MLB Poll: Let's remove 5 players from the Hall of Fame [Archive]

Jonathan Chance

06-23-2004, 09:16 AM

So I just finished re-reading 'Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame' by Bill James. It's about the political machinations that occur when it comes to Hall of Fame voting and the lowering of standards that entails. It's a good read.

And I got to thinking...

There are certainly more than a couple of questionable Hall of Fame choices, both by the Veteran's Committee and the Baseball Writer's Association of America. And who better to kick some players out than we in Doper-land?

But I want to put in a difficulty factor for us. You can suggest up to five players who should be removed (we're not dealing with Managers and Broadcasters) but at least two of them should have been voted in by the writers. No fair taking the easy path and just nominating Veteran's Committee electees.

Here's a link to current members of the Hall of Fame. (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/index.htm)

I'll toss one out to start things off...

Phil Rizzuto. One MVP and 5 all star appearances is nice...but a .273/.351/.355 line isn't, to my eyes, enough to get you there. While his line my superficially look OK you should realize that the league averages for his time were .266/.346/.387 so he was essentially a league average player. For those who would speak for his defensive skills here's his fielding percentage and range factor: .968 and 4.79 . The league numbers there were .959 and 4.62. So again we have an average to slightly above player. Rizzuto got in because A) he was surrounded by great teammates, B) he was a popular broadcaster for years and C) he had great friends who loaded the veteran's committee.

Neurotik

06-23-2004, 09:20 AM

Well, I agree that Rizzuto should go. But I don't think comparing him to the league average is the way to go to disprove it. Remember that shortstops weren't supposed to be good hitters back then. So a shortstop being somewhat above league average when that average is loaded with corner players padding the stats isn't too bad.

Basically, how did Rizzuto compare to other shortstops of the same time period. Has anyone done VORP calculations for past players?

ColonelDax

06-23-2004, 09:29 AM

Chick Hafey.
Jesse Haines.
Addie Joss.
Fred Lindstrom.
The Scooter.

Replace one of them with Ron Santo, another with Luis Tiant.

Treviathan

06-23-2004, 09:38 AM

Rick Ferrell (http://www.baseballreference.com/f/ferreri01.shtml). Unless you threw out 100% of baserunners and never once allowed a passed ball, 1692 hits and 28 home runs doth not a Hall of Fame catcher make. This might be an urban legend, but I believe that when the Veterans' Committee inducted Rick they thought they were voting for Wes Ferrell, who's no HOFer either but is a more plausible candidate.

Jesse Haines (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/haineje01.shtml). He was only a slight bit above league average for a long time, which in my mind doesn't merit induction into the Hall. 85th all-time in wins, and his career 3.64 ERA is not even in the top 100.

George Kell (http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kellge01.shtml). Hit for a decent batting average and not much else, which is all right if you're Tony Gwynn but not when your career average is only .306.

Lloyd Waner (http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/wanerll01.shtml). A singles hitter like Kell, and at least Kell could claim to play third base, not the outfield. Looks like he rode in on the coattails of his brother Paul.

Jack Chesbro (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/chesbja01.shtml). Set the post-1900 record for wins in a season and you get a free pass to the Hall. Aside from that stat, Chesbro's pretty similar to a lot of players from that era.

I'd replace those five with Ron Santo, Bert Blyleven, Ted Simmons, Carl Mays, and Alan Trammell.

Treviathan

06-23-2004, 09:47 AM

But I want to put in a difficulty factor for us. You can suggest up to five players who should be removed (we're not dealing with Managers and Broadcasters) but at least two of them should have been voted in by the writers. No fair taking the easy path and just nominating Veteran's Committee electees.

Whoops, didn't see this. Maybe Tony Perez, then? Lots of first baseman have similar homerun figures.

