50 Best Players not in the HOF
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Neyer has a link to an article on the topic. Trammell comes in at #4.
"Graham Womack put an immense amount of work into his latest effort, a voting-driven list of the 50 greatest players not in the Hall of Fame. I would move Bobby Grich up, and Darrell Evans way up. It's a solid list, though, and a wonderful little historical tour."
http://baseballpastandpresent.com/2010/12/06/the-50-best-baseball-players-not-in-the-hall-of-fame/
"Graham Womack put an immense amount of work into his latest effort, a voting-driven list of the 50 greatest players not in the Hall of Fame. I would move Bobby Grich up, and Darrell Evans way up. It's a solid list, though, and a wonderful little historical tour."
http://baseballpastandpresent.com/2010/12/06/the-50-best-baseball-players-not-in-the-hall-of-fame/
0
Comments
Joe Jackson at #5 and Pete Rose at #10 with Bert Blyleven and Roberto Alomar kicking both their asses at #1 and #2 is patently absurd. A joke of a list.
IMO, the Hall underweights periodic dominance and overweights career stats. If you were the best at what you did for a multiple year span, you should get serious consideration IMO. Who cares if you have a 20 year career instead of a 15 year career just to pad stats and cross some magic career number. Dominance in your prime is whats most important IMO.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>I thought the list was pretty good, but with questionable order. >>
Isn't the order the whole point? Otherwise, what's the interest?
Stabler,Guy,Hayes,oh its a baseball list sorry.
Needs'
1972 Football-9's high#'s
1965 Football-8's
1958 Topps FB-7-8
<< <i>
<< <i>I thought the list was pretty good, but with questionable order. >>
Isn't the order the whole point? Otherwise, what's the interest? >>
Yes, but I was expecting some of the guys I liked to not even be on the list. Just saying that his next best 50 sounded pretty right to me.
Tim Raines, however, was never the best at anything he did ever, he's just a very good player who played for a long time. That doesn't smell like HOF to me. I was pretty surprised to see his name. Contrast that to Dale Murphy who won back to back MVPs and was, without question, the best offensive player in the game in the early 80's.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
He doesn't get enough credit.
CDsNuts, 1/9/15
Tim Raines, however, was never the best at anything he did ever, he's just a very good player who played for a long time. That doesn't smell like HOF to me. I was pretty surprised to see his name. Contrast that to Dale Murphy who won back to back MVPs and was, without question, the best offensive player in the game in the early 80's. >>
Compare Raines' numbers to Gwynn's then get back to me. Raines had walks instead of singles, but their OBPs were virtually identical,as were their runs scored + RBIs. Raines had a little more power, and was a much better baserunner. Raines hit into many fewer double plays. I love Murphy, but your statememt re him is not based in reality (Schmidt?).
<< <i>A fun read, some some sloppiness with facts (said Fred McGriff hit 492 lifetime HRs instead of 493, said Joe Torre won the '70 NL MVP when it was actually '71). Was very surprised not to see Bill Matlock on the list, dude won four *FOUR* batting titles! >>
That's Bill "MAD DOG" MADLOCK, OH YEAH!!! Matlock was a tv dtective I think
SKY
Just my take on Madlock. Maybe one of the 50 best not in the HOF, but WAY behind a lot of guys. Of course, I am still wishing voters would start looking at Darrell Evans. Evans didn't get the Gold Gloves because of Schmidt, but I think he probably got robbed of a couple that he deserved. He was darned close to Schmidt defensively, if not his equal. And while Evans never hit for a high average, he had a nice .361 OBP because of the 1605 walks that he took. He also hit over 400 HR's, with an OPS+ of 119. I think I can find room in the HOF for one of the ten best defensive third basemen of all-time that hit 414 HR's, had an OBP of .361, and played a number of his prime years in Candlestick Park. Of course, the 'Fame' part is what really keeps Evans out, as anyone under 30 really has never much heard of him...
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
<< <i>Where is Parker at? >>
Parker is on the list. I do not remember where.
Player PAs On Base OBP GIDP 2B 3B HR Slg-BA SB CS Runs RBIs Walks
Gwynn 10232 3955 0.388 259 543 85 135 0.121 319 125 1383 1138 790
Raines 10359 3977 0.385 142 430 113 170 0.131 808 146 1571 980 1330
Gwynn had a slightly higher OBP, but that is more than offset by the extra GIDPs. Raines had more power, and accounted for many extra bases with his extremely high success rate as a base stealer. Considering that Gwynn was a first ballot HOFer, what's the case against Raines?
<< <i>Some luddite was dismissive of Raines' HOF credentials. Let's compare him to Gwynn, who received one of the highest voting percentages of all time.
