I'm not saying he should be but what about Ken Boyer? 7 time All-Star, 5 Gold Gloves, an MVP award, and a World Series title. He also lost 2 years to war at the start of his career. Just curious.
And as a side note, as I was doing a quick stat check on Mr. Boyer I noticed that he was born in Liberty, MO, a fact that I was not aware of even thought I've lived here for 8+ years. LOL
Chris My small collection Want List: '61 Topps Roy Campanella in PSA 5-7 Cardinal T206 cards Adam Wainwright GU Jersey
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
#LetsGoSwitzerlandThe Man Who Does Not Read Has No Advantage Over the Man Who Cannot Read. The biggest obstacle to progress is a habit of “buying what we want and begging for what we need.”You get the Freedom you fight for and get the Oppression you deserve.
<< <i>As I stated earlier, I truely feel all players in the HOF should be there, and I think there are a few, not many, but a few that should still be elected by the Veterans Commitee, but one that deffinately should not be is Roger Maris. With the exception of one great year, he was very average. The year before and the year after he hit 33 & 39 homeruns, never to hit in the 30's again. Those were the only 3 years he had 100 RBI's, never even being close again. He only played 12 years, had a lifetime average of .260 & never hit over .284 in a season! Roger Maris is very famous for his 1961 season, as he should be. But one season does not place a player in the HOF! I beleive he was probably a very good person, and I like Maris, even though he was a Yankee, but deffinately not a HOF'er. IMO
I respect your opinion although I highly disagree with it. You wrote "with the exception of one great year" - The man was also MVP in 1960. That was a great year. In 61, he had an AMAZING year. He hit more homeruns than Cal Ripken - why is he not exceptional? 2 Things - Cal wasn't overshadowed by Mickey Mantle and because Ripken played shortstop and Maris played outfield. Unfortunately if someone plays outfield, there only way to the HOF is by hitting homeruns. Nothing else matters. So its obvious the standards are set different depending on the position you play. Not only that but he also had 3 World Series Titles which doesnt hurt while Ripken doesn't own a single one. By no means - do not get confused either - I AM NOT saying Ripken doesn't belong but lets be real here - the HOF is simply a popularity contest. Roger should be in.
Maris's 1961 year alone simply should have gotten him in.
*Edit - I love Ripken but only reason he was brought up was because of his home runs which he never did more than 30 either except for one year (1991)
Edit again - I was just corrected. He does have one - 1983. >>
The subject of who should & who should not be in the HOF will be debated for eternity. I also respect you opinion in the matter, even though it's wrong! (just kidding)
For you to say that Maris should have gotten in the HOF for that 1961 season alone tells me we are on a different page. IMO, and also the opinion of the Baseball Writers Assoc. of America & the Veterans Commitee, is that a single season or single feat does not qualify a player for the Hall. No player has ever been elected based on that. If they did, players such as Maury Wills (104 SB in 1 season), Don Larson (perfect game in WS), Kirk Gibson (famous WS HR) and Bobby Thompson ( shot heard around the world) would be HOFers, but they are not!
To further supply my case, take a look at Maris's HOF voting totals: In 1974, his first year of eligibilty he received 78 votes or 21.4% 1975 70 votes 19.3% 1976 87 votes 22.4% From 1977 to 1987 he ranged between 72 votes and 177 votes which is between 18.8% and 42.6% In his last year surge, 1988 184 votes 43.1% Those numbers are no where near the 75% needed to be elected. Now that's not my opinion, that's a fact.
I am not taking away from what Roger did in 1961. Your right, it was an amazing year and under an awful lot of negitive pressure. Even many Yankee fans wanted Mantle to break Ruth's record, not Maris. As far as Cal Ripken Jr, there is no comparrison to Maris. Ripken was a 19 time All Star, 2 MVP's, 431 HR's, and of course, holder of the most consecutive games played. The voters give a lot of credit to longevity at a high level.
We should put Microsoft Excel into the Hall, since its the spreadsheet jockeys that do all of the HOF talking these days. This has been hashed out OVER and OVER again already, but the "FAME" in HOF has little to do with stats at all. Baseball doesn't exist because of WAR or the cube root of someone's RBIs with RISP. Baseball exists because of and for the fans. Period. If fans come to the ballpark for a decade to see a specific player play, that athlete has contributed much more to game, even if has a career .230 average with no major awards to speak of.
I always laugh when people suggest that Tim Raines belongs in the Hall. During his "heyday" if he ever had one, was a period when I attended many games and followed baseball on a daily basis. I can assure you that very few, if any, fans ever bought a ticket because they wanted to see Tim Raines play. He was considered a slightly above average player in his day and no one gave a sh*t about him. To even suggest that he belongs in the Hall of FAME is ridiculous. The name that I've given before for where people like that belong is the Hall of Statistical Achievement....again its the place that the spreadsheet jockeys want to substitute for the HOF.
<< <i>We should put Microsoft Excel into the Hall, since its the spreadsheet jockeys that do all of the HOF talking these days. This has been hashed out OVER and OVER again already, but the "FAME" in HOF has little to do with stats at all. Baseball doesn't exist because of WAR or the cube root of someone's RBIs with RISP. Baseball exists because of and for the fans. Period. If fans come to the ballpark for a decade to see a specific player play, that athlete has contributed much more to game, even if has a career .230 average with no major awards to speak of.
I always laugh when people suggest that Tim Raines belongs in the Hall. During his "heyday" if he ever had one, was a period when I attended many games and followed baseball on a daily basis. I can assure you that very few, if any, fans ever bought a ticket because they wanted to see Tim Raines play. He was considered a slightly above average player in his day and no one gave a sh*t about him. To even suggest that he belongs in the Hall of FAME is ridiculous. The name that I've given before for where people like that belong is the Hall of Statistical Achievement....again its the place that the spreadsheet jockeys want to substitute for the HOF. >>
but Peter Gammons says...
