<< <i>I might be in the minority here, but if it were up to me Shoeless Joe and Dale Murphy both get in the hall before Hodges. >>
Murphy is another guy as good or better a case than Hodges. If one were to use the Hall's exact criteria for election, then Dale Murphy has the best case of ANY player that currently is not in, since he would be so high on the character aspect...in addition to his excellent peak.
That is what hurts Hodges, there are too many players with as good or better cases than Hodges, both in advanced measurements and/or traditional(archaic) ones.
Add Fred Lynn and Dave Parker to Foster and Murphy who have as good or better merit than Hodges.
I don't want to talk about Rice. That mistake has been beat to death...all on a false/perceived reputation of being most feared, which has been debunked enough on here.
What hurts Dick Allen is that he only had SIX seasons where he played 130 or more games...and he was washed up and out of baseball at age 35.
Of the guys on this last ballot...none of them should have been put in...unless you are also willing to add Foster, Lynn, Parker, Dewey Evans, Murphy, and more....because they have equal or better cases in both advanced measurements and/or traditional(archaic) measurements.
C'mon skin...... Why do traditionalists have to be called archaic?? That's my only real issue those that beat the drum for WAR and every other mathematicians new stat about Americas past time. They seem to think that something new has been discovered about playing the game between the lines that dunces and archaic fossils like Stengel, Huggins, Mack never knew?? One of my favorite quotes regarding the game was a question asked to Joe McCarthy about what he looked for in a player. He hollered over to a guy on the bench, what's you batting average..... Player..... I don't know, how many home runs you got, player..... I don't know... McCarthy said give me nine of that guy.... He just wants to beat you!! Advanced stats are a useful tool but they arnt the end all be all and when I was 18 and WAR wasn't invented I pretty much knew a hall of Famer when I saw one. The argument just comes down to fans that want a small hall and those that don't mind a big one. I myself just like the discussion part. Talking baseball never gets old!
<< <i>Of the guys on this last ballot...none of them should have been put in...unless you are also willing to add Foster, Lynn, Parker, Dewey Evans, Murphy, and more....because they have equal or better cases in both advanced measurements and/or traditional(archaic) measurements. >>
Parker is a guy that I hope gets a second look one day. He won an MVP Award, finished top 5 in the voting an impressive 4 other times, won two batting titles, and was legitimately feared by pitchers. There aren't too many mashers like him on the outside of the HOF looking in. I like Dale Murphy too, but the .265 career average really kills him.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
<< <i>C'mon skin...... Why do traditionalists have to be called archaic?? That's my only real issue those that beat the drum for WAR and every other mathematicians new stat about Americas past time. They seem to think that something new has been discovered about playing the game between the lines that dunces and archaic fossils like Stengel, Huggins, Mack never knew?? One of my favorite quotes regarding the game was a question asked to Joe McCarthy about what he looked for in a player. He hollered over to a guy on the bench, what's you batting average..... Player..... I don't know, how many home runs you got, player..... I don't know... McCarthy said give me nine of that guy.... He just wants to beat you!! Advanced stats are a useful tool but they arnt the end all be all and when I was 18 and WAR wasn't invented I pretty much knew a hall of Famer when I saw one. The argument just comes down to fans that want a small hall and those that don't mind a big one. I myself just like the discussion part. Talking baseball never gets old! >>
lol...a little humor with the archaic.
WAR has its place, and does have flaws(especially on the defensive end, and the positional adjustment). The better hitting measurements like Win Probability Added are highly accurate.
I hear what your saying about the character and such...and I did mention that in the case of Murphy. Of course, we know the pitfalls of relying on that aspect though too.
I agree...the discussion is always fun, and no matter where a line is drawn, there will still be discussion for all close to the line.
One aspect on Hodges is the lost war years...though he was very young, and probably wasn't as big as an effect like it had on a Ted Williams who lost prime years.
Comments
<< <i>I might be in the minority here, but if it were up to me Shoeless Joe and Dale Murphy both get in the hall before Hodges. >>
Murphy is another guy as good or better a case than Hodges. If one were to use the Hall's exact criteria for election, then Dale Murphy has the best case of ANY player that currently is not in, since he would be so high on the character aspect...in addition to his excellent peak.
That is what hurts Hodges, there are too many players with as good or better cases than Hodges, both in advanced measurements and/or traditional(archaic) ones.
Add Fred Lynn and Dave Parker to Foster and Murphy who have as good or better merit than Hodges.
I don't want to talk about Rice. That mistake has been beat to death...all on a false/perceived reputation of being most feared, which has been debunked enough on here.
Of the guys on this last ballot...none of them should have been put in...unless you are also willing to add Foster, Lynn, Parker, Dewey Evans, Murphy, and more....because they have equal or better cases in both advanced measurements and/or traditional(archaic) measurements.
<< <i>Of the guys on this last ballot...none of them should have been put in...unless you are also willing to add Foster, Lynn, Parker, Dewey Evans, Murphy, and more....because they have equal or better cases in both advanced measurements and/or traditional(archaic) measurements. >>
Parker is a guy that I hope gets a second look one day. He won an MVP Award, finished top 5 in the voting an impressive 4 other times, won two batting titles, and was legitimately feared by pitchers. There aren't too many mashers like him on the outside of the HOF looking in. I like Dale Murphy too, but the .265 career average really kills him.
<< <i>C'mon skin...... Why do traditionalists have to be called archaic?? That's my only real issue those that beat the drum for WAR and every other mathematicians new stat about Americas past time. They seem to think that something new has been discovered about playing the game between the lines that dunces and archaic fossils like Stengel, Huggins, Mack never knew?? One of my favorite quotes regarding the game was a question asked to Joe McCarthy about what he looked for in a player. He hollered over to a guy on the bench, what's you batting average..... Player..... I don't know, how many home runs you got, player..... I don't know... McCarthy said give me nine of that guy.... He just wants to beat you!! Advanced stats are a useful tool but they arnt the end all be all and when I was 18 and WAR wasn't invented I pretty much knew a hall of Famer when I saw one. The argument just comes down to fans that want a small hall and those that don't mind a big one. I myself just like the discussion part. Talking baseball never gets old! >>
lol...a little humor with the archaic.
WAR has its place, and does have flaws(especially on the defensive end, and the positional adjustment). The better hitting measurements like Win Probability Added are highly accurate.
I hear what your saying about the character and such...and I did mention that in the case of Murphy. Of course, we know the pitfalls of relying on that aspect though too.
I agree...the discussion is always fun, and no matter where a line is drawn, there will still be discussion for all close to the line.
One aspect on Hodges is the lost war years...though he was very young, and probably wasn't as big as an effect like it had on a Ted Williams who lost prime years.