Make a list(if any) of players you think should be in the HOF
garnettstyle
Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
My list.
Steve Garvey
Dave Parker
Tim Raines
Dale Murphy
Pete Rose
Curt Schilling
Steve Garvey
Dave Parker
Tim Raines
Dale Murphy
Pete Rose
Curt Schilling
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
0
Comments
Darrell Evans
Frank Howard
Minnie Minoso
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell
And these players have a pretty good case; I think they ought to be in, but I understand the arguments against:
Sal Bando
Bill Freehan
Bobby Grich
Ted Simmons
These players aren't in, probably don't deserve to be in, but it would make me smile if they got in:
Bobby Bonds
Ken Boyer
Will Clark
Jim Fregosi
Jimmy Wynn
edit: oops - removed Howard from the middle list
Tim Raines is at the top for me.
Dick Allen
Albert Belle
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Erik
Frank Howard
Alan Trammell
Ted Simmons
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Bert Campaneris and Dave Concepcion.
I could add Bert to my "doesn't deserve it, but it would make me smile" list. He may even deserve it.
Let's try to remember we're talking Hall of Fame.
You should excel at something other than drawing walks to get into that club.
Nothing wrong with drawing walks, but if that's what you specialize in, if that's the best thing people
can say about you as a baseball player, "Hey Darrell, you were great when you didn't swing the bat", you should not be in the hall of fame.
Who's next, Eddie Gaedel?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I would disagree with Darrell Evans. .248 career avg.
Let's try to remember we're talking Hall of Fame.
You should excel at something other than drawing walks to get into that club.
I have to admit that I've never heard anyone with over 400 HR described as "only good at walks", and I'll be surprised if I ever hear it again.
Leaving aside the ridiculousness of describing Evans that way, here's why he's a HOFer.
1. Evans was a very good third baseman. There are fewer third basemen than any other position in the HOF, and for no good reason. (As a first baseman, later in his career, he was not very good - he was exceptional).
2. Among third basemen, Evans has the ninth best secondary average. If you adjust that for ballpark and era, he's almost top 5.
3. Evans stats - other than his walks and HR - look somewhat mediocre without context, but in context they are exceptional. Pretty much all of Evans career was spent in low-scoring environments and/or ballparks.
4. As a hitter he is in a virtual tie with Tony Perez. I think Perez deserves to be in the HOF; that Evans was a much better fielder means he deserves it more.
5. Evans was a clutch hitter. His Win Probability Added ranks 60th of all time, ahead of Boggs, Bench and quite a few other no-brainer HOFers. Throwing out players ineligible for the HOF (officially or unofficially) he's 51st. His hitting with men on base was a full 25% better than his hitting with the bases empty.
6. Measured by Win Shares, from 1972-1987, the meat of Evans' career, he was the 4th best player in MLB, behind only Schmidt Morgan and Brett. Bill James ranks him as the 10th best third baseman in history.
I rank Evans behind only Raines as the most deserving player not in the HOF.
Clark was a .303 career hitter, compared to Evans .248 avg.
If you would switch those two on your lists, I would agree with you completely.
And I don't care about secondary averages, the primary average is the important one.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Will Clark is much more deserving than Darrell Evans.
Clark was a .303 career hitter, compared to Evans .248 avg.
If you would switch those two on your lists, I would agree with you completely.
And I don't care about secondary averages, the primary average is the important one.
Obviously I think highly of both of them, but Evans was better. You are still ignoring that Evans was a great fielder, while you're ignoring every single other thing besides his batting average. That's going to lead to some odd conclusions.
Clark was a better hitter than Evans, but Evans played 25% longer and Clark wasn't anywhere near 25% better. And Clark was the very definition of a mediocre first baseman, while Evans was both a much better first baseman when he played there, and a third baseman who deserved a handful of Gold Gloves when he played there. There's not a ton of distance between them, but assuming what you want is the player who will win you the most games you should take Evans over Clark.
Larry Walker.
I know he hit in an easy ball park, but he's 15th all time in OPS, 12th in SLG, 37th in OB% and tied for 54th in BA. How good was he supposed to be to get in...............top 5 in every category?
Maury Wills
Tony Oliva
Agree with Raines, Hodges, Dick Allen (he was a stud), Ted Simmons. Frank Howard, Will Clark...........he sure could have played a couple of more years!
