Top players not in the Baseball Hall of Fame
lightningboy
Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭
Which top 5 players, based on their on field achievements, should be in but have already been bypassed 15 years?
1. Shoeless Joe - no question
2. Pete Rose - no question
3. Mattingly - best all around hitter for a 5 year period and excellent defensive player as well. I know its not the same thing, but Koufax got in easily based on about 5 years also.
4. Maris
5. Hodges
1. Shoeless Joe - no question
2. Pete Rose - no question
3. Mattingly - best all around hitter for a 5 year period and excellent defensive player as well. I know its not the same thing, but Koufax got in easily based on about 5 years also.
4. Maris
5. Hodges
0
Comments
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
Tommy John
Al Oliver
<< <i>Which top 5 players, based on their on field achievements, should be in but have already been bypassed 15 years?
1. Shoeless Joe - no question
2. Pete Rose - no question
3. Mattingly - best all around hitter for a 5 year period and excellent defensive player as well. I know its not the same thing, but Koufax got in easily based on about 5 years also.
4. Maris
5. Hodges >>
Nos 3,4, and 5 do not belong. How about Evans (Dwight and Darrell), Whitaker, Grich and Minoso.
Edit: I agree that both Dwight and Darrell Evans should be in.
see article
article 2 -- why Hodges won't get in
Highest WAR (batters)
1. Pete Rose 91.6
2. Bill Dahlen 79.2
3. Lou Whitaker 74.3
4. Bobby Grich 74.2
5. Sherry Magee 73.2
Highest OPS (batters)
1. Lefty O'Doul .945
2. Joe Jackson .940
3. Albert Belle .933
4. Charlie Keller .928
5. Ken Williams .924
Highest WAR (pitchers)
1. Bobby Mathews 81.5
2. Tommy John 78.7
3. Kevin Brown 77.2
4. Gus Weyhing 76.9
5. Rick Reuschel 73.4
Not saying all these guys should be HOFers, just throwing the info out there.
<< <i>Mattingly? Why not Shawn Green (SAME STATS)
see article
article 2 -- why Hodges won't get in >>
I agree that Donnie Baseball did not have a HOF career, but if you can compare Green and Mattingly, then you can compare Green and Puckett.
<< <i>
<< <i>Mattingly? Why not Shawn Green (SAME STATS)
see article
article 2 -- why Hodges won't get in >>
I agree that Donnie Baseball did not have a HOF career, but if you can compare Green and Mattingly, then you can compare Green and Puckett. >>
The Puckett thing drives me crazy, because he and Mattingly have almost identical stats. What's even more shocking, is that Puckett was a first ballot HOFer. Shocking.
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
<< <i>I think Puckett is clearly superior to Mattingly. His career batting average is over 10 points higher. Also, Puckett's career was cut short by injury (e.g., vision issues). I don't remember the history, but why did Mattingly leave the game early other than he was sick of playing for the Yankees and all of the rules then? Mattingly played first base, and Puckett played an outfield position. Therefore, Mattingly needed to have better power numbers for his position. While Puckett consistently showed around 20hrs per year, Mattingly dropped off the cliff after 1989. Does anyone know what happened? Was it injury? Maybe he didn't want to use PED's like everyone else? >>
one of many mattingly vs puckett articles
Lefty O'Doul
Alan Trammell
I want to say that I'm not a Mattingly hater. I grew up in Indiana, and my favorite card that I had when I was a kid was a 1984 Donruss rookie, which I paid big bucks for then, as a kid, and I still have. It was the only card that I had as a kid that I put in a top loader to preserve its condition. (I got it slabbed last year by PSA, and it graded PSA 7.) His career started off great, but I don't think he's done enough. I lump him in with Steve Garvey who I also liked a lot as a kid. Both were really good players, but just not quite there.
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
<< <i>2 that I think should be HOFers but aren't......
Lefty O'Doul
Alan Trammell >>
+1 for Lefty.
His stats as a player certainly qualify but more so his efforts to bring baseball to Japan via Goodwill Tours of US Stars etc. I sense an East Coast bias against him as after his years as a player he was based in San Francisco (managed in the PCL).
The Hockey Hall of Fame has a "builders" category. The HOF has righted the wrong of excluded Negro League stars, now it's time the Baseball HOF recognized those who had a similar impact.
Vote Lefty!
You said it perfectly regarding Puckett and what could have been a minimum 3-4 more solid years. Mattingly had nothing left in the tank...I said nothing left, while Kirby was still a star. Puckett's last years were robbed from him. He was simply dynamic as a player. Jumping over the wall in CF was awesome the way he could do it. 2 time WS champion when he was an awesome player and a forever Game 6 highlight..........."CASE CLOSED"....Puckett was great. Donnie baseball was great for about 5 years.
