Originally posted by: Justacommeman We have a few posters who only know what they read on the back of old baseball cards
mark
I'd rather be one of those than a Dallasactuary groupie, who seem to be plentiful on this board.
When Dallas and you say a .248 hitter should be in the Hall of Fame, someone should stand up and tell you you're full of crap. Its not the Hall of Bases on Balls, its the Hall of Fame. I know its getting kind of diluted with Bill Mazeroski and the like, but its supposed to be the best of the best. A .248 hitter, no matter how many times he walks, is not the best of the best.
We have a few posters who only know what they read on the back of old baseball cards
mark
I'd rather be one of those than a Dallasactuary groupie, who seem to be plentiful on this board.
When Dallas and you say a .248 hitter should be in the Hall of Fame, someone
should stand up and tell you you're full of crap.
Its not the Hall of Bases on Balls,
its the Hall of Fame. I know its getting kind of diluted with Bill Mazeroski and the
like, but its supposed to be the best of the best.
A .248 hitter, no matter how many times he walks, is not the best of the best.
I don't always agree with Dallas but I sure would rather be in a canoe with him then on the USS Simpleton with you and garnettstyle.
I guess Evans 400+ home runs doesn't count.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
HOLDS NATIONAL LEAGUE RECORD FOR CONSECUTIVE GAMES PLAYED (1,201). VOTED THE 1974 NL MVP AND SELECTED TO THE ALL-STAR GAME 10 TIMES. HAD AS MANY AS 200 HITS IN A SEASON SIX TIMES AND MORE THAN 100 RBIS IN FIVE SEASONS. BATTED .338 IN 11 POSTSEASON SERIES AND .417 IN THE 1981 WORLD SERIES, WHEN HIS DODGERS BEAT THE YANKEES IN SIX GAMES. A FOUR-TIME GOLD GLOVE WINNER, HE ONCE HELD THE RECORD FOR MOST CONSECUTIVE GAMES AT 1B WITHOUT AN ERROR (193).
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
He was a fine player. Just not hall worthy. It's not that complicated.
Ps let your first mate Darin know that I clearly stated that I would be perfectly happy if not a single player mentioned in this thread never made the HOF.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
Originally posted by: DarinI know its getting kind of diluted with Bill Mazeroski and the like, but its supposed to be the best of the best.
A .248 hitter, no matter how many times he walks, is not the best of the best.
Bil Mazeroski was the best of the best; he was the best second baseman to ever play the game. You apparently disagree that being the best at playing second base is worthy of a spot in the HOF, but you should argue that point, not deny that Mazeroski was the best of the best.
Since you seem to have been blessed with the knowledge of where the HOF batting average line is, perhaps you can tell us exactly where it is. There's a no-brainer HOFer at .256, so if Evans had traded 500 of his walks for 200 singles and 300 strikeouts would that mean it would no longer be BS to think he was a HOFer? Sure, his teams would have suffered and he wouldn't have been as valuable, but if it got him to .256 and into the HOF maybe he should have taken your advice and done that. See, I'm at a disadvantage since I just have facts to back up my arguments and you apparently receive divine truth from above, so any background you can give me on why .248 is not HOF-worthy but .256 is would be appreciated.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
It is ridiculous that Trammell isn't in the Hall of Fame yet. He's one of the best hitting shortstops to ever play, plus he won the GG 4 out of 5 years in his prime. If the voters had made the correct choice and given him the MVP in 1987, he'd already be in. Eventually, he will get his due, and the Molitor/Trammell rookie will get a huge boost in price.
Mazeroski is not HOF material. If I thought so, I would be arguing Frank White should be in the Hall of Fame. The Royals are my favorite team, and at no time did I think I was watching a HOF'er playing. Just didn't contribute enough offensively, same as Maz.
Originally posted by: Justacommeman He was a fine player. Just not hall worthy. It's not that complicated.
Ps let your first mate Darin know that I clearly stated that I would be perfectly happy if not a single player mentioned in this thread never made the HOF.
mark
I would be perfectly happy if every player mentioned in this thread made the hall, because it would not tarnish the hall at all. And it would be great for all the fans. If the hall added another 15-20 players it would not put a dent in the percentage of all the people who ever played in the majors.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
He was a fine player. Just not hall worthy. It's not that complicated.
Ps let your first mate Darin know that I clearly stated that I would be perfectly happy if not a single player mentioned in this thread never made the HOF.
mark
I would be perfectly happy if every player mentioned in this thread made the hall, because it would not tarnish the hall at all. And it would be great for all the fans. If the hall added another 15-20 players it would not put a dent in the percentage of all the people who ever played in the majors.
if you want to make it pedestrian you are on your way.
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
Originally posted by: Darin Glad to help you out Dallas.
.256 with around 573 HR is good to go.
.248 with 414 HR is not.
Mazeroski is not HOF material. If I thought so, I would be arguing Frank White should be in the Hall of Fame. The Royals are my favorite team, and at no time did I think I was watching a HOF'er playing. Just didn't contribute enough offensively, same as Maz.