But seriously Tim Raines did have his years. The first individual card I ever purchased was a 1981 Topps Raines RC. Followed shortly by 86 Topps Vince Coleman. Viva la stolen base!
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
<< <i>We should put Microsoft Excel into the Hall, since its the spreadsheet jockeys that do all of the HOF talking these days. This has been hashed out OVER and OVER again already, but the "FAME" in HOF has little to do with stats at all. Baseball doesn't exist because of WAR or the cube root of someone's RBIs with RISP. Baseball exists because of and for the fans. Period. If fans come to the ballpark for a decade to see a specific player play, that athlete has contributed much more to game, even if has a career .230 average with no major awards to speak of.
I always laugh when people suggest that Tim Raines belongs in the Hall. During his "heyday" if he ever had one, was a period when I attended many games and followed baseball on a daily basis. I can assure you that very few, if any, fans ever bought a ticket because they wanted to see Tim Raines play. He was considered a slightly above average player in his day and no one gave a sh*t about him. To even suggest that he belongs in the Hall of FAME is ridiculous. The name that I've given before for where people like that belong is the Hall of Statistical Achievement....again its the place that the spreadsheet jockeys want to substitute for the HOF. >>
There is a lot of credence to this. AJ Pierzinski is a very good - sometimes excellent - baseball player. Above all that he is a winner. Meaning he will do whatever it takes. Reminds of Shayne Corson in the NHL. Whatever it takes. He has been a pleasure to watch these past 7 years and he stands next to Mark Grace as my favorite player of all time.
And he will not get the HOF. With a 10% vig I would take bets on either side of 1.8% of the vote. But if they had a "Pint sized tough guy with a heart of gold" category to get into the hall, I would put AJ up there. And I know a lot of folks detest him, but we love him here.
Any AJs or Lenny Dykstras out there with a real shot at the HOF? I can't think of anyone in who I would point to with lesser numbers but greater heart who made it in.
I look forward to discussing the Mark Buehrle case in 6 years.
<< <i>We should put Microsoft Excel into the Hall, since its the spreadsheet jockeys that do all of the HOF talking these days. This has been hashed out OVER and OVER again already, but the "FAME" in HOF has little to do with stats at all. Baseball doesn't exist because of WAR or the cube root of someone's RBIs with RISP. Baseball exists because of and for the fans. Period. If fans come to the ballpark for a decade to see a specific player play, that athlete has contributed much more to game, even if has a career .230 average with no major awards to speak of.
I always laugh when people suggest that Tim Raines belongs in the Hall. During his "heyday" if he ever had one, was a period when I attended many games and followed baseball on a daily basis. I can assure you that very few, if any, fans ever bought a ticket because they wanted to see Tim Raines play. He was considered a slightly above average player in his day and no one gave a sh*t about him. To even suggest that he belongs in the Hall of FAME is ridiculous. The name that I've given before for where people like that belong is the Hall of Statistical Achievement....again its the place that the spreadsheet jockeys want to substitute for the HOF. >>
Well, playing where he did didn't help. I think the stats help offset biases or the difference in notoriety players receive due to the market they play in. Raines was an amazing player. There may be others more deserving, but to blanketly state he doesn't deserve it because people were not excited to see him play is silly. He was considered average in a time when walks weren't valued like they are now by the casual fan, where home runs were the only extra base hit that mattered, and rbi were an indicator of how good of a power hitter you were.
Looking for rare Randy Moss rookies and autos, as well as '97 PMG Red Football cards for my set.
"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."
Really? I think you're in the minority of minorities by attaching that word to Tim Raines.
<< <i> He was considered average in a time when walks weren't valued like they are now by the casual fan, >>
I see your point, however the "casual fan" is the reason the game is played. This isn't NASA, its baseball. Its OK to keep it simple. Its a game enjoyed by fat guys who like hotdogs and beer. If they don't appreciate walks, then why should an excel spreadsheet's opinion matter more? I really wish the elitist statisticians would go away and find another sport to discuss/analyze.
No love for The Crime Dog? Seven more Home Runs and he'd be in and no one would question it. And remember, he played the bulk of his career with some very weak teams (Toronto, San Diego, Tampa Bay).
But back to Maris...there is only one reason he's not in The Hall, and it's the same reason the commissioner wanted to put an asterisk by his HR record - reverence for Babe Ruth. In A LOT of people's minds back then, Maris breaking Ruth's record was a very serious insult to The Babe's legacy. I know that sounds silly to us now, but that's really the way people felt. And those old school H.O.F. voters back in the 70's were clouded my the same sentiment IMHO.
Take a look at the man's whole career, not just the famous 1961 season. He was one of the best right fielders in the game, as evidenced by his 7 All Star Game appearances. Dude won TWO MVPs, won a Gold Glove, and was a clutch performer going to The World Series 7 times! He also likely would have won the '58 Rookie of the Year if he hadn't injured his ribs late in the season. Go back and look at those stats, he was much more than 1961.
<< <i>He was considered a slightly above average player in his day and no one gave a sh*t about him. >>
If we were wrong about him why is it a bad thing to correct our errors? Tim Raines did a lot of great stuff on the field. Just because people ignored it when it was happening does not change how good it really was
<< <i>He was considered a slightly above average player in his day and no one gave a sh*t about him. >>
If we were wrong about him why is it a bad thing to correct our errors? Tim Raines did a lot of great stuff on the field. Just because people ignored it when it was happening does not change how good it really was >>
I realize my point of view is not widely held (on these boards), I'm just trying to promote some counterbalance. I agree with you that there is value in a player's stats, regardless of whether or not fans appreciate those stats (Walks-driven OBP stats, in the Tim Raines example). I just think that some people place way too much emphasis on said stats.
