are every bit the HOF...and it isn't like they were only good for six years. They still played a long time!

Everybody who lived during that time can attest to the star magnitude of these guys. The same thing can probably be done for other era's, but looking at the 80's guys who are in a similar boat...they have the player value, but they don't have the star magnitude as these guys did. Keith Hernandez was a guy who fits that description, but nobody looked at Keith Hernandez like they did Steve Garvey. This was Steve Garvey, possibly the most known baseball player of this time. If that isn't fame, then I don't know what is.

It is almost as if these guys are being shunned from this era. Maybe the writers who are voting were smoking too much weed in those days.

Hoopster

Thruman Munson. We just had a long debate and a lot of people were clamoring that Mazeroski's induction to the Hall is merited. Even Dallas who is a devout objective observer was clamoring for a sub standard selection.

The point was brought up that he was possibly hampered by an ankle injury.

THurman Munson's worst crime was that he played in the same decade as possibly the best catcher of all time. Bench owned the early half, but Munson got him in the middle to second half. OVerall Bench beat him, but when you account for Munsons' men on hitting, it isn't as big a gap as it seems.

Munson was freakin killed. Being the type of hitter he was, sticking around for another six years slapping out 150 hits a game, playing good catcher, he has 2,500 type hits. Who knows? He gets ZERO benefit from the Hall writers. Not a smidge of respect.

TomGshotput

Dave Parker missed his chance at the Hall-of-Fame because of drug abuse, not the lack of 3 000 hits

Perez was simply a bad choice, I think in response to Cepeda the year before (who was another drug user, but didn't let it effect his stats as much as Parker and was a veterans committee selection and as we know all that means is he was lucky enough to have his name pulled out of the hat)

Munson was well into the down side of his career. The vast majority of catchers play very few full seasons after age 32 and there is no reason to think Munson would have been any different. Extremely doubtful he would have been any stronger of a Hall-of-Fame candidate had he not died. Actually, he would likely have less support had the tragedy never happened, as based solely on his playing he would be behind Simmons and Torre among catchers not in the Hall-of-Fame

You are right that the a similar team from the 80s (outside of catcher) was probably better, but not mimiced as much in whiffle ball games

1B Hernandez
2B Whitaker
SS Trammell
3B Bell
LF Raines
CF Murphy
RF Evans

SP Saberhagen, Stieb
RP Sutter (though both he and Gossage are out of place)

Less than half won the World Series (not counting Raines in 96), all have recieved very little Hall-of-Fame support, and were overshadowed by their own contemporaries who didn't have careers as good. In fact, there are a lot of players who are blabbered about as deserving of the Hall-of-Fame who aren't as good as the ones above. And being a great player, better than everyone else not in the Hall-of-Fame as well as many who are is what should be the primary criteria. Being the player kids try to imitate should be of very little additional value

Of all the players from the 70s and 80s listed, Raines is the only one I really think belongs. As another in the long line of drug using athletes, doubtful he will make it. Looking past Raines, Grich has the strongest case, but I there are others I think deserve it more

Hoopster

TomG,

You are kind of missing the point. The guys I l isted from the 70's were not only the most idolized, they were the best at their respective positions for a good time there, and pretty much at the same time. They have the ability AND the FAME. What more does one want?

Garvey, Concepcion, Rice, Foster, Lynn, and Parker were the pinnacle of their positions in the mid to late 70's, both statistically and by being idolized. Nettles and Munson more so for just a couple of seasons in the mid 70's.

Six of those guys won deserved MVP's. Garvey may have had a little iffy one.

The Hall of Fame chooses certain guys to remember, who aren't much different. Even the big Hall of Famers who are better, aren't like they are worlds better. Like I said, this team against the team of Hall of Famers from that era is going to be much closer to 47 wins out of 100.


You are wrong about Parker. 3,000 hits would have made him an automatic vote, no question, no way a sane person could dispute that. Drugs may have contributed to his case of not making it...a case which was NOT 3,000 hits on the resume.

Brian48

Munson was a great catcher during the 70's, but I would argue that it's a toss up between him and Carlton Fisk.

dallasactuary

Man, can you find any more over-hyped players from major media markets. I hope you're just being provocative by even implying that some of these guys are close to HOF material; I know you're exaggerating by implying that any of them were actually the best.

C Thurman Munson - it wouldn't bother me much if he made the HOF, but he was no Simmons.

1B Steve Garvey - because no great first basemen happened to begin their career near the time Garvey did, he may be the best over the arbirtrary period of 1970-1979, but that is a weak, weak period for first basemen. Even so, I'll take Perez over Garvey; Perez played the entire decade and had a couple of seasons much better than Garvey's best. If we ignore the arbitrary 1970-1979 stricture, Dick Allen and Keith Hernandez bestride Garvey like a Colossus. No way is Garvey a HOFer.

2B Bobby Grich - Clearly far inferior to Joe Morgan, but no doubt a HOFer

3B Graig Nettles - Again, we need to be strict about the arbitrary 1970-1979 period to give Nettles any limelight at all; Schmidt and Brett obviously dwarf him, and I'll take Evans over him in any event. Still, he'd be far from the worst HOFer.