I'm confused. Earlier you said that a .248 average all by itself meant that a player was not only not a HOFer, but that it was BS to even think he was. Now, though, you're saying that batting average all by itself isn't enough information to go by, and you have to look beyond that at more of a player's career before you can make that call.
So, now we know that .256 with 573 HR is good, but .248 with 414 HR isn't. But what if .256 with 573 HR puts a player near the top of the HOF, as I think it does. Is it possible that .248 with 414 HR could put a player near the bottom, but still in? What if both player's were third basemen, and Mr. 256 was a crappy third baseman and Mr. 248 was an outstanding third baseman? Is it BS to consider that? Does that narrow the difference?
If you don't agree that Evans belongs in the HOF, that's fine with me. But decide it based on all of the evidence after you've considered all of the evidence. When you start off with "all he does is walk" when you're talking about a 400+ HR All-Star third baseman, it's pretty clear that you haven't done that.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: DarinI know its getting kind of diluted with Bill Mazeroski and the like, but its supposed to be the best of the best.
A .248 hitter, no matter how many times he walks, is not the best of the best.
Bil Mazeroski was the best of the best; he was the best second baseman to ever play the game. You apparently disagree that being the best at playing second base is worthy of a spot in the HOF, but you should argue that point, not deny that Mazeroski was the best of the best.
Did you mean best defensive second baseman?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: JoeBanzaiDid you mean best defensive second baseman?
Yes, definitely. I've had this debate before about Mazeroski, and while I think he deserved a spot in the HOF I certainly understand why others disagree. There are others in the HOF primarily for their defense, although most or all of them were better at the plate than Mazeroski. To me, the HOF comes down to one thing - is what this player did over the course of his career worthy of honoring? I think the closest analogy to Mazeroski is Roger Maris. I actually come down on the side that would not put Maris in the HOF, but I understand why others would like him in; what he did in 1961 was pretty amazing, had never been done before and has never been done since without cheating. And the record he set is one of if not the most recognizable records one can set in baseball. What Mazeroski did wasn't as visible, but he did it over the course of a long career. The greatest defensive third baseman is in the HOF and the greatest defensive shortstop is in the HOF, and I think it's appropriate that the greatest defensive second baseman be there, too. Mazeroski is clearly the very worst hitter in the HOF, but since his hitting has nothing to do with why I think he deserves to be there, he could have been an even worse hitter and I'd still think he deserved it.
There are a fair number of players in the HOF who got there for truly frivolous reasons - Tinker, Evers, and Chance because some guy wrote a poem about them, for example - and I hate that. I don't think being the greatest defensive second baseman is frivolous, the question is just whether it's significant enough to merit a spot in the HOF.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Well, what a surprise we agree completely on both Mazeroski and Maris. I know more about Maris and would love to see him in the HOF, but while I wouldn't hate it if he was in, I would not vote for him. Maz, I would vote for, even though he was no Rogers Hornsby.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I'm actually liking the conversation here. Garvey was a high profile good but not great player on a team of good players. He had a great career, no question, but not a HOF career.
As for my list- Outside of the obvious (Rose and Joe Jackson) I think Maris is very deserving and can see good arguments for Ted Simmons and Gene Tenace. I can think of a couple others but that's my short list for now. Edit to add I lean pro-Mazeroski also.
Take a look at the careers of Phil Rizzuto and Pee Wee Reese, then look at the career of Bert Campaneris. He was better than either of those two. I remember in the early 80's when there was an campaign organized to get Reese into the Hall, and it worked. I think I need to organize a group of Bay Area folks who remember and start a similar campaign to get Campy in.
I like Dwight Evans for the Hall before Darrell Evans.
Talk about a high quality, dependable player. He was well known for his rocket arm in right field, but he amassed some fairly impressive offensive numbers also.
Edited to add: I just got a surprise. Dwight Evans has a negative number for defensive WAR, -4.6.
Anyone- How did that happen? I thought he was known as a great right fielder.
Originally posted by: Darin I like Dwight Evans for the Hall before Darrell Evans.
Talk about a high quality, dependable player. He was well known for his rocket arm in right field, but he amassed some fairly impressive offensive numbers also.
Edited to add: I just got a surprise. Dwight Evans has a negative number for defensive WAR, -4.6.
Anyone- How did that happen? I thought he was known as a great right fielder.
There COULDN'T be a problem with defensive WAR could there?
Fielding % is above league average.
Gold Gloves are not always the best way to measure defensive ability, but when a player wins several, I thing it's safe to say he's above average. Eight gold gloves?
There was a debate about Kirby Pucketts defensive numbers a while back. Kirby was a GREAT outfielder and any stat that says differently needs to be overhauled!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: Darin I like Dwight Evans for the Hall before Darrell Evans.
Talk about a high quality, dependable player. He was well known for his rocket arm in right field, but he amassed some fairly impressive offensive numbers also.
Edited to add: I just got a surprise. Dwight Evans has a negative number for defensive WAR, -4.6.
Anyone- How did that happen? I thought he was known as a great right fielder.