Raines, without question. I try not to get caught up in sabermetrics, but in his case I think it's apropos. For the role he was asked to play, two applicable stats quantify his greatness. First, his career OBP (.385) is almost identical to that of Gwynn's. There's some perspective. And never mind the fact he's 5th in steals all-time; his efficiency is what sticks out in my mind. Whenever he made a conscious decision to turn an appearance on first to one on second, he did so almost 85% of the time throughout his career. Reaching base and wreaking havoc was his primary objective, and reaching base and wreaking havoc is what he did -- better than any player from my generation aside from Mr. Third Person.
And if that's not good enough for the naysayers, he accomplished these feats while preserving the coke in his hip pocket by sliding head first.
<< <i>Not a player... BUT.. he needs to be in the hall of fame. Greatest owner a fan could ask for!
>>
Would "Mr. May" agree?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I always say Garvey every time this thread comes up. Consistent stats that were high achieving for his time, hit for power/hits/HR/RBIs, great defense, clutch in post season, mvp and was the boyhood idol of most of us growing up in LA in the 70's. I really think 1 or 2 more high achieving seasons and 1 or 2 less paternity suits and he'd be in!
IMO, and also the opinion of the Baseball Writers Assoc. of America & the Veterans Commitee, is that a single season or single feat does not qualify a player for the Hall. No player has ever been elected based on that. >>
Are you sure?
Bill Mazeroski - .260 avg, .299 OBP, 853 RBI, 138 HR, .983% Fielding, 0 MVP (finished 8th once) - Hall of Fame member (never got more than 42.3% of the vote)
Roger Maris - .260 avg, .345 OBP, 850 RBI, 275 HR, .982% Fielding, 2x MVP - Non Hall of Fame member (never got more than 43.1% of the vote)
So that WS winning HR in '60 had nothing to do with Maz getting in?
Thurman Munson should be in. If you're going to vote in Sandy Koufax for having a career cut short by injury but being dominant while he played then Munson should be voted in for the same reason. Koufax had 12 years in the majors while Munson had 11 and Munson was just as important to his team as Koufax was to his, arguably more so (Reggie Jackson's opinion aside).
Don Mattingly, Yogi Berra, Thurman Munson, Brian McCann and Topps Rookie Cup autograph collector www.questfortherookiecup.com
<< <i>So that WS winning HR in '60 had nothing to do with Maz getting in? >>
*dingdingding* We have a winner! >>
*dingdingdud* No winner!
You are comparing apples to oranges! You need to compare outfielders to outfielders, not secondbasemen. You are also leaving out some key ingredients such as:
Mazeroski was a 10 time All Star and won 8 Gold Gloves including holding the record for most DP's by a 2B. In the late 50's and thru out the 1960's, Mazeroski was known as the best defensive 2B in the game for abour 12 years, not 2 years. Even though he wasn't really known for his bat, he did lead all middle infielders in RBI's from 1957 to 1968.
So, at his position, he was one of the best for about 12 years, unlike Maris. He actually hit 2 HR's in that 1960 WS, and yes, the second was all most like a shot heard around the world.
If the Baseball Writers Assoc. of America could rank all HOFers, Bill Mazeroski would probably be down near the bottom, but somebody has to be near the bottom and that doesn't make them "not a HOFer". And all though Mazeroski is very famous for his 1960 WS ending HR, that is not the only reason he is in the HOF!!!!!
<< <i>So that WS winning HR in '60 had nothing to do with Maz getting in? >>
*dingdingding* We have a winner! >>
*dingdingdud* No winner!
You are comparing apples to oranges! You need to compare outfielders to outfielders, not secondbasemen. You are also leaving out some key ingredients such as:
Mazeroski was a 10 time All Star and won 8 Gold Gloves including holding the record for most DP's by a 2B. In the late 50's and thru out the 1960's, Mazeroski was known as the best defensive 2B in the game for abour 12 years, not 2 years. Even though he wasn't really known for his bat, he did lead all middle infielders in RBI's from 1957 to 1968.
So, at his position, he was one of the best for about 12 years, unlike Maris. He actually hit 2 HR's in that 1960 WS, and yes, the second was all most like a shot heard around the world.
If the Baseball Writers Assoc. of America could rank all HOFers, Bill Mazeroski would probably be down near the bottom, but somebody has to be near the bottom and that doesn't make them "not a HOFer". And all though Mazeroski is very famous for his 1960 WS ending HR, that is not the only reason he is in the HOF!!!!! >>
Maz is sort of Ozzie Smith without the back flip. Both should be in the Hall due to being pretty stellar players at the middle infield positions. Ozzie ranks ahead because he back flipped. You can't deny the lure of the flip.
<< <i>So that WS winning HR in '60 had nothing to do with Maz getting in? >>
*dingdingding* We have a winner! >>
*dingdingdud* No winner!
You are comparing apples to oranges! You need to compare outfielders to outfielders, not secondbasemen. You are also leaving out some key ingredients such as:
Mazeroski was a 10 time All Star and won 8 Gold Gloves including holding the record for most DP's by a 2B. In the late 50's and thru out the 1960's, Mazeroski was known as the best defensive 2B in the game for abour 12 years, not 2 years. Even though he wasn't really known for his bat, he did lead all middle infielders in RBI's from 1957 to 1968.
So, at his position, he was one of the best for about 12 years, unlike Maris. He actually hit 2 HR's in that 1960 WS, and yes, the second was all most like a shot heard around the world.
