Bill James on the Worst Players in the HOF
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
He initially stated-"Among the worst Hall of Fame selections: Jesse Haines, Travis Jackson, Fred Lindstrom, George Kelly, Ray Schalk, Rick Ferrell, Jim Bottomley, Ross Youngs, Rube Marquard, Rollie Fingers."
He came back and added Loyd Waner, Earle Combs, Max Carey, Elmer Flick, and Tommy McCarthy.
He came back and added Loyd Waner, Earle Combs, Max Carey, Elmer Flick, and Tommy McCarthy.
0
Comments
"If I ever decided to do a book, I've already got the title-The Bases Were Loaded and So Was I"-Jim Fregosi
<< <i>I have not heard of most of them so is this really newsworthy!? >>
I must say that you have an interesting definition of what is newsworthy.
Ok, to put another way I don't think it's thread-worthy since so few people know who most of these people are and none of us saw them play... except Fingers.
<< <i>He initially stated-"Among the worst Hall of Fame selections: Jesse Haines, Travis Jackson, Fred Lindstrom, George Kelly, Ray Schalk, Rick Ferrell, Jim Bottomley, Ross Youngs, Rube Marquard, Rollie Fingers."
He came back and added Loyd Waner, Earle Combs, Max Carey, Elmer Flick, and Tommy McCarthy. >>
Whew!!! I almost threw up a little when I read the last name on the list as Tim McCarver.
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
<< <i>
<< <i>He initially stated-"Among the worst Hall of Fame selections: Jesse Haines, Travis Jackson, Fred Lindstrom, George Kelly, Ray Schalk, Rick Ferrell, Jim Bottomley, Ross Youngs, Rube Marquard, Rollie Fingers."
He came back and added Loyd Waner, Earle Combs, Max Carey, Elmer Flick, and Tommy McCarthy. >>
Whew!!! I almost threw up a little when I read the last name on the list as Tim McCarver. >>
Yea, that would make me vomit for the rest of the year.
<< <i>He initially stated-"Among the worst Hall of Fame selections: Jesse Haines, Travis Jackson, Fred Lindstrom, George Kelly, Ray Schalk, Rick Ferrell, Jim Bottomley, Ross Youngs, Rube Marquard, Rollie Fingers."
He came back and added Loyd Waner, Earle Combs, Max Carey, Elmer Flick, and Tommy McCarthy. >>
I've heard of every one of them.
I will make a arguement for Ray Schalk. Schalk was inducted more as a Pioneer than as a player. Ray revoleutionized the catcher position. Before him the catcher stayed behind the plate. He started running down the lines backing up throws to first and third, and having the pitcher cover home.
Earle Combs: was a member of the 1927 Yankees. his career was cut short when he went head first in to the Center Field wall in Yankee Stadium (Back then their was no padding). HOF? I'm a Yankee Fan and would have to say no.
Tommy McCarthy was one of the best in the game in his era (1884-1896). I would have to put him in, otherwise no one before Ruth could be inducted.
Dave
<< <i>I love the idea of arguing HOF merit on players that not only did we not see play, but our fathers and possibly grandfathers did not see play either so we didn't even hear stories about when they played. The same article will be written in 100 years and include Ozzie Smith, Kirby Puckett, Joe Morgan, Duke Snider, or anybody else whose stat line doesn't completely tell their story. Arguing merits based on their baseball-reference page or wikipedia biography is pointless and for the life of me I can't understand how any of you think your arguments are valid without ever seeing the guy play. >>
There are intangibles many bring to the game not seen in a stat line. I remember reading articles on why Nolan Ryan may not be Hall worthy written when he was active. Many years from now some may take up the argument. He did lose a lot of games to be a HOFer. Before he made it to 500 home runs I remember an article on Reggie Jackson being a pretty good player but not a HOFer. My thought at the time without looking at stats was "Reggie, not a HOFer, rediculous." I feel the same about Ozzie Smith. I don't need to see Ozzies stats to know he belongs. After many years these guys just become names with numbers attached.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
<< <i>I love the idea of arguing HOF merit on players that not only did we not see play, but our fathers and possibly grandfathers did not see play either so we didn't even hear stories about when they played. The same article will be written in 100 years and include Ozzie Smith, Kirby Puckett, Joe Morgan, Duke Snider, or anybody else whose stat line doesn't completely tell their story. Arguing merits based on their baseball-reference page or wikipedia biography is pointless and for the life of me I can't understand how any of you think your arguments are valid without ever seeing the guy play. >>
What story is missing from the stats line? BTW, Morgan is a top tier HOFer. The only one of the four you named who is marginal is Puckett. He had a short career for a HOFer.