Originally posted by: PSASAP Take a look at the careers of Phil Rizzuto and Pee Wee Reese, then look at the career of Bert Campaneris. He was better than either of those two. I remember in the early 80's when there was an campaign organized to get Reese into the Hall, and it worked. I think I need to organize a group of Bay Area folks who remember and start a similar campaign to get Campy in.
I think Campy was a great player, and it wouldn't bother me at all if he got in the HOF, but he simply was not as good as Pee Wee Reese; I won't even bother going into it. Whether or not he was better than Rizzuto is a more interesting question. Rizzuto had one season better than any Campaneris ever had, but they're pretty even after that for close to a decade, and then Campaneris played 3-4 seasons at a productive level beyond that. But, Rizzuto missed three seasons to WWII (so did Reese), and if he had played as well in those seasons as he did in the seasons before and after those seasons his career would have been as long as Campy's, and the meat of his career would have been clearly better.
Based solely on the games they actually played, Rizzuto and Campaneris are about as equal as they could be. If we don't penalize Rizzuto for taking a break to defend truth, justice and the American way, though, he was better.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
Originally posted by: DarinEdited to add: I just got a surprise. Dwight Evans has a negative number for defensive WAR, -4.6.
Anyone- How did that happen? I thought he was known as a great right fielder.
If there is an exception to this rule, I'm not aware of it: if a player is in the outfield, and he's "great" at playing there, then he plays in center field. Which is to say, being "great" at right or left field is like being a "great" utility infielder. The player's who are the best at chasing down fly balls, at cutting off hard hit balls in the gaps or at throwing the ball accurately for a great distance are all in center; right and left field are manned by the leftovers. Roberto Clemente is the right fielder most often cited as "great"; well, he was "great" at playing right field, but Bill Virdon was the best outfielder the Pirates had, and he was in center.
That said, within the context of right fielders, Evans appears to have been one of the better ones. Defensive WAR is crap, so don't bother with it. The other problem with trying to figure out which right fielders were better than others is that it makes so little difference whether their right fielder is "great" or just average that there aren't any stats that can reliably split that fine a difference. If a player is downright terrible - like Danny Tartabull - then WAR and every other stat will capture it just fine, but that's pretty much all right field demands - just don't be terrible. I can say pretty confidently that Evans wasn't terrible in right field, for what that's worth.
A larger point, in the context of a HOF discussion, is that anybody who isn't a HOFer by virtue of their hitting is not going to become one by playing right or left field well. I think playing LF in Fenway might be an exception in that there is real value to be had in getting someone to play well there, but Yaz (who played very well there) didn't need any points for his fielding to get in the Hall, so that's never really been tested.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Campaneris was better than Reese and Rizzuto because he played against better players. The level of athleticism and talent was greater in post-integration MLB. Reese and Rizzuto played in an era when integration was in its nascent stages. I've seen footage from World Series games played in the early 1950's. A ball hit in the hole between third and short was inevitably a hit, because players didn't have the ability to prevent those balls from becoming hits. I saw Campy play for his entire career, and the A's won three titles in large part because of what he contributed to the team.
Originally posted by: PSASAP Campaneris was better than Reese and Rizzuto because he played against better players. The level of athleticism and talent was greater in post-integration MLB. Reese and Rizzuto played in an era when integration was in its nascent stages. I've seen footage from World Series games played in the early 1950's. A ball hit in the hole between third and short was inevitably a hit, because players didn't have the ability to prevent those balls from becoming hits. I saw Campy play for his entire career, and the A's won three titles in large part because of what he contributed to the team.
Well, since that's an opinion it can't be wrong, but it would be more convincing if you could back it up with more than footage you've seen that covers .000000001% of the balls hit between second and third.
But yes, the quality of play in the 1970's was better than the quality of play in the (integrated) 1950's, and it's proper to take that into account. And in a comparison between Campy and Rizzuto it might even be decisive. But Reese was just too much better than Campaneris for that to close the gap.
Bill James does adjust for quality of play by decade in his rankings. His adjustment, like anyone else's adjustment, is a guess, but I trust his guesses to be at least in the right ballpark. He's got Reese 10th, Rizzuto 16th and Campaneris 25th. James is explicitly giving Reese and Rizzuto credit for what they likely would have done had they played in 1942-1944 instead of being in the military, and if you disagree that this is the fair way to treat those years then, as I said, you can get Campaneris up to Rizzuto, and maybe past him. But you can't get him up to Reese.
