New HOF Question-I Think
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
We have discussed who is in the HOF, but should not be. We have discussed who should be in but is not (My choices include Raines, Blyleven, and Santo).
My current question is-who is the worst player in the HOF who nevertheless deserves to be in. Who is the guy who just made the cut (in your mind)? Off the top of my head I would say Brock, but I have not researched it. Maybe we should look at it by position.
My current question is-who is the worst player in the HOF who nevertheless deserves to be in. Who is the guy who just made the cut (in your mind)? Off the top of my head I would say Brock, but I have not researched it. Maybe we should look at it by position.
0
Comments
Mickey71
Oh wait, that will be the answer next year.
Steve
Odd question, but I think I know what you are getting at. Here are some candidates that come directly to mind and their "key" career numbers.
1. Chuck Klein, .320 BA, 300 HRs, 1201 RBIs; and
2. Hack Wilson, .307, 244 HRs, 1063 RBIs.
Those are some good career numbers. But there are players in the HOF who have TWICE as many HRs and RBIs.
And I'm fully prepared to take a beating on this one, but what about Jackie Robinson? As a person, he transcended, well, just about everything. But as a baseball player, his career numbers are good, though not great. That, and he only played ten (10) years; the minimum number of years required for eligibility.
/s/ JackWESQ
I think Lou Brock is a pretty good choice for a lowest tier HOFer; he was a lousy fielder, he was never exceptionally great, and he only deserves to be in for compiling some historic numbers over a long career. Lots of players got in on the same basis, but pretty much all of them were better than Brock, even if they didn't bat often enough to reach 3,000 hits.
Bill Mazeroski is similar in that his HOF credentials are confined to his fielding (as are Aparicio's). Sandy Koufax is similar in that his credentials are confined to a period of only five years.
Klein or Wilson are good choices if you think they're deserving, but I would put them in the "don't belong" category.
I would also nominate: Tony Perez, Nellie Fox, Enos Slaughter and Richie Ashburn. For the moment, Richie Ashburn is my winner for worst, but deserving, HOFer; I'd name Mazeroski, but I might be the only one here who thinks he is deserving.
Steve
<< <i>George Kell belongs somewhere in that list.
Steve >>
'
Yes, and Mazeroski and Rizzuto
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
He was a scoring machine.
I don't know if I'd say he was a poor fielder either.
Steve
/s/ JackWESQ
Before we get to my plan to save the Baseball Hall of Fame -- a plan that includes a replica of an Egyptian pyramid, no less -- allow me to explain why I'm writing this column in the first place:
The Baseball Hall of Fame officially "jumped the shark" for me in 1998, the year Don Sutton and Jim Rice headed the ballot. Had the Dodgers offered to trade Sutton straight-up for Rice during their respective athletic primes, Red Sox management would have giggled and hung up on them.
So who was voted in that year? You guessed it ... Don Sutton.
It didn't matter that Rice was the finest power hitter in baseball for an entire decade, averaging .305 with 33 home runs and 106 RBI from 1975 to 1986 (gaudy numbers for that era). Nope. Voters were much more impressed by the ageless Sutton, who hung around for 23 years and finished with 324 wins. Who cared if Sutton only finished with one 20-win season, or that he only topped 15 wins once over his final 12 years? If you're very good -- not great, very good -- for an extended period of time, that's enough to make the Baseball Hall of Fame. So Sutton made the cut.
As for Rice, he excelled for a shorter period of time -- just 12 seasons -- failing to notch 2,500 hits and 400 home runs for his career. And since he was renowned for being unfriendly to reporters during his career, the choice was easy. Jim Rice was out. That's baseball. They even have a screwed-up Hall of Fame.
And it's not just Rice. Gary Carter's stats are nearly identical to Johnny Bench's stats, save for the fact that Bench hit about 60 more homers and was considered a better defensive catcher (although Carter was no slouch). Jack Morris was the dominant pitcher of the '80s and served as the ace for three championship teams. Goose Gossage was the most unhittable reliever of my childhood, ending up with two rings, 310 saves and a memorable three-inning save in the transcendent '78 playoff game between the Red Sox and Yankees. And yet those guys are still sitting on the Hall of Fame ballot.
There's a reason I take this so personally: I was there. Carter, Rice, Morris and Gossage were the best players at their respective positions (or at least among the best) when I was growing up. Shouldn't that be what the Hall of Fame represents? Excellence over a reasonably long period of time?
The problems don't end there. Remember how your grandparents refused to use the TV remote control and insisted on getting up and changing the channels manually? If there were a sports equivalent of that phenomenon, it would be the Baseball Hall of Fame, where the prevailing theme is, "That's the way they did it back then, so that's the way we'll do it now." Not to turn into Chandler Bing here, but could the entire process be more dumb? Could it be less fan-friendly? Could it be any less thought-provoking?
Ask yourself this question: Did you argue about the Hall of Fame selections with anyone this week? Of course not ... you probably don't care. And why should you? It's like arguing about the Grammy Awards: You know they don't accurately reflect excellence in music. If they did, Toto wouldn't have won four Grammys in 1982.