Clark
Clark
Clark
Tie
Evans
Evans
Evans
Evans
Evans
Evans
Evans
Evans
Tie
Evans
Evans
Evans (Clark retired at this point)
Evans
Evans
Evans
Evans
Clark was better at his peak for three years, then Evans took over for the duration.
Do the same exercise with Jim Rice and Rice wins only the top season, Evans wins the remaining 19, with no ties. Evans was so much better than Jim Rice that comparing them is laughable. Compare him to Tony Perez and Evans wins 14, Perez 5, with 3 ties. They're closer, but Evans was clearly better.
Compare Evans to Willie Stargell and Evans wins 9 years, Stargell wins 8 years and there are 4 ties. In the meat of their careers, they are both 4-4-4. In careers of the same length, Evans earned 364 Win Shares, Stargell 369. Stargell has a somewhat better peak, and for that reason - and that reason only - I think he gets the nod over Evans. But Stargell and Evans were very, very close in overall value to their teams.
Compare Evans to Gil Hodges and Hodges wins season #9, and loses the other 19 seasons. Gil Hodges was not a HOF level player like Evans; not even close.
How about Roger Maris? 7 time all star, 2 time MVP. But didnt have a long career.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Put me in the camp for Larry Walker. A hitting and defensive machine. I suppose playing in the steroid era is hurting him?
No, it's that he hit .282 away from Coors.
Put me in the camp for Larry Walker. A hitting and defensive machine. I suppose playing in the steroid era is hurting him?
No, it's that he hit .282 away from Coors.
And that's bad?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Put me in the camp for Larry Walker. A hitting and defensive machine. I suppose playing in the steroid era is hurting him?
No, it's that he hit .282 away from Coors.
And that's bad?
He hit .348 at home I guess that doesn't count for anything because he played a little over 1/2 of his career at Coors field. Ridiculous!
Koufax sucked for 1/2 of his career and wasn't that great away from home either, but he gets regarded as one of the all time greats.
One of the best 5 tool players of all time and not in the hall because he hit better at his home parks than on the road. in 1997 he was better on the road than at Coors, 1999 about the same, OPS of .965 in 2001 on the road ,917 on road in 2002, how could that be?!?!?!?!??
I will admit he had a few terrible years hitting on the road. Keeping him out of the Hall when he's 15th all time OPS is beyond my comprehension. I know, a lot of things are.
Ernie Banks didn't exactly light it up on the road.
Mantle should have gotten MVP in 1960 three voters left him completely off their ballots. Mickey could be a jerk to the press......they got even. Look at Ted Williams 10 times first in OPS twice second and twice third. Reporters hated him as well.
You could make a case for Mantle in '61 as well, but I would give that one to Roger. Mickey had as good a regular season, but missed the WS because of some stupid hip problem he got from going to a doctor to get a "vitamin" shot that ended up getting infected.
A lot of marginal HOF nice players mentioned though
Larry Walker is not a HOFer. Where do you draw the line as Maggilo Ordenez and Cecil Coopwr will need to go in next
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Hodges three seasons over .900 and five over .875. Gill is ahead in every offensive stat except................walks.
Hodges OPS was 50 points higher and OPS+ only 1. Hodges played with better players and also was a better player. I guess I'll have to buy the book on Win Shares. Just can't agree with Evans over Hodges.
I also thought Atlanta was an easy park to hit in. Evans was left handed giving him a shorter field.
The Hall likes milestone numbers unless you were just lights out during a shortened career. Walkers 383 HR's and 2100 hits miss threshold numbers on both accounts. He was a very nice player but falls short in my opinion. Even the players I mentioned that are not in I'm not all upset that about. In fact there isn't a player mentioned in this thread that I feel that strongly about to be upset. No one mentioned here is a slam dunk.
A lot of marginal HOF nice players mentioned though
Larry Walker is not a HOFer. Where do you draw the line as Maggilo Ordenez and Cecil Coopwr will need to go in next
mark
Agree on milestone numbers, but Koufax didn't have those either.
Larry's run of OPS from 1994 to 2004 is a pretty good, long peak.