You also can't get him up to Jim Fregosi, and Fregosi removes the era adjustment question and the military service question. If I was tasked with adding a SS to the HOF I wouldn't hesitate to add Fregosi, who was clearly and easily the best SS of the era we're talking about. I saw Campaneris play a lot more than I saw Fregosi because Campy was on a good team that they showed on TV more, and made the playoffs more, so I have a lot more fondness for Campaneris, but he was no Fregosi.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Jim Fregosi? He peaked at the age of 28, which also coincided with the point in his career when he stopped playing shortstop full time, and also the last time he had more than 399 plate appearances. If you believe your mentor is right about Fregosi being better than Campy, then you need to find a new mentor.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because Reese and Rizzuto are in doesnt mean Campy gets in even if close. Frankly Trammell should get in before Campy anyways. I'm ok with Trammell being in the outside looking in
The one thing I've learned about this thread is a lot of people want to lower the bar
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
Originally posted by: Justacommeman Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because Reese and Rizzuto are in doesnt mean Campy gets in even if close. Frankly Trammell should get in before Campy anyways. I'm ok with Trammell being in the outside looking in
The one thing I've learned about this thread is a lot of people want to lower the bar
mark
Just to be clear, I think Reese was a no-brainer HOFer, Rizzuto was borderline and that nobody else I've mentioned deserves to be in. I like Campy a lot, so it wouldn't bother me if he got in, but he obviously won't so that's easy to say. If I had to put one in, I'd pick Fregosi, but only if I had to.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: tlake22 Al Oliver. Not sure if he belongs or not, but should be considered. 2700 plus hits BA 303
Good/great and consistent hitter. Only had one season above .900 OPS hurts him. More walks would have really helped him.
He hit a lot of doubles, a few more home runs would have helped him as well, if those years with 11-12 homers would have been closer to 20, (plus a few more walks) he would be in.
Looks like he was an average fielder.?.?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Al Oliver. Not sure if he belongs or not, but should be considered. 2700 plus hits BA 303
Good/great and consistent hitter. Only had one season above .900 OPS hurts him. More walks would have really helped him.
He hit a lot of doubles, a few more home runs would have helped him as well, if those years with 11-12 homers would have been closer to 20, (plus a few more walks) he would be in.
Looks like he was an average fielder.?.?
Below average fielder with a weak arm. Although this isn't what keeps him out.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
Originally posted by: tlake22 Al Oliver. Not sure if he belongs or not, but should be considered. 2700 plus hits BA 303
I use to go watch him play in 1982 with Andre Dawson, Tim Raines, and Gary Carter. Oliver was the best hitter on the team. Hit 300 or better in 11 seasons and good RBI guy. A yes vote for him in the hall.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Al Oliver. Not sure if he belongs or not, but should be considered. 2700 plus hits BA 303
I use to go watch him play in 1982 with Andre Dawson, Tim Raines, and Gary Carter. Oliver was the best hitter on the team. Hit 300 or better in 11 seasons and good RBI guy. A yes vote for him in the hall.
He was a very nice player. He certainly deserved more then 4.0% HOF vote. Stats are similar to Garvey.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
A lot of pretty good years for Oliver but only one great one (1982). IMHO, that's not enough for the HOF.
He had several great years. Batted 320 or better 5 times, 7 time all-star, and won 3 silver sluggers.
Tabe was right. He had one GREAT season. The other seasons you speak of he had 11,12,12 and 14 home runs. He was a nice hitter, albeit nickel and dime. He played at positions you expect some pop. He had little
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
It takes 75% of BWA agreeing on Hall Induction. Using that perimeter only Raines would have a chance making it in based on the replies so far in this thread-----if we were the voters
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
Buddy Bell Bert Campaneris Jim Fregosi Graig Nettles Ozzie Smith
They all have more offensive WAR than Al Oliver, AND more offensive WAR than Ichiro (two threads with one stone) AND more offensive WAR than Jim Rice. All of these players were better than Oliver, Ichiro and Rice. All of these players either got into the HOF because of their defense, or have HOF arguments based primarily on their defense. None of them hit well enough to even be considered for the HOF on that basis alone, yet all of them contributed more on offense than Oliver, Ichiro and Rice.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: Tabe A lot of pretty good years for Oliver but only one great one (1982). IMHO, that's not enough for the HOF.
He had several great years. Batted 320 or better 5 times, 7 time all-star, and won 3 silver sluggers.
Tabe was right. He had one GREAT season. The other seasons you speak of he had 11,12,12 and 14 home runs. He was a nice hitter, albeit nickel and dime. He played at positions you expect some pop. He had little
mark
Willie McGee won a MVP hitting 10 home runs. Oliver was more of a contact hitter.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
A lot of pretty good years for Oliver but only one great one (1982). IMHO, that's not enough for the HOF.
He had several great years. Batted 320 or better 5 times, 7 time all-star, and won 3 silver sluggers.
Tabe was right. He had one GREAT season. The other seasons you speak of he had 11,12,12 and 14 home runs. He was a nice hitter, albeit nickel and dime. He played at positions you expect some pop. He had little
mark
Willie McGee won a MVP hitting 10 home runs. Oliver was more of a contact hitter.
Maybe they should put McGee in the HOF then
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
Whats everyones opinion on Dale Murphy? Hofer or no?
No.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
I know you guys don't like Murphy but can you tell me why he wasn't good enough? He has the home runs, MVP's, and Gold gloves. Man you guys are strict lol. I do expect the Veterans committee to eventually get him in.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Originally posted by: garnettstyle I know you guys don't like Murphy but can you tell me why he wasn't good enough? He has the home runs, MVP's, and Gold gloves. Man you guys are strict lol. I do expect the Veterans committee to eventually get him in.