If the Baseball Writers Assoc. of America could rank all HOFers, Bill Mazeroski would probably be down near the bottom, but somebody has to be near the bottom and that doesn't make them "not a HOFer". And all though Mazeroski is very famous for his 1960 WS ending HR, that is not the only reason he is in the HOF!!!!! >>
Just so you know, I'm not saying Maz shouldn't be in the HOF. I'm just saying Maris should be too.
<< <i>Thurman Munson should be in. If you're going to vote in Sandy Koufax for having a career cut short by injury but being dominant while he played then Munson should be voted in for the same reason. Koufax had 12 years in the majors while Munson had 11 and Munson was just as important to his team as Koufax was to his, arguably more so (Reggie Jackson's opinion aside). >>
Koufax dominated the game. Munson did not. IMO, Koufax was far more important to his team than was Munson. Thurman had begun to decline. How many catchers were stars into their 30s? Not many.
IMO, and also the opinion of the Baseball Writers Assoc. of America & the Veterans Commitee, is that a single season or single feat does not qualify a player for the Hall. No player has ever been elected based on that. >>
Are you sure?
Bill Mazeroski - .260 avg, .299 OBP, 853 RBI, 138 HR, .983% Fielding, 0 MVP (finished 8th once) - Hall of Fame member (never got more than 42.3% of the vote)
Roger Maris - .260 avg, .345 OBP, 850 RBI, 275 HR, .982% Fielding, 2x MVP - Non Hall of Fame member (never got more than 43.1% of the vote)
So that WS winning HR in '60 had nothing to do with Maz getting in? >>
Cherry picking is no way to make an argument. Max was an elite defender at a far more demanding position. He is in despite of his offense, not because of it. See Ozzie.
I would not vote for Maz either, but the above argument is ludicrous.
<< <i>Thurman Munson should be in. If you're going to vote in Sandy Koufax for having a career cut short by injury but being dominant while he played then Munson should be voted in for the same reason. Koufax had 12 years in the majors while Munson had 11 and Munson was just as important to his team as Koufax was to his, arguably more so (Reggie Jackson's opinion aside). >>
Koufax dominated the game. Munson did not. IMO, Koufax was far more important to his team than was Munson. Thurman had begun to decline. How many catchers were stars into their 30s? Not many. >>
I really can not beleive somebody can say Munson should be in over Koufax and keep a straight face!!!!! I think Yankeesman was just trying to bait me and I wasn't going to respond, but I just can't help it!!!! Mark said all I need to say!
<< <i>Thurman Munson should be in. If you're going to vote in Sandy Koufax for having a career cut short by injury but being dominant while he played then Munson should be voted in for the same reason. Koufax had 12 years in the majors while Munson had 11 and Munson was just as important to his team as Koufax was to his, arguably more so (Reggie Jackson's opinion aside). >>
You're kidding, right? Koufax had a 5-year run where he was unquestionably the best player at his position in all of baseball. At the end of that run, he retired. During that 5-year run, he very might have been the greatest pitcher ever - certainly really close to it.
Munson? Munson had a solid run as a top catcher but was never the best in baseball at his position, let alone one of the greatest of all-time. When Munson perished, he was already 1-1/2 years into a decline that saw him lose pretty much all of his power at the plate (just 9 HRs in his last 250 games). He'd already caught a ton of games and was a very old 32. When it comes right down to it, Munson had a peak of about 5 years (1973-1977). During that peak, he was average or worse once (1974), very good three times (1975-1977) and great once (1973). How does that even hold a candle to Sandy Koufax being an all-time elite for 5 straight seasons? Answer: It doesn't.
<< <i>As for Tim Raines, he definitely was considers a star while I always growing up during the entirety of his career. >>
Sorry but this statement is just plain false. Raines was most definitely NOT considered a star the last third of his career - at least. He was considered a good player, a role player (the last few years), and so on. But a star? Nah. Stars don't play in 50 games a year.
<< <i>We should put Microsoft Excel into the Hall, since its the spreadsheet jockeys that do all of the HOF talking these days. This has been hashed out OVER and OVER again already, but the "FAME" in HOF has little to do with stats at all. Baseball doesn't exist because of WAR or the cube root of someone's RBIs with RISP. Baseball exists because of and for the fans. Period. If fans come to the ballpark for a decade to see a specific player play, that athlete has contributed much more to game, even if has a career .230 average with no major awards to speak of.
I always laugh when people suggest that Tim Raines belongs in the Hall. During his "heyday" if he ever had one, was a period when I attended many games and followed baseball on a daily basis. I can assure you that very few, if any, fans ever bought a ticket because they wanted to see Tim Raines play. He was considered a slightly above average player in his day and no one gave a sh*t about him. To even suggest that he belongs in the Hall of FAME is ridiculous. The name that I've given before for where people like that belong is the Hall of Statistical Achievement....again its the place that the spreadsheet jockeys want to substitute for the HOF. >>
Yes, this was hashed out, and your definition is not accurate. In fact, below is what the actual criteria that the HOF has set forth:
"5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
"Players record" is his statistics, "ability" is also measured most accurately in his statistics(the good ones), and "contribution to the team" is also measured most accurately and objectively in their statistics.
Baseball lends itself very well for accurate objective statistical analysis of a player, and in the HOF's own criteria, one can see it plays a large role in their election.
The only part where "fame" really comes into play is in his character(and possibly contribution to the team).
Things like integrity, sportsmanship, and character have been largely ignored by both the writers and various committees through history. Most likely because it is what they actually did on the field that really counted, and because it really isn't possible to get anywhere near an accurate measurement of a players integrity, sportsmanship, or character. See Kirby Puckett.
I do agree that according to this definition that if a player was good at getting fans into the seats, then it is a positive in their contribution to their team. Bur how on earth do you have any idea what you say about Raines is remotely true? I too remember that era well, and at the time I thought he was one of the best leadoff hitters of all time. Unfortunately for him, the best played in the same same era.