Missed some (a lot?) of time, but he played 17 years and was still slugging over .500 in his last year. Guys like Larry and Will Clark certainly could have played longer, had their "old man years" and hit some milestones, but in this day of multi-million dollar contracts players don't have to keep playing till they are shells of their former selves. That should be taken into consideration, I think.
OH well, if he doesn't get in, it won't have any effect on my life.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Koufax had the lights out years in his career.
mark
Four years. They were great.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Speaking of 4 years, another name that comes to mind is Mad Dog Bill Madlock. 4 batting titles, 305 career average.
He just didn't walk enough, sorry.
Missed a lot of games!
I can't get behind Evans. Only four years above .803 OPS and one above .900 despite a high walk total, nice HR per 162 games, but not enough doubles to give him a very good SLG%.
Hodges three seasons over .900 and five over .875. Gill is ahead in every offensive stat except................walks.
Hodges OPS was 50 points higher and OPS+ only 1. Hodges played with better players and also was a better player. I guess I'll have to buy the book on Win Shares. Just can't agree with Evans over Hodges.
I also thought Atlanta was an easy park to hit in. Evans was left handed giving him a shorter field.
Atlanta was relatively easy, but the early 70's were historically very hard. And the peak of Evans career was spent in SF, which was the second hardest NL park after the Dome. Other than pretty much any park in the 1930's, the easiest hitting park in history? Yeah, that would be Ebbetts Field in the 1950's. Put Evans in that park and let him hit behind Snider and Reese and Robinson and he'd have 500 HR and 1,800 RBI and would have sailed into the HOF. Hodges totals considering the plum spot in the order he got on the best team in the league are above average, even good, but that's as far as I can go.
And you are just bound and determined to ignore that Evans was a third baseman, aren't you? Bottom line, and it's not even close at all, is that Evans was a better baseball player than Gil Hodges. James ranks Hodges as the 30th best first baseman in history, right behind Cecil Cooper and Dolph Camilli, way behind Norm Cash and miles behind Tony Perez.
I just don't agree with the "logic" that says Hodges was only good because he was on a good team, or played in an "easy era", but I will agree that Evans should have been better in an easier park than SF.
Do you agree or disagree that batting left handed is an advantage?
Not trying to get all aroused here, just seems to me this "factor" never gets addressed. Virtually every ballpark has shorter distances to right field, and most pitchers are right handed, so a left handed batter has an easier time than a right handed hitter in a very high percent of his at bats.
Let's also not ignore that Gil Hodges was a very good manager, I was taking that into account as well, just didn't feel the need to bring it up.
Put me in the camp for Larry Walker. A hitting and defensive machine. I suppose playing in the steroid era is hurting him?
No, it's that he hit .282 away from Coors.
And that's bad?
He hit .348 at home I guess that doesn't count for anything because he played a little over 1/2 of his career at Coors field. Ridiculous!
He had 31% of his ABs at Coors and hit .381 there but .282 everywhere else. To say that his numbers are not wildly skewed by playing at Coors is to ignore reality.
In suggesting Hodges, his career has been discussed at length here on other threads. I suppose its best to have certain players were we can just agree to disagree as to whether they should be in the HOF. I like Evans and Clark and I have no problem with either making it into the HOF. However, comparing Evans to Hodges is just something I am not prepared to entertain. Both players were great in their time.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Hitting Roseboro over the head with a baseball bat was a pretty bad thing though. Strangely enough, Koufax was pitching that day and did throw a pitch over Willie Mays' head, Marichal had "buzzed" a couple of Dodgers players, and the pitchers were warned, prompting Roseboro to press the issue by almost hitting Marichal in the ear (Marichal claims he was hit) with the ball as he was throwing it back to Koufax. Marichal then clubbed the rival catcher over the head with his bat. This could be the single worst moment in baseball history.
Good thing the Dodgers were a good team and won a couple of WS during Sandy's four/five year run it did all come together for him nicely.
As far as the other debate goes, I don't see it as a problem either. I learned a lot about Darrell Evans. I remembered he was good, but didn't realize he was that good!
Put me in the camp for Larry Walker. A hitting and defensive machine. I suppose playing in the steroid era is hurting him?
No, it's that he hit .282 away from Coors.
And that's bad?
He hit .348 at home I guess that doesn't count for anything because he played a little over 1/2 of his career at Coors field. Ridiculous!