If Murphy got in the HOF it wouldn't be an historic travesty, but he'd definitely be among the worst players there. His peak was very good, but most HOFers were better, and after his peak he declined rapidly. His career OPS+ is similar to a lot of second and third basemen and catchers in the HOF but well below most outfielders. He has two MVPs but he wasn't the best player in the league in either year (Schmidt was, both times) so they don't really mean that much. He played CF for awhile, but wasn't good enough, so got moved to right.
If you compare him to Tim Raines, season by season from best to worst, Raines wins every single year. Compare him to Andre Dawson and Murphy wins the first several years and then loses the rest. He matches up fairly evenly with Jim Rice. The primary reason why players like Andre Dawson and Jim Rice shouldn't have gotten in the HOF is because it just opens the door wider for other players, like Murphy, who shouldn't get in the HOF. Pick a player who is in the HOF and deserves to be and that player was better than Dale Murphy. Murphy was a very good baseball player, he was not a great baseball player.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
We have a few posters who only know what they read on the back of old baseball cards
mark
I'd rather be one of those than a Dallasactuary groupie, who seem to be plentiful on this board.
When Dallas and you say a .248 hitter should be in the Hall of Fame, someone
should stand up and tell you you're full of crap.
Its not the Hall of Bases on Balls,
its the Hall of Fame. I know its getting kind of diluted with Bill Mazeroski and the
like, but its supposed to be the best of the best.
A .248 hitter, no matter how many times he walks, is not the best of the best.
We have a few posters who only know what they read on the back of old baseball cards
mark
I'd rather be one of those than a Dallasactuary groupie, who seem to be plentiful on this board.
When Dallas and you say a .248 hitter should be in the Hall of Fame, someone
should stand up and tell you you're full of crap.
Its not the Hall of Bases on Balls,
its the Hall of Fame. I know its getting kind of diluted with Bill Mazeroski and the
like, but its supposed to be the best of the best.
A .248 hitter, no matter how many times he walks, is not the best of the best.
I don't always agree with Dallas but I sure would rather be in a canoe with him then on the USS Simpleton with you and garnettstyle.
I guess Evans 400+ home runs doesn't count.
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......
HOLDS NATIONAL LEAGUE RECORD FOR CONSECUTIVE
GAMES PLAYED (1,201). VOTED THE 1974 NL MVP
AND SELECTED TO THE ALL-STAR GAME 10 TIMES.
HAD AS MANY AS 200 HITS IN A SEASON SIX TIMES AND
MORE THAN 100 RBIS IN FIVE SEASONS. BATTED .338
IN 11 POSTSEASON SERIES AND .417 IN THE 1981
WORLD SERIES, WHEN HIS DODGERS BEAT THE YANKEES
IN SIX GAMES. A FOUR-TIME GOLD GLOVE WINNER, HE
ONCE HELD THE RECORD FOR MOST CONSECUTIVE GAMES
AT 1B WITHOUT AN ERROR (193).
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Ps let your first mate Darin know that I clearly stated that I would be perfectly happy if not a single player mentioned in this thread never made the HOF.
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......
A .248 hitter, no matter how many times he walks, is not the best of the best.
Bil Mazeroski was the best of the best; he was the best second baseman to ever play the game. You apparently disagree that being the best at playing second base is worthy of a spot in the HOF, but you should argue that point, not deny that Mazeroski was the best of the best.
Since you seem to have been blessed with the knowledge of where the HOF batting average line is, perhaps you can tell us exactly where it is. There's a no-brainer HOFer at .256, so if Evans had traded 500 of his walks for 200 singles and 300 strikeouts would that mean it would no longer be BS to think he was a HOFer? Sure, his teams would have suffered and he wouldn't have been as valuable, but if it got him to .256 and into the HOF maybe he should have taken your advice and done that. See, I'm at a disadvantage since I just have facts to back up my arguments and you apparently receive divine truth from above, so any background you can give me on why .248 is not HOF-worthy but .256 is would be appreciated.
.256 with around 573 HR is good to go.
.248 with 414 HR is not.
Mazeroski is not HOF material. If I thought so, I would be arguing Frank White should be in the Hall of Fame.
The Royals are my favorite team, and at no time did I think I was watching a HOF'er playing.
Just didn't contribute enough offensively, same as Maz.
He was a fine player. Just not hall worthy. It's not that complicated.
Ps let your first mate Darin know that I clearly stated that I would be perfectly happy if not a single player mentioned in this thread never made the HOF.
mark
I would be perfectly happy if every player mentioned in this thread made the hall, because it would not tarnish the hall at all. And it would be great for all the fans. If the hall added another 15-20 players it would not put a dent in the percentage of all the people who ever played in the majors.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
He was a fine player. Just not hall worthy. It's not that complicated.
Ps let your first mate Darin know that I clearly stated that I would be perfectly happy if not a single player mentioned in this thread never made the HOF.
mark
I would be perfectly happy if every player mentioned in this thread made the hall, because it would not tarnish the hall at all. And it would be great for all the fans. If the hall added another 15-20 players it would not put a dent in the percentage of all the people who ever played in the majors.
if you want to make it pedestrian you are on your way.