SS Dave Concepcion - in the weakest decade ever, by far, for shortstops, Davey wins in a squeaker since Yount's half-decade was not quite as good as Concepcion's complete decade. Nowhere close to a HOFer. If there's a potential HOFer in the shortstop ranks in the 1970's it's the 1960's holdovers Fregosi and Wills.

LF George Foster - Not sure how his name got here; plenty of HOF left fielders from the 70's who have been deservedly enshrined; if we have to have another, I'll take Roy White or (more seriously) 60's holdover Frank Howard. Not close to the HOF level.

CF Fred Lynn - but he didn't start until 1975? For the whole decade Reggie Smith, Amos Otis or Cedeno crush him. If we're not being rigid on the 1970-1979 thing at this position, I'll take Jimmy Wynn. I'll also say "no" to the HOF for Lynn.

RF Dave Parker - there were better/as good right fielders, but they're already in. Parker probably should be, too.

DH Jim Rice - played half the decade, DHed less than half of that. Of course, nobody who DHed regulary in the 1970's (except a couple of aging HOFers cashing paychecks) belongs anywhere near the HOF. Neither does Rice.

RHP Luis Tiant - lots of better righties in the 70's, and Blyleven is obviously more deserving. Not a HOFer, IMO, but close.

LHP Ron Guidry - not a lot of better lefties in the 70's, but then Guidry only pitched a few years in the 70's himself. Not a HOFer.

CL Goose Gossage - Speaking of Mazeroski or Joe Wood, why on Earth aren't relievers penalized for having microscopically short careers? Gossage proved conclusively he couldn't pitch effectively for more than an inning or two so the Sox moved him to the closer role. And for a decade (most of which was in the 80's) he pitched a very effective 1,000 innnings. and then lingered as a so-so reliever for a while after that. Sam McDowell pitched 1,000 great innings, as did Joe Horlen, Camilo Pascual, Wilbur Wood, and who knows how many more? It takes some fancy statistical footwork (bogus assumptions) to find more value in Gossage's 1,800 inning career than in Wood's 1,800 inning prime. Once Sutter got in, I guess Gossage had to go to, too; which is why Sutter should never have gotten in. Gossage was the best pitcher not good enough to start of the 1970's, and Manny Mota was the best hitter not good enough to start. Not sure why one of them is going to the HOF and the other isn't.

Hoopster

Dallas,

I am talking about them at their peak during the mid/late 70's, coupled with their FAME.

Foster had 163 Batter RUns in his best four years. White had 128. Howard was mostly a 60's player.

Lynn 161 Batter Runs best four...Smith 160. Lynn has the FAME part going for him much more...ROY/MVP

Jim Rice is listed as DH on this team. I know he wasn't a DH. Best hitter in MLB for two year stretch at end of decade.

Nettles had a couple year run, '76-'78 where his defense put him up there with his offense peak.

Dave Concepcion is more worthy of the HOF than Rey Sanchez(I mean than Bill Mazeroski).

The HOF can mean different things to different people. I don't profess these guys to be as good as the current HOFer's, but there are so darn close.

TomGshotput

<< <i>You are wrong about Parker. 3,000 hits would have made him an automatic vote >>



And if he didn't abuse cocaine, he would have made the 3 000 hits. How good would Bobby Bonds have been if not for alcohol?

I didn't miss the point, but you seem to be missing mine. By design there has to be a huge contingency of players who were great who aren't in the Hall-of-Fame. From every generation. And the 70s don't seem to be any different from the others

Lynn had two years where he was one of the very best in all of baseball, both offense and defense, 75 and 79 But Murphy also won two MVPs and unlike Lynn played full seasons. I can accept either of those centerfielders as Hall-of-Fame players more than Hack Wilson or Lloyd Waner, but I my preference is still that they both be left out

Trammell was the pinnacle of the shortstop position in the 80s, according to MVP votes. Far ahead of Concepcion in the category. Just because there wasn't another great shortstop in the 70s (but a number of other middle infielders who were, Carew, Grich, Morgan) doesn't make him a better player. Again, I could accept either as Hall-of-Fame players, far more than Phil Rizzuto, but my preference is almost always against the borderline candidates

Rice and Foster had a great run as great leftfielders. Oliva and Maris had a great run as great rightfielders. The 70s players did play a good deal longer, but a lot shorter than Tim Raines or Dwight Evans

The difference between Nettles and Schmidt was far greater than the difference between Santo and Brooks Robinson. Niether Nettles nor Santo are in

If next years Hall-of-Fame class included most of these players listed do you really think that would that be best for the Hall-of-Fame? I will always say no.