Comments
Accordingly, my top pick would be Dick Allen. Career OPS+ of 156 over 15 seasons? Yeah, that should get you in.
Tabe
Puckett-No
Mattingly-No
Rice-No
Keith Hernandez-Yes
Tim Raines-Yes
Dave Kingman (really?)-No
Alan Trammel-Yes
Steve Garvey-No
Pete Rose- Yes
TheClockworkAngelCollection
For God's sake, how is Kevin McReynolds NOT in the hall of fame?
TheClockworkAngelCollection
And as a side note, as I was doing a quick stat check on Mr. Boyer I noticed that he was born in Liberty, MO, a fact that I was not aware of even thought I've lived here for 8+ years. LOL
My small collection
Want List:
'61 Topps Roy Campanella in PSA 5-7
Cardinal T206 cards
Adam Wainwright GU Jersey
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
CDsNuts, 1/9/15
Unique Chicago Cards
Wrestling Cards
<< <i>As I stated earlier, I truely feel all players in the HOF should be there, and I think there are a few, not many, but a few that should still be elected by the Veterans Commitee, but one that deffinately should not be is Roger Maris. With the exception of one great year, he was very average. The year before and the year after he hit 33 & 39 homeruns, never to hit in the 30's again. Those were the only 3 years he had 100 RBI's, never even being close again. He only played 12 years, had a lifetime average of .260 & never hit over .284 in a season! Roger Maris is very famous for his 1961 season, as he should be. But one season does not place a player in the HOF! I beleive he was probably a very good person, and I like Maris, even though he was a Yankee, but deffinately not a HOF'er. IMO
I respect your opinion although I highly disagree with it. You wrote "with the exception of one great year" - The man was also MVP in 1960. That was a great year. In 61, he had an AMAZING year. He hit more homeruns than Cal Ripken - why is he not exceptional? 2 Things - Cal wasn't overshadowed by Mickey Mantle and because Ripken played shortstop and Maris played outfield. Unfortunately if someone plays outfield, there only way to the HOF is by hitting homeruns. Nothing else matters. So its obvious the standards are set different depending on the position you play. Not only that but he also had 3 World Series Titles which doesnt hurt while Ripken doesn't own a single one. By no means - do not get confused either - I AM NOT saying Ripken doesn't belong but lets be real here - the HOF is simply a popularity contest. Roger should be in.
Maris's 1961 year alone simply should have gotten him in.
*Edit - I love Ripken but only reason he was brought up was because of his home runs which he never did more than 30 either except for one year (1991)
Edit again - I was just corrected. He does have one - 1983. >>
The subject of who should & who should not be in the HOF will be debated for eternity. I also respect you opinion in the matter, even though it's wrong! (just kidding)
For you to say that Maris should have gotten in the HOF for that 1961 season alone tells me we are on a different page. IMO, and also the opinion of the Baseball Writers Assoc. of America & the Veterans Commitee, is that a single season or single feat does not qualify a player for the Hall. No player has ever been elected based on that. If they did, players such as Maury Wills (104 SB in 1 season), Don Larson (perfect game in WS), Kirk Gibson (famous WS HR) and Bobby Thompson ( shot heard around the world) would be HOFers, but they are not!
To further supply my case, take a look at Maris's HOF voting totals:
In 1974, his first year of eligibilty he received 78 votes or 21.4%
1975 70 votes 19.3%
1976 87 votes 22.4%
From 1977 to 1987 he ranged between 72 votes and 177 votes which is between 18.8% and 42.6%
In his last year surge, 1988 184 votes 43.1%
Those numbers are no where near the 75% needed to be elected. Now that's not my opinion, that's a fact.
I am not taking away from what Roger did in 1961. Your right, it was an amazing year and under an awful lot of negitive pressure. Even many Yankee fans wanted Mantle to break Ruth's record, not Maris. As far as Cal Ripken Jr, there is no comparrison to Maris. Ripken was a 19 time All Star, 2 MVP's, 431 HR's, and of course, holder of the most consecutive games played. The voters give a lot of credit to longevity at a high level.
Back in 1987-1989 I had a crap load of their rookies.
On a serious note, the list of who should be in is short based on true merit. The list of those who should be kicked out is long.
Dave
I always laugh when people suggest that Tim Raines belongs in the Hall. During his "heyday" if he ever had one, was a period when I attended many games and followed baseball on a daily basis. I can assure you that very few, if any, fans ever bought a ticket because they wanted to see Tim Raines play. He was considered a slightly above average player in his day and no one gave a sh*t about him. To even suggest that he belongs in the Hall of FAME is ridiculous. The name that I've given before for where people like that belong is the Hall of Statistical Achievement....again its the place that the spreadsheet jockeys want to substitute for the HOF.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
And McGriff coached those defensive whiz kids to like 5 straight league titles - thats got to count for something.
Steve Garvey?
saucywombat@hotmail.com
<< <i>We should put Microsoft Excel into the Hall, since its the spreadsheet jockeys that do all of the HOF talking these days. This has been hashed out OVER and OVER again already, but the "FAME" in HOF has little to do with stats at all. Baseball doesn't exist because of WAR or the cube root of someone's RBIs with RISP. Baseball exists because of and for the fans. Period. If fans come to the ballpark for a decade to see a specific player play, that athlete has contributed much more to game, even if has a career .230 average with no major awards to speak of.
I always laugh when people suggest that Tim Raines belongs in the Hall. During his "heyday" if he ever had one, was a period when I attended many games and followed baseball on a daily basis. I can assure you that very few, if any, fans ever bought a ticket because they wanted to see Tim Raines play. He was considered a slightly above average player in his day and no one gave a sh*t about him. To even suggest that he belongs in the Hall of FAME is ridiculous. The name that I've given before for where people like that belong is the Hall of Statistical Achievement....again its the place that the spreadsheet jockeys want to substitute for the HOF. >>
but Peter Gammons says...