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......
Glad to help you out Dallas.
.256 with around 573 HR is good to go.
.248 with 414 HR is not.
Mazeroski is not HOF material. If I thought so, I would be arguing Frank White should be in the Hall of Fame.
The Royals are my favorite team, and at no time did I think I was watching a HOF'er playing.
Just didn't contribute enough offensively, same as Maz.
I'm confused. Earlier you said that a .248 average all by itself meant that a player was not only not a HOFer, but that it was BS to even think he was. Now, though, you're saying that batting average all by itself isn't enough information to go by, and you have to look beyond that at more of a player's career before you can make that call.
So, now we know that .256 with 573 HR is good, but .248 with 414 HR isn't. But what if .256 with 573 HR puts a player near the top of the HOF, as I think it does. Is it possible that .248 with 414 HR could put a player near the bottom, but still in? What if both player's were third basemen, and Mr. 256 was a crappy third baseman and Mr. 248 was an outstanding third baseman? Is it BS to consider that? Does that narrow the difference?
If you don't agree that Evans belongs in the HOF, that's fine with me. But decide it based on all of the evidence after you've considered all of the evidence. When you start off with "all he does is walk" when you're talking about a 400+ HR All-Star third baseman, it's pretty clear that you haven't done that.
A .248 hitter, no matter how many times he walks, is not the best of the best.
Bil Mazeroski was the best of the best; he was the best second baseman to ever play the game. You apparently disagree that being the best at playing second base is worthy of a spot in the HOF, but you should argue that point, not deny that Mazeroski was the best of the best.
Did you mean best defensive second baseman?
Yes, definitely. I've had this debate before about Mazeroski, and while I think he deserved a spot in the HOF I certainly understand why others disagree. There are others in the HOF primarily for their defense, although most or all of them were better at the plate than Mazeroski. To me, the HOF comes down to one thing - is what this player did over the course of his career worthy of honoring? I think the closest analogy to Mazeroski is Roger Maris. I actually come down on the side that would not put Maris in the HOF, but I understand why others would like him in; what he did in 1961 was pretty amazing, had never been done before and has never been done since without cheating. And the record he set is one of if not the most recognizable records one can set in baseball. What Mazeroski did wasn't as visible, but he did it over the course of a long career. The greatest defensive third baseman is in the HOF and the greatest defensive shortstop is in the HOF, and I think it's appropriate that the greatest defensive second baseman be there, too. Mazeroski is clearly the very worst hitter in the HOF, but since his hitting has nothing to do with why I think he deserves to be there, he could have been an even worse hitter and I'd still think he deserved it.
There are a fair number of players in the HOF who got there for truly frivolous reasons - Tinker, Evers, and Chance because some guy wrote a poem about them, for example - and I hate that. I don't think being the greatest defensive second baseman is frivolous, the question is just whether it's significant enough to merit a spot in the HOF.
Garvey was a high profile good but not great player on a team of good players.
He had a great career, no question, but not a HOF career.
As for my list- Outside of the obvious (Rose and Joe Jackson) I think Maris is very deserving and can see good arguments for Ted Simmons and Gene Tenace. I can think of a couple others but that's my short list for now. Edit to add I lean pro-Mazeroski also.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Simmons - A yes vote from me. Has good HOF numbers for a catcher with close to 2500 hits and almost 1400 RBI.
Maris - No. Had some great yrs with the Yankees but did not have a HOF career.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Talk about a high quality, dependable player.
He was well known for his rocket arm in right field, but he amassed some fairly impressive offensive numbers also.
Edited to add: I just got a surprise. Dwight Evans has a negative number
for defensive WAR, -4.6.
Anyone- How did that happen? I thought he was known as a great
right fielder.
I like Dwight Evans for the Hall before Darrell Evans.
Talk about a high quality, dependable player.
He was well known for his rocket arm in right field, but he amassed some fairly impressive offensive numbers also.
Edited to add: I just got a surprise. Dwight Evans has a negative number
for defensive WAR, -4.6.
Anyone- How did that happen? I thought he was known as a great
right fielder.
There COULDN'T be a problem with defensive WAR could there?
Fielding % is above league average.
Gold Gloves are not always the best way to measure defensive ability, but when a player wins several, I thing it's safe to say he's above average. Eight gold gloves?
There was a debate about Kirby Pucketts defensive numbers a while back. Kirby was a GREAT outfielder and any stat that says differently needs to be overhauled!
I like Dwight Evans for the Hall before Darrell Evans.
Talk about a high quality, dependable player.
He was well known for his rocket arm in right field, but he amassed some fairly impressive offensive numbers also.
Edited to add: I just got a surprise. Dwight Evans has a negative number
for defensive WAR, -4.6.
Anyone- How did that happen? I thought he was known as a great
right fielder.
Perhaps people were just enamored with his arm?
Maybe six, but with eight he HAS to have been pretty good! LOL
Take a look at the careers of Phil Rizzuto and Pee Wee Reese, then look at the career of Bert Campaneris. He was better than either of those two. I remember in the early 80's when there was an campaign organized to get Reese into the Hall, and it worked. I think I need to organize a group of Bay Area folks who remember and start a similar campaign to get Campy in.