Find the two or three that are absolutely most deserving from the past 120 years and put them in

TomGshotput

<< <i>Like I said, this team against the team of Hall of Famers from that era is going to be much closer to 47 wins out of 100.
>>



Hard to find a centerfielder:

C Bench
1B Carew
2B Morgan
SS Yount (an 80s player, but it's hard to field a Hall-of-Fame team from a five year span)
3B Schmidt
LF Stargell
CF one position can't figure out
RF Jackson

P Seaver, Sutton, Jenkins, Niekro, Jenkins, Perry, Fingers

give them a decent centerfielder, move Stargell to DH and put Rose in left and over 1 620 games I would take the Hall-of-Fame team by a decent margin over the non-Hall-of-Fame team

Hoopster

Dallas, and TomShotput, you guys make nice points.

TomShotput, actually, I wouldn't mind seeing the Hall of Fame induct more of these guys. It isn't like the plaques take up a whole lot of room. All it would really mean is that a visit to the Hall of Fame would take longer to read about the guys. What is the harm?

TomGshotput

The Hall-of-Fame has already spent decades proving they cannot do it right with lower standards. Players like Rick Ferrell makes it while Wally Schang doesn't. If they were to lower the standards to include Rice, would they also add equally deserving players? History tells us no. History tells us that when players other than the very best are included, it is often for arbitrary reasons based on favrotism and ignorance

This decade the veterans committee has finally been revamped for the better. Unfortunately the sports writers are strongly hinting at major inconsistency for the first time. We can only hope that doesn't happen

While the Hall-of-Fame is an amazing museum, what can I learn from a plaque is very little information available from any other source, baseballreference or open forum discussions are a lot better ways to learn about players

The only harm is that it goes against my preference. And most of the time that is all it takes to bring out the strongest opinions in people

markj111

Munson was not productive when he died. He had no power for the last year and a half of his career. His slugging % was down 100 points from what it was in 77. He was at an age when catchers declined, and he gave every indication of fitting the pattern.

"Why Tony Perez and not Steve Garvey? What's the difference? There isn't. Garvey was the man. Perez was outstanding. Yet Garvey will fall to the wayside...it just isn't right. He was everything Perez was, and maybe more."

What alternate universe are you living in?

Perez (whose induction was a mistake IMHO) was a much better hitter than Garvey. He had a better OBP, and a lot more power. For his career, Garvey's OBP was exactly the league average. Do you want your team to have a first baseman like that; I certainly do not.

FWIW I would put Grich in the HOF.

dallasactuary

skinpinch,

You're right that these guys had some pretty high peaks, but God help us if that's a HOF standard. Bobby Murcer was every bit as good a hitter in 70-71 as Rice was in 78-79 (and Parker was better in 78-79, anyway). We need to set some pretty stinkin' low standards to make Jim Rice look like a HOFer. And a 2-year peak is pretty darn low: Maris is in, Cash is in, ditto for Charlie Keller, Bill Nicholson, Snuffy Stirnweiss, Al Rosen, Tommy Davis, Frank Howard, Jim Wynn, Dick Allen, Cedeno, Singleton, Dale Murphy, Mattingly, and Caminiti. All of these guys had 2-year peaks as good as or better than Rice. Of course, Santo also had a two-year peak much better than Rice's but nobody with a brain is arguing he doesn't belong.

So what you're really relying on to distinguish Rice and most of your Mega team from Snuffy Stirnweiss and the flash-in-the-pan boys is FAME. But that's one of the biggest problems with the HOF already, the advantage that players off the famous teams have over everybody else. Take anybody from your Mega team, and I mean anybody, stick him in San Diego or Montreal for the 1970's and what have you got? Well, if you put them all there at the same time you'd have a great team and a circular argument, but that's not my point. Stick them there one at a time and you have a bunch of players whose names would be lost to history, in a few cases deservedly so. Now name a HOF player that really shouldn't be there (and don't name Mazeroski, that's a different argument), and 9 times out of ten you're going to name somebody from NY, Boston, Chicago or St. Louis and/or somebody with a slew of HOF teammates who won some WS rings for their teammates. Usually both. No offense to their fans, and I'm including St. Louis as just as priveleged, but the HOF is not crying out for more Yankees, Red Sox or Big Red Machine players. They have more than enough of each already.

Grich and Parker, not coincidentally, are both the premier players on your Mega team and the only two who played for below-the-radar teams. Every great player off the famous teams is already in the HOF. And then some. Concepcion? Lynn? Guidry? Stop the madness!


{After further review, I'm softening on Tiant. He might belong in the HOF, but I'm not going to say he or any other pitcher definitely belongs until Blyleven is in.}

Hoopster

Good points fellas....rational and thought out.

The one guy whom I have always championed on these boards is Dave Parker. His situational batter runs make him go even higher than the typical sabermetric measurements.

There is one other guy on that team that is on my 'what if' list, and that is Fred Lynn. The what if has to do with staying healthy throughout his career. Since he missed a lot of games when he was actually good(and not through), his value could have gone up enough to make him a good candidate.

RonBurgundy

Methinks that if Thurman Munson could respond to this thread, he would wonder where Johnny Bench is.

If Sparky Anderson were to reply, he'd say what he said 30 years ago - don't do a disservice to other catchers by comparing them to Johnny Bench.



Ron

rbeaton

How can you guys have a discussion about the best Pitcher(s) in the 70's and not even mention Palmer?



Robert