And that's why none of us really care about the Baseball Hall of Fame, and the only people who do care -- ancient baseball writers -- will be dead soon, anyway. It's almost a lost cause. Almost.
***** ***** *****
Of course, I still think the whole thing can be salvaged.
While driving to Shea Stadium five summers ago with my buddy Gus and his father, Wally, we came up with a brainstorm to save the Hall of Fame. We were inadvertently borrowing Bill James' plan to redefine Hall of Famers and "weigh them" for importance depending on their qualifications, a process James explained in his "Historical Abstract" (none of us were aware of this at the time). Regardless, I'm positive that Wally invented the "Pyramid Concept."
Here's the premise: In an ideal world, the Hall of Fame should be a place where someone could stroll in, spend weeks walking around, absorb everything about the game ... by the time they departed, they would know everything there is to know about professional baseball. Well, the way the place is presently constructed, all the Hall of Famers are sort of lumped together. It's like having a Hall of Fame for models and putting Cindy Crawford's plaque next to the girl who modeled as the "Before" picture in the original "Weight Watchers" ad.
So why couldn't we transform it into a five-level pyramid -- seriously, an actual pyramid, like a replica of the Luxor casino in Las Vegas -- where elected players are assigned to different levels?
Bear with me ...
Level 1
Ground floor of The Pyramid ... designated for marginal guys who were considered "Borderline Hall of Famers," either because of the Rice Factor (great career, not long enough) or the Sutton Factor (very good for a long time, rarely great) ... anyone voted in simply because they reached a benchmark (400 homers, 300 wins, etc.) would be thrown in here ... you could even include players who broke significant individual records (Don Larsen, Roger Maris, Johnny Vander Meer, etc. -- though, personally, I say no).
Modern "L1" examples: Carter, Sutton, Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry, Gossage, Rice, Morris, Catfish Hunter, Wade Boggs, Tony Perez, Lee Smith, Rollie Fingers, Tom Glavine (if he keeps going strong). You get the idea.
Level 2
Second floor of The Pyramid ... not quite as cluttered, not as much space ... reserved for guys who were definitely Hall of Famers, but didn't quite possess a Level 3 résumé for one or more of the following reasons:
1. Their team never won a World Series.
2. Something was missing from their career totals.
3. They never enjoyed an outrageously good single season.
4. Somebody else played their position during their time who was better.
5. Their career was shortened by injury and/or rapidly declining skills.
Modern "L2" examples: Robin Yount, Carlton Fisk, Dave Winfield, Willie Stargell, Rod Carew, Jim Palmer, Ryne Sandberg, Kirby Puckett, Carl Yastrzemski, Paul Molitor.
Level 3
Reserved for the "No-Doubt-About-It" Hall of Famers ... these guys were undoubtedly the best at their position for years and years, with all the requisite "résumé" stats to match ... unfortunately, there's a distinct, crucial difference between Level 3 and Level 4 (explanation coming).
Modern "L3" examples: Joe Morgan, Ozzie Smith (more on him later), George Brett, Roberto Clemente, Brooks Robinson, Rickey Henderson, Tony Gwynn, Robbie Alomar, Eddie Murray, Greg Maddux (assuming he keeps cruising along), Randy Johnson (ditto), Dennis Eckersley (a unique case, but definitely).
Level 4
These are basically "L3" guys, only there's something just inherently "greater" about them. Some possible indications:
1. Do you have to consider them in any "best of all-time" discussions?
2. Did they have transcendent games or memorable moments?
3. Did they hit 500 homers, get 3,000 hits or win 300 games?
4. Were they just dominant at times?
5. Will you always remember watching them play, even when you're 80 years old and peeing on yourself?
Modern "L4" examples: Reggie Jackson, Steve Carlton, Sandy Koufax, Tom Seaver, Bob Gibson, Cal Ripken Jr., Nolan Ryan (a great argument here -- some don't even consider him a Hall of Famer), Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds (maybe even a little low for him, as scary as that sounds), Roger Clemens (it hurts, but it's true).
(Note: Pete Rose should be an "L4 guy," Dwight Gooden should have been an "L4 guy," and Darryl Strawberry could have been an "L4 guy." None of them make it ... although Rose should be here eventually because Ty Cobb's in here, and Rose couldn't have been more of a jerk then Cobb. Also, other than Clemens and Bonds, out of the veterans playing right now, Junior Griffey, Maddux and maybe Randy Johnson have the best shots at Level Four. It's too early to tell about anyone else.)
Level 5
Take a deep breath. Level 5 is the top of the pyramid, literally and figuratively. You can rattle the L5 guys off the top of your head: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Joe DiMaggio, Grover Alexander, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Jackie Robinson, Rogers Hornsby, Stan Musial, Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Christy Mathewson and Honus Wagner.
Sixteen in all. That's it. That's Level 5. The best of the best. The Pantheon.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
Hmmmmm.....
Lombardi and Aparicio would be two others who could help fill out a starting lineup
Pitching is tough. Hard to tell if Lemon or Newhouser deserve to be in; hard to tell which one was worse