Compare Stats to Similars
Jim Edmonds (902)
Ellis Burks (899)
Larry Walker (888)
Dale Murphy (883)
Jim Rice (877) *
Bob Johnson (867)
Moises Alou (865)
Andruw Jones (865)
Jason Giambi (855)
Dick Allen (854)
Kirby Puckett:
Compare Stats to Similars
Don Mattingly (891)
Cecil Cooper (886)
Magglio Ordonez (875)
Carl Furillo (874)
Kiki Cuyler (872) *
Cesar Cedeno (870)
Tony Oliva (867)
Minnie Minoso (864)
Cy Williams (859)
Felipe Alou (858)
Ozzie Smith:
Compare Stats to Similars
Luis Aparicio (904) *
Rabbit Maranville (894) *
Bert Campaneris (848)
Omar Vizquel (831)
Dave Concepcion (831)
Nellie Fox (826) *
Tommy Corcoran (821)
Bobby Wallace (820) *
Willie Randolph (818)
Larry Bowa (814)
I admit Joe Morgan was a bad example, but you're getting caught up in semantics. You can dive balls deep into the stats of anybody, but that's only a part of it. Unless you actually witnessed the guy play and truly experienced his mark on the game, you have no valid argument one way or the other whether he's hall worthy. These guys aren't voted in solely based on stats, and if you think they are or should be then you really don't get sports. By that logic you could direct someone who has never seen a game of baseball to baseball-reference.com and they could pick who the HOFers should be.
Can you tell me what these (allegedly) bad choices offered to the team other than the statistics? Facts are very important. Some people insist, against all evidence, that Jeter is a good fielding SS. Leadership is important (Kirk Gibson, 88 Dodgers), but if you cannot play it does not matter much.
Bill James has spent most of his life, with no ax to grind, looking for answers in the great game of baseball. He can make mistakes just like anyone else, but his opinion carries weight with me.
Question- did George Kelley get into the HOF because of the "extras" he brought to the game, or because his buddy Frankie Frisch was on the Veterans committee. I'm not picking on Kelly, Frisch greased the skids for lots of guys.
Looking at stats alone, Ozzie Smith is not a HOFer. But anybody who watched baseball in the 1980s knows he belongs there. Same with Puckett and Snider. Same thing with Joe Namath in football. None of these guys get in if you're just measuring stats, but we all agree (for the most part) that they belong based on what we saw with our eyes over their careers.
To compare players and their HOF-worthiness solely on stats marginalizes intangibles like leadership, work ethic, charisma, durability, likability, being a winner, etc....., that can't always be measured by looking at the back of a baseball card. All of these characteristics, combined with career stats, form the tapestry by which these guys are judged. They excel in some categories but are lacking in others. This goes back to my Jack Morris argument- people who watched the AL in the 80s (truly watched games, not just highlights) know this guy was an ace, a winner, and an absolute stud and would be the starter of WS game 1 on just about any team throughout the decade. And he did it for an entire decade plus a few years while guys like Niekro and Sutton slowly built their stat sheet by being good (but not great) over 20-25 years. This is why I can so easily disregard a 3.90 career era; because I saw what he did to the AL and I saw how important he was to each team he won a WS with even though he went through stretches where he gave up a lot of runs. It's like a HOFer with a bad BA like Ozzie Smith; I can disregard that because of all the other things he did for his teams and the game. I didn't see how important Rube Marquard was to his team or the game, therefore I'm not qualified to judge his HOF-worthiness.