I think Campy was a great player, and it wouldn't bother me at all if he got in the HOF, but he simply was not as good as Pee Wee Reese; I won't even bother going into it. Whether or not he was better than Rizzuto is a more interesting question. Rizzuto had one season better than any Campaneris ever had, but they're pretty even after that for close to a decade, and then Campaneris played 3-4 seasons at a productive level beyond that. But, Rizzuto missed three seasons to WWII (so did Reese), and if he had played as well in those seasons as he did in the seasons before and after those seasons his career would have been as long as Campy's, and the meat of his career would have been clearly better.
Based solely on the games they actually played, Rizzuto and Campaneris are about as equal as they could be. If we don't penalize Rizzuto for taking a break to defend truth, justice and the American way, though, he was better.
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......
Anyone- How did that happen? I thought he was known as a great right fielder.
If there is an exception to this rule, I'm not aware of it: if a player is in the outfield, and he's "great" at playing there, then he plays in center field. Which is to say, being "great" at right or left field is like being a "great" utility infielder. The player's who are the best at chasing down fly balls, at cutting off hard hit balls in the gaps or at throwing the ball accurately for a great distance are all in center; right and left field are manned by the leftovers. Roberto Clemente is the right fielder most often cited as "great"; well, he was "great" at playing right field, but Bill Virdon was the best outfielder the Pirates had, and he was in center.
That said, within the context of right fielders, Evans appears to have been one of the better ones. Defensive WAR is crap, so don't bother with it. The other problem with trying to figure out which right fielders were better than others is that it makes so little difference whether their right fielder is "great" or just average that there aren't any stats that can reliably split that fine a difference. If a player is downright terrible - like Danny Tartabull - then WAR and every other stat will capture it just fine, but that's pretty much all right field demands - just don't be terrible. I can say pretty confidently that Evans wasn't terrible in right field, for what that's worth.
A larger point, in the context of a HOF discussion, is that anybody who isn't a HOFer by virtue of their hitting is not going to become one by playing right or left field well. I think playing LF in Fenway might be an exception in that there is real value to be had in getting someone to play well there, but Yaz (who played very well there) didn't need any points for his fielding to get in the Hall, so that's never really been tested.
Campaneris was better than Reese and Rizzuto because he played against better players. The level of athleticism and talent was greater in post-integration MLB. Reese and Rizzuto played in an era when integration was in its nascent stages. I've seen footage from World Series games played in the early 1950's. A ball hit in the hole between third and short was inevitably a hit, because players didn't have the ability to prevent those balls from becoming hits. I saw Campy play for his entire career, and the A's won three titles in large part because of what he contributed to the team.
Well, since that's an opinion it can't be wrong, but it would be more convincing if you could back it up with more than footage you've seen that covers .000000001% of the balls hit between second and third.
But yes, the quality of play in the 1970's was better than the quality of play in the (integrated) 1950's, and it's proper to take that into account. And in a comparison between Campy and Rizzuto it might even be decisive. But Reese was just too much better than Campaneris for that to close the gap.
Bill James does adjust for quality of play by decade in his rankings. His adjustment, like anyone else's adjustment, is a guess, but I trust his guesses to be at least in the right ballpark. He's got Reese 10th, Rizzuto 16th and Campaneris 25th. James is explicitly giving Reese and Rizzuto credit for what they likely would have done had they played in 1942-1944 instead of being in the military, and if you disagree that this is the fair way to treat those years then, as I said, you can get Campaneris up to Rizzuto, and maybe past him. But you can't get him up to Reese.
You also can't get him up to Jim Fregosi, and Fregosi removes the era adjustment question and the military service question. If I was tasked with adding a SS to the HOF I wouldn't hesitate to add Fregosi, who was clearly and easily the best SS of the era we're talking about. I saw Campaneris play a lot more than I saw Fregosi because Campy was on a good team that they showed on TV more, and made the playoffs more, so I have a lot more fondness for Campaneris, but he was no Fregosi.
I do believe him on this one. In related news, I also believe that water is wet, and that your knowledge of baseball is severely lacking.
The one thing I've learned about this thread is a lot of people want to lower the bar
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......
I do believe him on this one. In related news, I also believe that water is wet, and that your knowledge of baseball is severely lacking.
At least I have original ideas. When Bill James breaks wind, you and your ilk think a heat wave is upon you.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because Reese and Rizzuto are in doesnt mean Campy gets in even if close. Frankly Trammell should get in before Campy anyways. I'm ok with Trammell being in the outside looking in
The one thing I've learned about this thread is a lot of people want to lower the bar
mark
Just to be clear, I think Reese was a no-brainer HOFer, Rizzuto was borderline and that nobody else I've mentioned deserves to be in. I like Campy a lot, so it wouldn't bother me if he got in, but he obviously won't so that's easy to say. If I had to put one in, I'd pick Fregosi, but only if I had to.