But seriously Tim Raines did have his years. The first individual card I ever purchased was a 1981 Topps Raines RC. Followed shortly by 86 Topps Vince Coleman. Viva la stolen base!
saucywombat@hotmail.com
<< <i>I find myself rooting for Lee Smith for some reason.
And McGriff coached those defensive whiz kids to like 5 straight league titles - thats got to count for something.? >>
I really hope Lee Smith gets in too but he had better do it by his 13th year otherwise I don't think he gets in.
Join the Rookie stars on top PSA registry today:
1980-1989 Cello Packs - Rookies
<< <i>We should put Microsoft Excel into the Hall, since its the spreadsheet jockeys that do all of the HOF talking these days. This has been hashed out OVER and OVER again already, but the "FAME" in HOF has little to do with stats at all. Baseball doesn't exist because of WAR or the cube root of someone's RBIs with RISP. Baseball exists because of and for the fans. Period. If fans come to the ballpark for a decade to see a specific player play, that athlete has contributed much more to game, even if has a career .230 average with no major awards to speak of.
I always laugh when people suggest that Tim Raines belongs in the Hall. During his "heyday" if he ever had one, was a period when I attended many games and followed baseball on a daily basis. I can assure you that very few, if any, fans ever bought a ticket because they wanted to see Tim Raines play. He was considered a slightly above average player in his day and no one gave a sh*t about him. To even suggest that he belongs in the Hall of FAME is ridiculous. The name that I've given before for where people like that belong is the Hall of Statistical Achievement....again its the place that the spreadsheet jockeys want to substitute for the HOF. >>
There is a lot of credence to this. AJ Pierzinski is a very good - sometimes excellent - baseball player. Above all that he is a winner. Meaning he will do whatever it takes. Reminds of Shayne Corson in the NHL. Whatever it takes. He has been a pleasure to watch these past 7 years and he stands next to Mark Grace as my favorite player of all time.
And he will not get the HOF. With a 10% vig I would take bets on either side of 1.8% of the vote. But if they had a "Pint sized tough guy with a heart of gold" category to get into the hall, I would put AJ up there. And I know a lot of folks detest him, but we love him here.
Any AJs or Lenny Dykstras out there with a real shot at the HOF? I can't think of anyone in who I would point to with lesser numbers but greater heart who made it in.
I look forward to discussing the Mark Buehrle case in 6 years.
<< <i>We should put Microsoft Excel into the Hall, since its the spreadsheet jockeys that do all of the HOF talking these days. This has been hashed out OVER and OVER again already, but the "FAME" in HOF has little to do with stats at all. Baseball doesn't exist because of WAR or the cube root of someone's RBIs with RISP. Baseball exists because of and for the fans. Period. If fans come to the ballpark for a decade to see a specific player play, that athlete has contributed much more to game, even if has a career .230 average with no major awards to speak of.
I always laugh when people suggest that Tim Raines belongs in the Hall. During his "heyday" if he ever had one, was a period when I attended many games and followed baseball on a daily basis. I can assure you that very few, if any, fans ever bought a ticket because they wanted to see Tim Raines play. He was considered a slightly above average player in his day and no one gave a sh*t about him. To even suggest that he belongs in the Hall of FAME is ridiculous. The name that I've given before for where people like that belong is the Hall of Statistical Achievement....again its the place that the spreadsheet jockeys want to substitute for the HOF. >>
Well, playing where he did didn't help. I think the stats help offset biases or the difference in notoriety players receive due to the market they play in. Raines was an amazing player. There may be others more deserving, but to blanketly state he doesn't deserve it because people were not excited to see him play is silly. He was considered average in a time when walks weren't valued like they are now by the casual fan, where home runs were the only extra base hit that mattered, and rbi were an indicator of how good of a power hitter you were.
<< <i>Raines was an amazing player. >>
Really? I think you're in the minority of minorities by attaching that word to Tim Raines.
<< <i> He was considered average in a time when walks weren't valued like they are now by the casual fan, >>
I see your point, however the "casual fan" is the reason the game is played. This isn't NASA, its baseball. Its OK to keep it simple. Its a game enjoyed by fat guys who like hotdogs and beer. If they don't appreciate walks, then why should an excel spreadsheet's opinion matter more? I really wish the elitist statisticians would go away and find another sport to discuss/analyze.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
But back to Maris...there is only one reason he's not in The Hall, and it's the same reason the commissioner wanted to put an asterisk by his HR record - reverence for Babe Ruth. In A LOT of people's minds back then, Maris breaking Ruth's record was a very serious insult to The Babe's legacy. I know that sounds silly to us now, but that's really the way people felt. And those old school H.O.F. voters back in the 70's were clouded my the same sentiment IMHO.
Take a look at the man's whole career, not just the famous 1961 season. He was one of the best right fielders in the game, as evidenced by his 7 All Star Game appearances. Dude won TWO MVPs, won a Gold Glove, and was a clutch performer going to The World Series 7 times! He also likely would have won the '58 Rookie of the Year if he hadn't injured his ribs late in the season. Go back and look at those stats, he was much more than 1961.
<< <i>He was considered a slightly above average player in his day and no one gave a sh*t about him. >>
If we were wrong about him why is it a bad thing to correct our errors? Tim Raines did a lot of great stuff on the field. Just because people ignored it when it was happening does not change how good it really was
<< <i>I really wish the elitist statisticians would go away and find another sport to discuss/analyze. >>
You only want insight and analysis from poor statisticians?