I did not see him play either, but I can read. Ozzie's stats do justify his inclusion in the HOF. In his case it's defensive stats rather than offensive ones. My comment re the comps is meant to note that the closest ones for each of the 4 players were not really close. All were in the 900 range. Note that Ozzies's two closest comps are in the HOF.
In re to Morris, I saw him play. I would not vote for him. If he was such a stud, why is his ERA nearly 4.00, and barely better than the league average? Don't give me that "pitching to the score BS." There is no evidence of it.
You would vote for him. I guess we will disagree. At this point I would think he will get in. I would not have voted for Rice, Dawson, or Sutter either.
Because he was. What else would you call a guy that started 3 all star games and 3 World Series Game 1's in a 10 year period? If he wasn't the most dominant pitcher of the 80s (read: stud) I don't know who was. America watched it, apparently you didn't. The thing about you statheads that is funny to me is that you bend and twist the stats to back up the arguments you've already made in your head. In Morris' case his 3.90 era keeps him out in your mind, completely disregarding him being the #1 pitcher (according to the team's manager, not you) of 3 World Champions, starter of 3 all star games, the best all around starter for an entire decade, a 250 game winner in a relatively short career, nearly 2500 strikeouts, blah blah blah....... Yet, you're willing to forgive Ozzie's .262 batting average, 28 HR, etc...., because he had a good fielding percentage. Obviously Ozzie should be in the Hall and we all know it, but we know it because we watched him play and saw what he did for the game, not because we can run down his stat sheet and say 'BOOM, this guy's stats scream HOFer'. Pretend you never saw a game of baseball- look at these two career statlines and tell me if you can tell who the HOFer is and who isn't (they played the same position in the same era):
Player 1: 17 seasons
BA .288
HR 91
RBI 844
SB 246
OBP .347
OPS .746
2B 414
3B 92
FIELDING % .980
ASSISTS 4511
ERR 151
Player 2: 19 seasons
BA .262
HR 28
RBI 793
SB 580
OBP .337
OPS .665
2B 402
3B 69
FIELDING % .978
ASSISTS 4249
ERR 281
Going solely on stats, one would conclude that Tony Fernandez was a better player than Ozzie Smith in just about every major statistical category besides stolen bases, so one would logically conclude that Tony Ferrnandez was the HOFer by looking at the stats in a vacuum. Clearly Ozzie belongs in the Hall and Fernandez doesn't, but you can't jump to that conclusion based only on stats. There is a lot more to consider, and you don't have that information to consider for guys you've never seen play.
<< <i>[. I didn't see how important Rube Marquard was to his team or the game, therefore I'm not qualified to judge his HOF-worthiness.
I did not see him play either, but I can read. Ozzie's stats do justify his inclusion in the HOF. In his case it's defensive stats rather than offensive ones. My comment re the comps is meant to note that the closest ones for each of the 4 players were not really close. All were in the 900 range. Note that Ozzies's two closest comps are in the HOF.
In re to Morris, I saw him play. I would not vote for him. If he was such a stud, why is his ERA nearly 4.00, and barely better than the league average? Don't give me that "pitching to the score BS." There is no evidence of it.
You would vote for him. I guess we will disagree. At this point I would think he will get in. I would not have voted for Rice, Dawson, or Sutter either. >>
For someone who posts quite a few different baseball knowledgeable threads - and good ones at that - I think you are off base here - the players you mentioned pass the 'eye test' and their stats don't HAVE to reflect HOF 'no doubt' worthiness. You know too much about baseball to not have watched these qualified HOF players. Yea, they are not Ted Williams, Henry Aaron, Tom Seaver or Willie Mays - but they are HOF worthy.