Edgar Martinez
<< <i>Sportscardtheory & Collectoratwork,
You said it perfectly regarding Puckett and what could have been a minimum 3-4 more solid years. Mattingly had nothing left in the tank...I said nothing left, while Kirby was still a star. Puckett's last years were robbed from him. He was simply dynamic as a player. Jumping over the wall in CF was awesome the way he could do it. 2 time WS champion when he was an awesome player and a forever Game 6 highlight..........."CASE CLOSED"....Puckett was great. Donnie baseball was great for about 5 years. >>
I respectfully think this kind of logic is asinine: an eye injury is somehow more sympathetic than a back injury? Neither man wanted an injury to curtail their career.
If we're touting Kirby's fielding prowess... I don't see who could argue Mattingly was not an equal or superior glove at his position.
And last time I checked WS rings were a TEAM thing, not an individual thing. Mattingly played lights-out in his one post-season appearance.
I don't see how anyone looking at their stats comparatively could prefer Puckett's. Mattingly's peak numbers were better across the board. Puckett K'd way more as well.
As a huge Mattingly fan, do I think he belongs in the hall? No. Were I one of these sanctimonious nerd BBWAA voters, I admit I would not vote for him, simply based on his lack of longevity and brief peak. But to give Puckett the sympathy vote because of his eye problems when the stats comparatively speak for themselves is specious reasoning. And I loved watching Puckett, too. An injury is an injury, period. It's not as if Mattingly threw his career away and failed to maximize his natural potential through partying and drugs like Strawberry. Both he and Puckett had injuries. Mattingly stats compare favorably. And yet one is in and the other not. This I believe is due strictly to the WS thing (a team issue) and the sympathy (to reductive thinkers) of Puckett's eye issues. And let's not get involved on the character and integrity aspect of hall voting with these two guys.
<< <i>
<< <i>Sportscardtheory & Collectoratwork,
You said it perfectly regarding Puckett and what could have been a minimum 3-4 more solid years. Mattingly had nothing left in the tank...I said nothing left, while Kirby was still a star. Puckett's last years were robbed from him. He was simply dynamic as a player. Jumping over the wall in CF was awesome the way he could do it. 2 time WS champion when he was an awesome player and a forever Game 6 highlight..........."CASE CLOSED"....Puckett was great. Donnie baseball was great for about 5 years. >>
I respectfully think this kind of logic is asinine: an eye injury is somehow more sympathetic than a back injury? Neither man wanted an injury to curtail their career.
If we're touting Kirby's fielding prowess... I don't see who could argue Mattingly was not an equal or superior glove at his position.
And last time I checked WS rings were a TEAM thing, not an individual thing. Mattingly played lights-out in his one post-season appearance.
I don't see how anyone looking at their stats comparatively could prefer Puckett's. Mattingly's peak numbers were better across the board. Puckett K'd way more as well.
As a huge Mattingly fan, do I think he belongs in the hall? No. Were I one of these sanctimonious nerd BBWAA voters, I admit I would not vote for him, simply based on his lack of longevity and brief peak. But to give Puckett the sympathy vote because of his eye problems when the stats comparatively speak for themselves is specious reasoning. And I loved watching Puckett, too. An injury is an injury, period. It's not as if Mattingly threw his career away and failed to maximize his natural potential through partying and drugs like Strawberry. Both he and Puckett had injuries. Mattingly stats compare favorably. And yet one is in and the other not. This I believe is due strictly to the WS thing (a team issue) and the sympathy (to reductive thinkers) of Puckett's eye issues. And let's not get involved on the character and integrity aspect of hall voting with these two guys. >>
Puckett didn't simply have an eye injury. He was struck in the face with a pitch and lost his eyesight because of it. His body didn't wear down like Mattingly's did. He most likely had many good years ahead of him, Mattingly didn't. That is the difference. It's not so simple as "they both had injuries so their careers should be judged equally". The situations were extremely different.
We can only judge them on the performance they gave. The numbers they put up. Anything else brings in subjectivity and personal opinions. Based on the stats, I don't see how one guy gets in and one doesn't. And that's just the cumulative stats. Their peak stats don't stack up favorably for Kirby.
And for all the BBWAA "writers" who hold up the integrity and character clause...