<< <i>
<< <i>He was considered a slightly above average player in his day and no one gave a sh*t about him. >>
If we were wrong about him why is it a bad thing to correct our errors? Tim Raines did a lot of great stuff on the field. Just because people ignored it when it was happening does not change how good it really was >>
I realize my point of view is not widely held (on these boards), I'm just trying to promote some counterbalance. I agree with you that there is value in a player's stats, regardless of whether or not fans appreciate those stats (Walks-driven OBP stats, in the Tim Raines example). I just think that some people place way too much emphasis on said stats.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
And if that's not good enough for the naysayers, he accomplished these feats while preserving the coke in his hip pocket by sliding head first.
So there.
<< <i>Not a player... BUT.. he needs to be in the hall of fame. Greatest owner a fan could ask for!
Would "Mr. May" agree?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
IMO, and also the opinion of the Baseball Writers Assoc. of America & the Veterans Commitee, is that a single season or single feat does not qualify a player for the Hall. No player has ever been elected based on that. >>
Are you sure?
Bill Mazeroski - .260 avg, .299 OBP, 853 RBI, 138 HR, .983% Fielding, 0 MVP (finished 8th once) - Hall of Fame member (never got more than 42.3% of the vote)
Roger Maris - .260 avg, .345 OBP, 850 RBI, 275 HR, .982% Fielding, 2x MVP - Non Hall of Fame member (never got more than 43.1% of the vote)
So that WS winning HR in '60 had nothing to do with Maz getting in?
<< <i>So that WS winning HR in '60 had nothing to do with Maz getting in? >>
*dingdingding* We have a winner!
www.questfortherookiecup.com
<< <i>
<< <i>So that WS winning HR in '60 had nothing to do with Maz getting in? >>
*dingdingding* We have a winner!
*dingdingdud* No winner!
You are comparing apples to oranges! You need to compare outfielders to outfielders, not secondbasemen.
You are also leaving out some key ingredients such as:
Mazeroski was a 10 time All Star and won 8 Gold Gloves including holding the record for most DP's by a 2B. In the late 50's and thru out the 1960's, Mazeroski was known as the best defensive 2B in the game for abour 12 years, not 2 years. Even though he wasn't really known for his bat, he did lead all middle infielders in RBI's from 1957 to 1968.
So, at his position, he was one of the best for about 12 years, unlike Maris. He actually hit 2 HR's in that 1960 WS, and yes, the second was all most like a shot heard around the world.
If the Baseball Writers Assoc. of America could rank all HOFers, Bill Mazeroski would probably be down near the bottom, but somebody has to be near the bottom and that doesn't make them "not a HOFer". And all though Mazeroski is very famous for his 1960 WS ending HR, that is not the only reason he is in the HOF!!!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So that WS winning HR in '60 had nothing to do with Maz getting in? >>
*dingdingding* We have a winner!
*dingdingdud* No winner!
You are comparing apples to oranges! You need to compare outfielders to outfielders, not secondbasemen.
You are also leaving out some key ingredients such as:
Mazeroski was a 10 time All Star and won 8 Gold Gloves including holding the record for most DP's by a 2B. In the late 50's and thru out the 1960's, Mazeroski was known as the best defensive 2B in the game for abour 12 years, not 2 years. Even though he wasn't really known for his bat, he did lead all middle infielders in RBI's from 1957 to 1968.
So, at his position, he was one of the best for about 12 years, unlike Maris. He actually hit 2 HR's in that 1960 WS, and yes, the second was all most like a shot heard around the world.
If the Baseball Writers Assoc. of America could rank all HOFers, Bill Mazeroski would probably be down near the bottom, but somebody has to be near the bottom and that doesn't make them "not a HOFer". And all though Mazeroski is very famous for his 1960 WS ending HR, that is not the only reason he is in the HOF!!!!! >>
Maz is sort of Ozzie Smith without the back flip. Both should be in the Hall due to being pretty stellar players at the middle infield positions. Ozzie ranks ahead because he back flipped. You can't deny the lure of the flip.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So that WS winning HR in '60 had nothing to do with Maz getting in? >>
*dingdingding* We have a winner!
*dingdingdud* No winner!
You are comparing apples to oranges! You need to compare outfielders to outfielders, not secondbasemen.
You are also leaving out some key ingredients such as:
Mazeroski was a 10 time All Star and won 8 Gold Gloves including holding the record for most DP's by a 2B. In the late 50's and thru out the 1960's, Mazeroski was known as the best defensive 2B in the game for abour 12 years, not 2 years. Even though he wasn't really known for his bat, he did lead all middle infielders in RBI's from 1957 to 1968.
So, at his position, he was one of the best for about 12 years, unlike Maris. He actually hit 2 HR's in that 1960 WS, and yes, the second was all most like a shot heard around the world.
If the Baseball Writers Assoc. of America could rank all HOFers, Bill Mazeroski would probably be down near the bottom, but somebody has to be near the bottom and that doesn't make them "not a HOFer". And all though Mazeroski is very famous for his 1960 WS ending HR, that is not the only reason he is in the HOF!!!!! >>
Just so you know, I'm not saying Maz shouldn't be in the HOF. I'm just saying Maris should be too.
Join the Rookie stars on top PSA registry today:
1980-1989 Cello Packs - Rookies
<< <i>You can add Phil Rizzuto, Bill Mazeroski, Jim Rice and Kirby Puckett to the list of those that do not belong. >>
I agree.
<< <i>Thurman Munson should be in. If you're going to vote in Sandy Koufax for having a career cut short by injury but being dominant while he played then Munson should be voted in for the same reason. Koufax had 12 years in the majors while Munson had 11 and Munson was just as important to his team as Koufax was to his, arguably more so (Reggie Jackson's opinion aside). >>
Koufax dominated the game. Munson did not. IMO, Koufax was far more important to his team than was Munson. Thurman had begun to decline. How many catchers were stars into their 30s? Not many.