He had 31% of his ABs at Coors and hit .381 there but .282 everywhere else. To say that his numbers are not wildly skewed by playing at Coors is to ignore reality.
He did have some great years on the road as well. No one is ignoring reality, Walker had some terrible hitting years on the road, but not all of them were bad.
I could also say that ignoring the 12th highest SLG% of all time isn't facing reality either. OPS+ of 141 is huge and that's park adjusted.
Oh well, we'll never agree on Larry, that's ok too, he'll be fine.
Well I know it's time to walk away from the Evans debate when I see this. As in the years ago threads comparing Jim Rice to Roy White and Gene Tenace (both were better than Rice), I know I'm not going to convince everyone, or even anyone, but I'm satisfied if I can at least cause some people to have a greater appreciation for great players who fans have forgotten, or never even noticed in the first place.
As for Marichal/Koufax, first it's a somewhat odd debate because Gibson was better than Marichal so I don't know why Gibson isn't the counterpoint to Koufax. But leaving that aside, Koufax is one of the hardest players in history for whom to find a comparison player. Koufax was an average to above average pitcher for a big chunk of his career. From 1955 to 1961 his ERA+ was 105 (5% better than average), he completed about 30% of his games and threw a shutout in about 5% of his games. Then, from 1962-1966, his ERA+ was 167, he completed 60% of his games and threw a shutout in almost 20% of his games. Then, he was gone. Also, in Dodger Stadium his ERA was 1.37 and his W/L was 57-15; elsewhere his ERA was 3.38 and his W/L was 108-72. You won't find anyone with remotely comparable numbers or splits.
For his career, Koufax allowed about 230 runs less than an average pitcher would have. That's near the bottom of HOF pitchers. Marichal's figure is about 275, Gibson's is about 350. I don't think there's any reasonable way of looking at it that puts Koufax on top of Gibson, but whether he is ahead of or behind Marichal depends on how you weight peak vs. career performance. I'd pick Marichal - as I just did in my Top 100 Pitchers thread - but by a nose (Marichal was #17, Koufax #18).
Side note. In the 1965 WS the Dodgers scored a grand total of 24 runs in 7 games. They gave Koufax the MVP for his 2-1 record, but the most valuable player on that team was Ron Fairly. He either scored or drove in 11 of those 24 runs, with an OPS of 1.069. And he never walked, so it's a "pure" 1.069 for those who doubt the value of a walk. He's far from a HOFer, but Fairly is one of the most underrated players in history.
Speaking of 4 years, another name that comes to mind is Mad Dog Bill Madlock. 4 batting titles, 305 career average.
He just didn't walk enough, sorry.
Missed a lot of games!
Madlock didn't hit for power nor could he throw or field a lick. Would have been a decent DH
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Madlock didn't hit for power nor could he throw or field a lick. Would have been a decent DH
That's fair. Doing a quick look, the closest player to Madlock is Carney Lansford. Cesar Cedeno is also similar as a hitter, but Cedeno could field. Madlock was somewhere between those two.
Have a great day!
Madlock didn't hit for power nor could he throw or field a lick. Would have been a decent DH
That's fair. Doing a quick look, the closest player to Madlock is Carney Lansford. Cesar Cedeno is also similar as a hitter, but Cedeno could field. Madlock was somewhere between those two.
I used to love watching Cedeno and Geronimo field and throw the ball. They both had cannons but Geronimo had a cannon plus.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Stan Hack
Sherry Magee
Bobby Veach
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
He did have some great years on the road as well. No one is ignoring reality, Walker had some terrible hitting years on the road, but not all of them were bad.
I could also say that ignoring the 12th highest SLG% of all time isn't facing reality either. OPS+ of 141 is huge and that's park adjusted.
Oh well, we'll never agree on Larry, that's ok too, he'll be fine.
Larry @ Coors = .710 SLG
Larry @ Anywhere else = .500 SLG
At Coors, he's basically Babe Ruth. Away from Coors, he's Jim Bottomley or Ryan Klesko.
Regardless, the question was asked why he's not in the HOF. All I've done is answer the why. Agree or disagree, fact is, Larry is seen as a product of Coors Field. The numbers, by and large, back that up and he's punished for it - unlike, say, Sandy Koufax at Dodger Stadium.