"However, Puckett's good guy persona began to erode in the years before his death. In March 2002, a woman filed an order for protection against Puckett's wife Tonya, alleging that Tonya had threatened to kill her over an alleged affair with Puckett.[29] That month, another woman asked for protection from Puckett, saying in court documents that she had had an 18-year relationship with him and that he had shoved her in his Bloomington condominium.[29] In September 2002, Puckett was charged with false imprisonment, fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct, and fifth-degree assault after being accused of groping a woman in a restaurant bathroom.[30] A jury later found him not guilty of all counts;[31] however, he subsequently relinquished his role as Twins executive vice president."
And lastly, Puckett's glaucoma was NOT caused by his broken jaw. That kind of explodes many an argument. His glaucoma was a genetic degenerative condition, as was Donny's back...
So now what?
You asserted: He was struck in the face with a pitch and lost his eyesight because of it.
The FACT is...
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-326499.html
"Puckett's glaucoma is hereditary--an older brother also has it, and their father had glaucoma too. SAID PUCKETT: "That's what you have to watch out for. If you have any family history of glaucoma you should definitely get checked."
So...whoops.
Oh, and 13.2%
Soak it in, homer.
1. You were dead wrong on the glaucoma being caused by the HBP.
2. Unless you know more about it than Kirby himself or the medical professionals.
3. I said earlier I WOULD NOT VOTE for Mattingly as a HOFer. So I am not a HOMER. It doesn't upset me one bit Mattingly is not in the Hall. I don't really lose sleep over this.
4. I just don't like it when outright false arguments are presented as fact.
5. You want to bring the debate to the base level of name calling, saying I'm a fool...go ahead. I won't go there and debase myself. I'm just dealing in facts. Yours were wrong about the HBP causing the glaucoma.
6. Puckett's legal woes are relevant to the HOF discussion, since the voters are willing to pass on the likes of Biggio and Piazza with far less "integrity" issues than Kirby had. That is why I bring it up. It's out there, not my own opinion.
Lastly, this is just a meaningless sports debate. Let's try and keep it respectful and civil and show some "sportsmanship."
6 hits in a game (twice)
6 hits in 9 inning game (A.L. record)
10 hits over 2 games (MLB record)
4 doubles in 1 game (MLB record)
4 hits in 1st MLB game (MLB record)
1994....more RBI's than games played. Not been done to many times in the last 50 years.
Hit for the Cycle.
<< <i>Inactive players not in the HOF (excluding HOF eligible players)
Highest WAR (batters)
1. Pete Rose 91.6
2. Bill Dahlen 79.2
3. Lou Whitaker 74.3
4. Bobby Grich 74.2
5. Sherry Magee 73.2
Highest OPS (batters)
1. Lefty O'Doul .945
2. Joe Jackson .940
3. Albert Belle .933
4. Charlie Keller .928
5. Ken Williams .924
Highest WAR (pitchers)
1. Bobby Mathews 81.5
2. Tommy John 78.7
3. Kevin Brown 77.2
4. Gus Weyhing 76.9
5. Rick Reuschel 73.4
Not saying all these guys should be HOFers, just throwing the info out there. >>
This is exactly where my mind went I saw the OP's question. To me - two guys that got the shaft were Kevin Brown and Lou Whitaker. Personally I think they both should have gone in. I think it's debatable and I could probably be convinced the other way, but the fact they fell off the ballot after one year is absolutely ludicrous. Brown has very comparable stats to Whitey Ford.
What I'm selling
Building Sets, Collecting Texas Rangers, and Texas Tech Red Raiders
WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
Doug
2. Steve Garvey
3. Alan Trammel
4. Keith Hernandez
5. Jim Rice
Tim Raines is the worst omission. He dominated in the 80's and only because he was in a ghost town in Montreal no one noticed.
TheClockworkAngelCollection
-What he had going for him was a good guy persona. Similar to Ozzie Smith or Cal Ripken Jr. 2 WS rings show leadership to the HOF voters (whether thats justified or not).
Career .318 average is pretty impressive for a player in the 80's, early 90's. The only guys hitting higher than him in the early 90's were....Gwynn, Boggs? Not many.
What about Dave Parker? Look at Dawson, Parker and Jim Rices numbers. Why are 2 of the 3 in, and one is out? Harold Baines is another name. Very close to 3,000 hits.
1. Dwight Evans
2. Luis Tiant
3. Tim Raines
4. Marvin Miller
5. Jack Morris
A smart Vet committee will eventually get them in, but it better be with their era's players on the committee, otherwise the Facebook generation will forget all about them.
Mattingly, Murphy, Blyleven, Sutton and Rice shouldn't be in. I understand and agree when others compare them with those already in/out that are similar. That is what bothers me about the voting process, it is inconsistent. And these guys "know" baseball?