Duke

06-23-2004, 09:51 AM

How on earth did Eppa Rixey (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/rixey_eppa.htm) make it to the Hall? Sure, the guy won 266 games, "the National League's winningest southpaw until Warren Spahn" FWIW, but he also lost 251. His best year, 1916, in which he went 22-10, was surrounded by years in which he went 2-11, 11-12, 16-21, 6-12, and 11-22. His career ERA of 3.15 looks good until you take into account the fact that some of his best years were in the mush-ball era.

Duke

06-23-2004, 09:56 AM

Argh, I didn't see the Veteran's Committee proviso either, which does make it much harder to pick the unworthy. For some time the writers were incredibly harsh critics of who should be in the Hall--as one egregious example, it took Joe DiMaggio three ballots to get in. He was rejected the first two times he was eligible...Joe D, fer cryin' out loud!

RickJay

06-23-2004, 09:57 AM

I don't think the Scooter would be one of my first five ejections. In order, I would pick:

1. George "Highpockets" Kelly. A good player; probably not one of the 750 best players in the 20th century and has no intangible reason for being there. (Rizzuto, at least, would have much better numbers were it not for the war.) Kelly was obviously not the player than Steve Garvey, Keith Hernandez, Bill White, Mark Grace, Bob Watson, Don Mattingly or Tony Oliva were, and he's not even in the same zip code as Gil Hodges or or Norm Cash. He wasn't any better a player than Jesse Barfield. I could easily name 250 players with superior credentials.

Look at Kelly this way; Fred McGriff is a controversial Hall of Fame candidate, with most people thinking he should not go in. But McGriff has been TWICE the player Kelly was.

2. Ray Schalk. Let's be honest; the only reason Ray Schalk is in the Hall of Fame is that he wasn't dishonest.

3. Rube Marquard. Not one of the 200 best pitchers in baseball history. Marquard actually wasn't as good a pitcher as Jesse Haines. Nothing about Marquard's record is great - a 201-177 record, an ERA just a hair better than league average. He did win a lot of postseason games, but so did Dave Stewart, and nobody is striking Stewart's plaque. Orel Hershiser would be a much better choice. Marquard wasn't as good as Jim Perry or Billy Pierce or Dave Steib or Luis Tiant or Jack Morris or all kinds of guys.

4. Chick Hafey. Absurdly short career. Why not Bob Meusel or Charlie Keller while you're at it? Hafey's selection becomes especially ridiculous when you compare him to guys like Dale Murphy or Dwight Evans or Reggie Smith or any number of guys who were similar types of players but had much meatier careers.

5. Catfish Hunter. The Rube Marquard of the 1970s.

5.

zev_steinhardt

06-23-2004, 10:14 AM

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the "poetic trio" of Tinker, Evers and Chance. All three were good ballplayers, but none of them rose to the level of Hall of Famers.

Other selections of mine include:

Walt Alston -- the guy was 0-for-1 (and he struck out too!) And that was his entire playing career!

Babe Ruth -- sure he was a good pitcher, but in the end he only had 93 wins. He simply got in on the strength of his 29 World Series innings scoreless streak.

Pete Rose -- sure he had 4256 hits, but he bet on baseball. That alone... what's that you say? Oh. never mind...

Morgan Bukeley (OK, I'm serious on this one). He was the first president of the NL. Led the league for one year until William Hulbert (who was the real force behind the league anyway) took over. Bukeley never had anything to do with baseball again.

Zev Steinhardt

RickJay

06-23-2004, 10:15 AM

Darn; I thought Ray Schalk was elected by the writers. But on review, he was a VC selection. So I'm not in complaince the with OP's rules.

Therefore, I withdraw Schalk, and replace him with...

Lloyd Waner.

Neurotik, I would point out that Rizzuto was a direct contemporary of such shortstops as Vern Stephens, Lou Boudreau, Eddie Joost, Pee Wee Reese, Alvin Dark, Granny Hamner, and a lot of other guys who had some good years with the bat at SS. The mix of shortstops who could and could not hit was more or less the same in Rizzuto's time as it is today. Shortstops WERE expected to hit; those who couldn't hit did not last.