Player PAs On Base OBP GIDP 2B 3B HR Slg-BA SB CS Runs RBIs Walks
Gwynn 10232 3955 0.388 259 543 85 135 0.121 319 125 1383 1138 790
Raines 10359 3977 0.385 142 430 113 170 0.131 808 146 1571 980 1330
Gwynn had a slightly higher OBP, but that is more than offset by the extra GIDPs. Raines had more power, and accounted for many extra bases with his extremely high success rate as a base stealer. Considering that Gwynn was a first ballot HOFer, what's the case against Raines? >>
What is a luddite?
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>Tim Raines, however, was never the best at anything he did ever, he's just a very good player who played for a long time. That doesn't smell like HOF to me. I was pretty surprised to see his name. Contrast that to Dale Murphy who won back to back MVPs and was, without question, the best offensive player in the game in the early 80's. >>
Compare Raines' numbers to Gwynn's then get back to me. Raines had walks instead of singles, but their OBPs were virtually identical,as were their runs scored + RBIs. Raines had a little more power, and was a much better baserunner. Raines hit into many fewer double plays. I love Murphy, but your statememt re him is not based in reality (Schmidt?). >>
Not based in reality? Not sure where that is coming from. I hear you that Schmidt was a force, no doubt. Schmidt was MVP in 80 and 81, Murf in 82 and 83. I think they have very similar stats (remember my statement was regarding EARLY EIGHTIES only), except that Murphy was much quicker which made him a better base runner and base stealer. Their power stats are similar, however Murphy was clearly more valuable because of the difficulty of getting power stats from a CF compared to the corner IF where Schmidt lived.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
Do you remember the nickname of Murphy's home ballpark??? That plays a part.
Schmidt beat him in pretty much all the advanced metrics. Now, those could all be wrong, or the perception of a fan could be wrong. The funny thing about the perception of the fan is that you may feel Murphy was superior, but the same(or more) feel Schmidt was. You can' t both be correct on your perceptions.
The objective evidence shows Schmidt was in the stratosphere in 1980 and 1981...light years ahead of Murphy. But it also shows him edging Murphy out in 1982 and 1983. MVP's mean something else(mostly unimportnt criteria or perceptions)...they have nothing to do with 'better'.
Even if you ignored the objective evidence and reached/grasped and said that MURPHY edged out Schmidt by the smallest of margins in '82 and '83...you just going to ignore the outrageous advantage of the two previous years...both of which occured in the 'early 80's'??
To claim Murphy was the best in the league in the early 80's is false.
<< <i>Stabler,Guy,Hayes,oh its a baseball list sorry.
seems to have a Raiders flair, is it Lester Hayes? I know it's not Bob Hayes
<< <i>You do realize that Schmidt was the best player in 1980 and 1981....AND that he was also better than Murphy in Murphy's MVP years too?
Do you remember the nickname of Murphy's home ballpark??? That plays a part.
Schmidt beat him in pretty much all the advanced metrics. Now, those could all be wrong, or the perception of a fan could be wrong. The funny thing about the perception of the fan is that you may feel Murphy was superior, but the same(or more) feel Schmidt was. You can' t both be correct on your perceptions.
The objective evidence shows Schmidt was in the stratosphere in 1980 and 1981...light years ahead of Murphy. But it also shows him edging Murphy out in 1982 and 1983. MVP's mean something else(mostly unimportnt criteria or perceptions)...they have nothing to do with 'better'.
Even if you ignored the objective evidence and reached/grasped and said that MURPHY edged out Schmidt by the smallest of margins in '82 and '83...you just going to ignore the outrageous advantage of the two previous years...both of which occured in the 'early 80's'??
To claim Murphy was the best in the league in the early 80's is false. >>
Since you've focused on 82 and 83, I'll play along because I'm curious.
(Murphy, Schmidt)
1982 BA: .281, .280 <Wash
1983 BA: .302, .255 <Large advantage for Murphy
'82 and '83 HR: 72,75 < Wash
1982 SLG: .507, .547 < Advantage Schmidt
1983 SLG: .540, .524 <Advantage Murphy
1982 OPS: .885, .949 <Large Advantage Schmidt
1983 OPS: .933, .923 <Advantage Murphy
1982 SB: 23, 14 <Advantage Murphy
1983 SB: 30, 7 <Huge advantage Murphy
1982 RBI: 109, 87 <Large advantage Murphy
1983 RBI:121, 109 <Large advantage Murphy
So I'm not seeing where you're coming from claiming that Schmidt was better than Murphy in the 2 years that Murphy was MVP. I'm not a big stats guy, so you can pull out the advanced stuff if you want to, but the stats that most fans follow (above) seem to point to Murphy as having a better 2 year span. There is very little difference in the power #'s. Where Murphy had higher BA, Schmidt had higher OPS. IMO, the differentiator is that Murphy consistently had speed on the base paths whereas Schmidt did not. And typically, its much more difficult to find a power hitting CF than it would be to find power at Schmidt's spot.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>Schmidt was CLEARLY the better offensive player in the early 80's, or the 80's total. Yes, they each won two MVP's... oh, wait... Schmidt won THREE MVP's in the 80's. So that argument is gone. >>
The debate was centered around early 80's only, which I'd assume was 80 - 85. Each won 2 MVP's over that period. When looking at lifetime stats, clearly Schmidt had much better stats.