<< <i>
<< <i>
IMO, and also the opinion of the Baseball Writers Assoc. of America & the Veterans Commitee, is that a single season or single feat does not qualify a player for the Hall. No player has ever been elected based on that. >>
Are you sure?
Bill Mazeroski - .260 avg, .299 OBP, 853 RBI, 138 HR, .983% Fielding, 0 MVP (finished 8th once) - Hall of Fame member (never got more than 42.3% of the vote)
Roger Maris - .260 avg, .345 OBP, 850 RBI, 275 HR, .982% Fielding, 2x MVP - Non Hall of Fame member (never got more than 43.1% of the vote)
So that WS winning HR in '60 had nothing to do with Maz getting in? >>
Cherry picking is no way to make an argument. Max was an elite defender at a far more demanding position. He is in despite of his offense, not because of it. See Ozzie.
I would not vote for Maz either, but the above argument is ludicrous.
<< <i>
<< <i>Thurman Munson should be in. If you're going to vote in Sandy Koufax for having a career cut short by injury but being dominant while he played then Munson should be voted in for the same reason. Koufax had 12 years in the majors while Munson had 11 and Munson was just as important to his team as Koufax was to his, arguably more so (Reggie Jackson's opinion aside). >>
Koufax dominated the game. Munson did not. IMO, Koufax was far more important to his team than was Munson. Thurman had begun to decline. How many catchers were stars into their 30s? Not many. >>
I really can not beleive somebody can say Munson should be in over Koufax and keep a straight face!!!!!
I think Yankeesman was just trying to bait me and I wasn't going to respond, but I just can't help it!!!!
Mark said all I need to say!
<< <i>Thurman Munson should be in. If you're going to vote in Sandy Koufax for having a career cut short by injury but being dominant while he played then Munson should be voted in for the same reason. Koufax had 12 years in the majors while Munson had 11 and Munson was just as important to his team as Koufax was to his, arguably more so (Reggie Jackson's opinion aside). >>
You're kidding, right? Koufax had a 5-year run where he was unquestionably the best player at his position in all of baseball. At the end of that run, he retired. During that 5-year run, he very might have been the greatest pitcher ever - certainly really close to it.
Munson? Munson had a solid run as a top catcher but was never the best in baseball at his position, let alone one of the greatest of all-time. When Munson perished, he was already 1-1/2 years into a decline that saw him lose pretty much all of his power at the plate (just 9 HRs in his last 250 games). He'd already caught a ton of games and was a very old 32. When it comes right down to it, Munson had a peak of about 5 years (1973-1977). During that peak, he was average or worse once (1974), very good three times (1975-1977) and great once (1973). How does that even hold a candle to Sandy Koufax being an all-time elite for 5 straight seasons? Answer: It doesn't.
Tabe
<< <i>Not a player... BUT.. he needs to be in the hall of fame. Greatest owner a fan could ask for!
I would definitely agree George should be in the HOF.
Marvin Miller should be in there, too.
And Dr. Frank Jobe.
Tabe
<< <i>As for Tim Raines, he definitely was considers a star while I always growing up during the entirety of his career. >>
Sorry but this statement is just plain false. Raines was most definitely NOT considered a star the last third of his career - at least. He was considered a good player, a role player (the last few years), and so on. But a star? Nah. Stars don't play in 50 games a year.
Tabe
<< <i>Ted Simmons >>
I'm with ya. Simmons belongs. Criminally underappreciated even though he was an 8-time All-Star.
Tabe
<< <i>We should put Microsoft Excel into the Hall, since its the spreadsheet jockeys that do all of the HOF talking these days. This has been hashed out OVER and OVER again already, but the "FAME" in HOF has little to do with stats at all. Baseball doesn't exist because of WAR or the cube root of someone's RBIs with RISP. Baseball exists because of and for the fans. Period. If fans come to the ballpark for a decade to see a specific player play, that athlete has contributed much more to game, even if has a career .230 average with no major awards to speak of.
I always laugh when people suggest that Tim Raines belongs in the Hall. During his "heyday" if he ever had one, was a period when I attended many games and followed baseball on a daily basis. I can assure you that very few, if any, fans ever bought a ticket because they wanted to see Tim Raines play. He was considered a slightly above average player in his day and no one gave a sh*t about him. To even suggest that he belongs in the Hall of FAME is ridiculous. The name that I've given before for where people like that belong is the Hall of Statistical Achievement....again its the place that the spreadsheet jockeys want to substitute for the HOF. >>
Yes, this was hashed out, and your definition is not accurate. In fact, below is what the actual criteria that the HOF has set forth:
"5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
"Players record" is his statistics, "ability" is also measured most accurately in his statistics(the good ones), and "contribution to the team" is also measured most accurately and objectively in their statistics.
Baseball lends itself very well for accurate objective statistical analysis of a player, and in the HOF's own criteria, one can see it plays a large role in their election.
The only part where "fame" really comes into play is in his character(and possibly contribution to the team).
Things like integrity, sportsmanship, and character have been largely ignored by both the writers and various committees through history. Most likely because it is what they actually did on the field that really counted, and because it really isn't possible to get anywhere near an accurate measurement of a players integrity, sportsmanship, or character. See Kirby Puckett.
I do agree that according to this definition that if a player was good at getting fans into the seats, then it is a positive in their contribution to their team. Bur how on earth do you have any idea what you say about Raines is remotely true? I too remember that era well, and at the time I thought he was one of the best leadoff hitters of all time. Unfortunately for him, the best played in the same same era.
Objectively speaking of course.