You know what's sadder than a man who constantly embarrasses himself? When that man doesn't even realize that he's embarrassing himself.
Al Oliver. Not sure if he belongs or not, but should be considered. 2700 plus hits BA 303
Good/great and consistent hitter. Only had one season above .900 OPS hurts him. More walks would have really helped him.
He hit a lot of doubles, a few more home runs would have helped him as well, if those years with 11-12 homers would have been closer to 20, (plus a few more walks) he would be in.
Looks like he was an average fielder.?.?
Al Oliver. Not sure if he belongs or not, but should be considered. 2700 plus hits BA 303
Good/great and consistent hitter. Only had one season above .900 OPS hurts him. More walks would have really helped him.
He hit a lot of doubles, a few more home runs would have helped him as well, if those years with 11-12 homers would have been closer to 20, (plus a few more walks) he would be in.
Looks like he was an average fielder.?.?
Below average fielder with a weak arm. Although this isn't what keeps him out.
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......
Al Oliver. Not sure if he belongs or not, but should be considered. 2700 plus hits BA 303
I use to go watch him play in 1982 with Andre Dawson, Tim Raines, and Gary Carter. Oliver was the best hitter on the team. Hit 300 or better in 11 seasons and good RBI guy. A yes vote for him in the hall.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Al Oliver. Not sure if he belongs or not, but should be considered. 2700 plus hits BA 303
I use to go watch him play in 1982 with Andre Dawson, Tim Raines, and Gary Carter. Oliver was the best hitter on the team. Hit 300 or better in 11 seasons and good RBI guy. A yes vote for him in the hall.
He was a very nice player. He certainly deserved more then 4.0% HOF vote. Stats are similar to Garvey.
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......
A lot of pretty good years for Oliver but only one great one (1982). IMHO, that's not enough for the HOF.
He had several great years. Batted 320 or better 5 times, 7 time all-star, and won 3 silver sluggers.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
A lot of pretty good years for Oliver but only one great one (1982). IMHO, that's not enough for the HOF.
He had several great years. Batted 320 or better 5 times, 7 time all-star, and won 3 silver sluggers.
Tabe was right. He had one GREAT season. The other seasons you speak of he had 11,12,12 and 14 home runs. He was a nice hitter, albeit nickel and dime. He played at positions you expect some pop. He had little
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......
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......
Buddy Bell
Bert Campaneris
Jim Fregosi
Graig Nettles
Ozzie Smith
They all have more offensive WAR than Al Oliver, AND more offensive WAR than Ichiro (two threads with one stone) AND more offensive WAR than Jim Rice. All of these players were better than Oliver, Ichiro and Rice. All of these players either got into the HOF because of their defense, or have HOF arguments based primarily on their defense. None of them hit well enough to even be considered for the HOF on that basis alone, yet all of them contributed more on offense than Oliver, Ichiro and Rice.
A lot of pretty good years for Oliver but only one great one (1982). IMHO, that's not enough for the HOF.
He had several great years. Batted 320 or better 5 times, 7 time all-star, and won 3 silver sluggers.
Tabe was right. He had one GREAT season. The other seasons you speak of he had 11,12,12 and 14 home runs. He was a nice hitter, albeit nickel and dime. He played at positions you expect some pop. He had little
mark
Willie McGee won a MVP hitting 10 home runs. Oliver was more of a contact hitter.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
A lot of pretty good years for Oliver but only one great one (1982). IMHO, that's not enough for the HOF.
He had several great years. Batted 320 or better 5 times, 7 time all-star, and won 3 silver sluggers.
Tabe was right. He had one GREAT season. The other seasons you speak of he had 11,12,12 and 14 home runs. He was a nice hitter, albeit nickel and dime. He played at positions you expect some pop. He had little
mark
Willie McGee won a MVP hitting 10 home runs. Oliver was more of a contact hitter.
Maybe they should put McGee in the HOF then
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......
Whats everyones opinion on Dale Murphy? Hofer or no?
No.
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......
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
I know you guys don't like Murphy but can you tell me why he wasn't good enough? He has the home runs, MVP's, and Gold gloves. Man you guys are strict lol. I do expect the Veterans committee to eventually get him in.
If Murphy got in the HOF it wouldn't be an historic travesty, but he'd definitely be among the worst players there. His peak was very good, but most HOFers were better, and after his peak he declined rapidly. His career OPS+ is similar to a lot of second and third basemen and catchers in the HOF but well below most outfielders. He has two MVPs but he wasn't the best player in the league in either year (Schmidt was, both times) so they don't really mean that much. He played CF for awhile, but wasn't good enough, so got moved to right.
If you compare him to Tim Raines, season by season from best to worst, Raines wins every single year. Compare him to Andre Dawson and Murphy wins the first several years and then loses the rest. He matches up fairly evenly with Jim Rice. The primary reason why players like Andre Dawson and Jim Rice shouldn't have gotten in the HOF is because it just opens the door wider for other players, like Murphy, who shouldn't get in the HOF. Pick a player who is in the HOF and deserves to be and that player was better than Dale Murphy. Murphy was a very good baseball player, he was not a great baseball player.