I think you are off base here - the players you mentioned pass the 'eye test' and their stats don't HAVE to reflect HOF 'no doubt' worthiness. You know too much about baseball to not have watched these qualified HOF players. Yea, they are not Ted Williams, Henry Aaron, Tom Seaver or Willie Mays - but they are HOF worthy. >>
I'm not sure which players you are talking about-are you referring to Rice, Suttter, and Dawson? Just curious. The voters certainly disagreed with me.
<< <i>Those comps were created by Bill James' formula, so if his opinion carries weight with you then so should his formula.
Looking at stats alone, Ozzie Smith is not a HOFer. But anybody who watched baseball in the 1980s knows he belongs there. Same with Puckett and Snider. Same thing with Joe Namath in football. None of these guys get in if you're just measuring stats, but we all agree (for the most part) that they belong based on what we saw with our eyes over their careers.
To compare players and their HOF-worthiness solely on stats marginalizes intangibles like leadership, work ethic, charisma, durability, likability, being a winner, etc....., that can't always be measured by looking at the back of a baseball card. All of these characteristics, combined with career stats, form the tapestry by which these guys are judged. They excel in some categories but are lacking in others. This goes back to my Jack Morris argument- people who watched the AL in the 80s (truly watched games, not just highlights) know this guy was an ace, a winner, and an absolute stud and would be the starter of WS game 1 on just about any team throughout the decade. And he did it for an entire decade plus a few years while guys like Niekro and Sutton slowly built their stat sheet by being good (but not great) over 20-25 years. This is why I can so easily disregard a 3.90 career era; because I saw what he did to the AL and I saw how important he was to each team he won a WS with even though he went through stretches where he gave up a lot of runs. It's like a HOFer with a bad BA like Ozzie Smith; I can disregard that because of all the other things he did for his teams and the game. I didn't see how important Rube Marquard was to his team or the game, therefore I'm not qualified to judge his HOF-worthiness. >>
by the same token, outside of people who lived in Michigan/NE Indiana throughout the late 70's and 80's, how many of Jack Morris' regular season starts did you actually see...you know, pre Net/MLB package? My guess is fewer than 1% of his career starts. So I don't understand how just because (in all likelihood) you watched fewer than 1% of his career starts you're somehow more qualified to comment on his greatness/HOF worthiness just because you were around in a given player's era than someone commenting on a 19th century player who is judging his career based mostly on stats. So long as you're judging said 19th century player's stats largely against his contemporaries, I see no problem....and yes stats aren't the only narrative, but they're the largest factor. Judging a player in that manner is certainly no more folly than - oh I was watching baseball in the 80's with my one channel that broadcasted the most local baseball franchise to see Jack Morris pitch 0.2% of his career starts so I'm qualified to judge his performance accurately.
Growing up in the Baltimore area there was always a buzz when he came to town, just like Clemens, Randy Johnson, Pedro, etc... Everybody wanted those tickets. He was the only guy in the early to mid 80s that I remember brought that excitement when he came to town, and he carried it through to the early 90s. Steib was good too but the Jays were usually so awful nobody cared.
regards,
Dave Stieb>
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.
Lee,
That statement underscores why you can't judge these players by team success or W-L records. A brilliant pitcher's career performance (and I'm not necessarily suggesting that Stieb is brilliant or belongs in the HOF) should not be downgraded because he had the misfortune of playing for a lousy team. But that's what many fans do when they evaluate players and their HOF worthiness.
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.
Just like I'd choose Sutton over Ryan.
As for Morris, he was a workhorse no doubt about it.
<< <i>No question Morris had some spectacular postseason success, specifically in '84 and '91, but what happened in '87 and '92? His postseason performances in those years was rather putrid, going 0-4 with an ERA of 7.25. >>
You are not allowed to mention those when talking about Morris. You are only allowed to talk about 1991 Game 7. That is the only game that matters in the whole discussion...
<< <i>He forgot to add Bill Mazeroski. >>
Bill James wrote at length why he felt Mazeroski and players who excelled at Defense should be included in the HOF. He stated that Mazeroski was by far the best defensive 2b ever and maybe the best defensive player ever when corrected for positional differences.