<< <i> Mike Schmidt from 1979-1987 was about as good as you can ask any human being to be on a baseball field. He led the NL in OPS+ six times in seven years, INCLUDING the years Murphy won the MVP's. >>
No doubt Schmidt was consistently at the top of the NL in OPS over the couse of his career. And thank you for spelling INCLUDING in all caps even though the point you were trying to make is false. Murphy led the NL in OPS in his MVP season of '83.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
Schmidt was a better player yes, one of the all time greats, both were feared sluggers and genuine superstars, both belong in the Hall.
Not sure about the order- at least there was some thought into this
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Mattingly had to be mentioned and he was. Kevin Brown ranks over David Cone--I thought they were much more similiar than that. Dwight Gooden should have been in that mix too, but he was out of the top 50.
I have invested a lot of time in evaluating Cone, Brown and Gooden. They were all WS studs, showed they were the best at one point, put up great numbers and accolades. The only downside was they got injured too much towards the end. In Gooden's case, the injuries were not organic, but psychological. Either way, they were dominant pitchers that did not get to those magic numbers of 300 wins.
I wonder how Mike Mussina will be preceived once he is 5 years removed from retirement.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Once Alomar gets in (this year), Raines may very well be the best eligible player NOT to be in the HOF (other than maybe Ron Santo, and I think I'd give Raines the nod there). He was doomed for playing most of his career in a small market, and he wasn't a very popular player, and he had problems off the field with drugs, all of which, I believe, diminish how good he really was. I'd definitely rank him among the top players of the 1980s, after Henderson, Murray and Ripken, and maybe Brett.
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> I'm not a big stats guy, so you can pull out the advanced stuff if you want to, but the stats that most fans follow (above) seem to point to Murphy as having a better 2 year span. >>
The fact that you think Murphy is better than Schmidt in the early 80's indicates you probably should dig deeper than the shallow evidence that fans typically follow.
Schmidt's OPS+ in '82-'83 was 158
Murphys OPS+ in '82'-'83 was 146
That includes all the stuff in your list(and more stuff you left out, like base on balls and number of outs made. Tell me, are you a fan of your hitters making outs?). It also includes the ballpark effect of the launching pad.
Like I said, and even like your partial list says...even if you called it a wash those two years...and it really isn't a wash when you look at the accurate measurements. You said the early 80's....
Here are their OPS+ from 1980-1983
Schmidt 169
Murphy 135
That is a sizeable difference. You seem to think that Murphy's handful of extra stolen bases seem to make that much a difference. He had 76 stolen bases in that span, and was caught 26 times. The net value of his sb/cs is equivalent to if he had about five more home runs.
Sure, playing CF helps, but not to that degree.
THere are other guys who had four or five year stretches in the 70's-80's that were as dominant, but are not in the HOF either.
Murphy's dominance is way overstated by you. You are treating it as Koufaxian, and it isn't even close. His peak years are good, just like guys like Parker, Fred Lynn, Pedro Guerrero, Don Mattingly, etc., etc., etc.... but there are enough guys who are similar to him that are not in the HOF either, that it is foolish to put one of them in, and leave the others out...kind of like the writers did with Jim Rice. I will give you this, he was superior to Jim Rice.
One thing that not included in the advanced stats, fearfulness. In a poll done in the Baseball Digest asked NL pitchers would they feared the most to pitch to. Murphy was first, Schmidt was second.
I am not saying that Murphy was a better player than Schimdt, just being in the same conversation with Schimdt is an honor. Murphy was very very very good or great, He deserves enshrinement.
Anyone can be put into the same conversation as anyone if they wish. It does not mean they DESERVE to be in the same conversation.
Putting Murphy anywhere near the same realm of Schmidt is just silly. It is almost not even serious enough to talk about their merits between the two. It isn't much of a debate.
I don't think there is any doubt that Murphy did indeed have a very nice peak there!