RealityChuck

06-23-2004, 10:24 AM

zev_steinhardt

06-23-2004, 10:30 AM

zev_steinhardt

06-23-2004, 10:34 AM

Sorry about the dual-post. :smack: :smack: :smack:

Zev Steinhardt

Neurotik

06-23-2004, 10:43 AM

Neurotik, I would point out that Rizzuto was a direct contemporary of such shortstops as Vern Stephens, Lou Boudreau, Eddie Joost, Pee Wee Reese, Alvin Dark, Granny Hamner, and a lot of other guys who had some good years with the bat at SS. The mix of shortstops who could and could not hit was more or less the same in Rizzuto's time as it is today. Shortstops WERE expected to hit; those who couldn't hit did not last.
Vern Stephens - .286/.355/.460
Lou Boudreau - .295/.380/.415
Eddie Joost - .239/.361/.366
Pee Wee Reese - .269/.366/.377
Alvin Dark - .289/.333/.411
Granny Hamner - .262/.303/.383
Phil Rizzuto - .273/.351/.355

He doesn't seem terribly out of line with everyone else's - and remember Yankee stadium was a fairly difficult place for righties to put up big power numbers with that deep fence.

BobT

06-23-2004, 11:18 AM

The only person who should be removed is Morgan Bulkeley. He was selected for the wrong reason and he did not do that much in baseball to warrant his induction.

Cinnamon Girl

06-23-2004, 11:33 AM

Babe Ruth -- sure he was a good pitcher, but in the end he only had 93 wins. He simply got in on the strength of his 29 World Series innings scoreless streak.Are you freakin' kidding? How many other pitchers could match his batting record? How about an education:

Babe Ruth is second only to Hank Aaron in home runs and RBIs. He's tied with Aaron is career runs and has the highest all-time slugging percentage far above Ted Williams* who never got anywhere close to Ruth's .847/.846 SLG (458/540 AB) of the 1920-21 seasons. *Not to say in the least that Williams, considered "one of baseball's greatest hitters," doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame.

Pete Rose -- sure he had 4256 hits, but he bet on baseball. That alone... what's that you say? Oh. never mind...
You twit! Pete Rose isn't even in the Hall of Fame, so is not the subject of the OP. No doubt baseball also has its share of drug abusers, alcoholics, adulterers, and the like. Take your morality elsewhere.

Regardless, Rose is also second only to Tris Speaker in doubles (over Stan Musial and Ty Cobb, even) and has nearly as many runs as Aaron and Ruth. Yes, he bet on baseball -- a ridiculously stupid thing to do -- but that does not diminish his talent as a baseball player and, that being the case, has my vote for the Hall of Fame. As a player, of course, considering it takes a pretty bad manager to bet against your own team.

Carry on.

Neurotik

06-23-2004, 11:38 AM

Anyone else feel a breeze?

Ike Witt

06-23-2004, 11:40 AM

Cinnamon Girl

06-23-2004, 11:58 AM

Anyone else feel a breeze?
Why thank you, Neurotik. I'll wear my Wooshed Hall of Fame pin with great pride should I be elected. :smack:

zev_steinhardt

06-23-2004, 12:00 PM

FTR, I was kidding regarding Ruth and Alston. They certainly deserve to be in the HOF.

I was serious about "revoking" Tinker, Evers, Chance and Bulkeley (although I am really opposed to revoking anyone's membership on principle).

I'm well aware that Pete Rose in not in the HoF. I've made my views on his case known in this forum before.

Carry on.

Zev Steinhardt

Jimmy Chitwood

06-23-2004, 12:25 PM

I'd either kick out a whole bunch of them, or keep them all. To me, you have to either commit to letting in only the true giants, or you have to just accept that your standards are going to slide to hell and induction into the Hall is going to lose a bit of meaning. I'd favor the first scenario, so I wouldn't mind if about a third of the people in there right now weren't there (Like Zev, though, I'd be opposed to actually removing them, so I'll pretend they just never got inducted).