If somebody wanted to debate his merits as a HOFer, and compare him to someone in there that shouldn't be, they should be using Jim Rice as the comparable...or Kirby Puckett.
Also, to be fair, he didn't play his entire career in centerfield, as that is being thrown around as if he did.
He played in 18,652 innings, and 9,039 of those were in centerfield, and 692 at catcher.
He played 6,445 in RF, and 1,780 at first base. So he had half of his career at what is considered a demanding defensive position. And he was not exactly a stud defensive centerfielder either.
In contrast, Fed Lynn played 13,500 innings in Centerfield, and he has Murphy beat in OPS+ 129 to 121. And Lynn had injuries derail some of his prime seasons too. If anyone has an ounce of fairness and objectiveness in them, if they tout Dale Murphy as a HOFer, then they MUST tout Lynn as a SUPERIOR HOFer.
I totally understand your use of the more advanced and comprehensive stats. Things like batting average really miss a lot of things in terms of how good a hitter is. I would simply say OPS+ is more accurate, meaningful and comprehensive. More effective comparisons between hitters can be made that way.
Aside from stats, other factors such as accolades, intangibles and fame could be taken into account to merit an athlete final enshrinement. When the numbers are too close to call between two hitters, this is where something like a World Series heroic act can be used as a tie breaker (Jack Morris). The HOF even states that character and innovation can be taken into account. Bruce Sutter was an innovator.
Murphy is a likable guy and I can see how some give him the benefit of the doubt. There are a number of players right now similar to Murphy's stats. If you enshrine him, then one must give a reason as to why not the others. The HOF is not solely based on stats and who was the better player as you can read in the rules and suggestions for enshrinement.
I don't know too much about Fred Lynn, but his offensive stats do get the edge over Murphy, but not by much. Is Murphy's character that good to warrant consideration over Lynn? That's where the debate could start. There is no question that Lynn, overall, was a bit better than Murphy.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
If character was enough for Murphy to overcome the noticeable deficit of a superior player such as Lynn, then where is that line drawn. Can one make a case for Ghandi to be in the Hall...or some player that had virtues as great or better? So great that he was head and shoulders above any player who ever played, and that it dwarfed or made up for any deficincies on the field?
Sure, one can take those things into consideration...but those have been selectively applied, or selectively ignored, throughout past voting history. That aspect really is a joke.
One can also argue accolades and such. Someone would say, Murphy won back to back MVP's, etc... The other guy can easily come back with Lynn's MVP/ROY in the same season as a topper for Murphy's. Popularity? Yeah, that 'fame' can be used. Lynn was pretty popular.
But all of that is inherently unfair when judging the merits of the player, and is typically outside the realm of control of said player. Why would you judge someone based on something they have no control over?
The overwhelming criteria of why a player has been voted in is because of how good they are. It always seems to be the case that when somebody's favorite player falls short based on their merit of play, that they try and find something else to make him worthy...and that is often when the character, or fame cards are thrwon into the mix.
<< <i>Deutchergeist,
Popularity? Yeah, that 'fame' can be used. Lynn was pretty popular. But all of that is inherently unfair when judging the merits of the player, and is typically outside the realm of control of said player. Why would you judge someone based on something they have no control over? >>
You're saying that its unfair to use "fame" as a criteria? I laughed when I read that, especially since we are talking about the Hall of FAME. Its not the Hall of Statistical Achievement, the Hall of WAR, or the Hall of OPS+. For the record, I've never commented on any particular player's fame vs. another, I'm just saying.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
If one wants to recognize somebody inferior simply because they are on television more, or because people do not know what makes a player better, that is fine...but it makes it trivial.
McAdams,
To be accurate, fame isn't one of the criteria...
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
Yes, Situational Batter Runs, WAR, OPS+ and all the advanced metrics are the "player's record" AND are the MOST accurate appraisal's of their "playing ability." They are also the most accurate way of discerning their "contributions to the teams".
So all players who fall short in that area, such as Murphy, are left to be voted in on basis of their integrity, sportsmanship, and character. That brings us back to this...
Like I said in the Ghandi example above, if there were a player that possessed virtues or character and integrity as high as his, yet he fails miserably in all other areas, would he not be worthy based on this definition? Yet we know that the character and integrity aspects are basically a joke based on the voting.
Players have been elected based on their ability. Most errors of election stem from a misunderstanding of how to measure a players ability(such as Jim Rice's case where a total lack of contribution to the team is out of whack because of the lack of understanding on how to evaluate RBI's).
One example where character really came into play is in Kirby Puckett's case, AND THEY WERE WRONG ABOUT HIS CHARACTER!
How on earth can you accurately gauge a person's character based on the relationships you have with these athletes?