I agree with most of the names mentioned so far, and I'll add Herb Pennock. He won 240 games, but he never led the league in wins or ERA, and he was on some of the more ridiculous teams in the history of the game. His career ERA+ is 106- just barely above average. In fact, his baseball-reference.com Hall of Fame scores are all below the typical Hall of Famer thresholds.

RickJay

06-23-2004, 12:28 PM

I don't think anyone should be removed. The Hall of Fame is not just about statistics, and there are plenty of reasons -- both statistical and nonstatistical to keep all the players mentioned in the Hall.

Just a few off the top of my head:

Chesbro: 41 wins in a season. I'll stipulate that anyone else who reaches that mark should automatically go into the Hall, not matter what else they do.
At the risk of opening a can of worms here, I think you should bear two things in mind:

1. The Hall of Fame's rules of selection specifically say that players should not be selected based on one season's performance.

2. 41 wins in 1904 is not what you think it is. Obviously, if a pitcher won 41 games today he'd rightly be credited with having had a miraculous-ultra-great season.

But in his time. Chesbro's 41 wins was not one bit more amazing than Bob Welch's 27 wins in 1990 - and I don't see anyone suggesting Bob Welch should be in the Hall of Fame. In the late 1890s and1900s, quite a few pitchers won 30 games or more, and Ed Walsh won 40 games in 1908. Christy Mathewson won 30 game or more four times, including 37 in 1908. Joe McGinnity won 35 games in 1904.

Jack Chesbro had a legitimately great season in 1904, no doubt about it. But if you consider it in the context of its times, it wasn't any more amazing than Ron Guidry's phenomenal season in 1978, or Dwight Gooden's 1985 season. Why is Jack Chesbro a greater player than Ron Guidry?

Rizutto: Statistics don't tell the tale. He was a major star of his time, numbers or not.
Keith Hernandez was a huge star of his time, too, so where's the Keith Hernandez vote? (I actually think he'd be a decent pick.)

Most stars don't get into the Hall. Rizzuto was NOT considered much of a Hall of Fame candidate by the voters who actually saw him play. In his first year of eligibility he got exactly one vote. He was back on the ballot in 1962 and for ten years the best percentage he ever managed was 26%.

Marquard: Statistics or not, he was also a major star. Leaving him out would be like leaving out Dizzy Dean.
No, it really wouldn't. Marquard was not a star on the level of Dean, and he wasn't any more a star than Jack Morris or Luis Tiant. And Dean was a much better pitcher.

Catfish Hunter was a much, much bigger star than Marquard.

Waner: Where is it written that a singles hitter doesn't deserve to be in the Hall?
Nowhere, which is why Rod Carew is in the Hall. And Tony Gwynn, and Eddie Collins, and lots of singers hitters. But lots of singles hitters AREN'T in the Hall of Fame, like Manny Mota and Damaso Garcia. The difference between Lloyd Waner and guys like Carew, Sisler, Gwynn and Collins is that they were great players. Lloyd Waner was not.

Cinnamon Girl, in what bizarre alternate universe does Ted Williams not belong in the Hall of Fame?

Hugh Jass

06-23-2004, 12:39 PM

Dave Bancroft seems to be a defensive wiz. Only 2000 hits. .279 lifetime average. I don't know if they kept defensive statistics back then, but his bio doesn't seem to indicate any Ozzie Smith-like defensive abilities.

Herb Pennock Despite Miller Huggins comments, he won 241 games in 22 years. Jim Bunning won 20 less games in 6 fewer seasons, and he was a controversial choice.

Jim Bunning I don't know about using him as an example for someone else not to be included and then saying he shouldn't be included but: He won 20 games only once, and usually had losses in the double digits whenever he won more than 15 games. Only 220 victories. Are we gonna put Mike Mussina in there too?

Waite Hoyt 237 victories in 20 years. Only had 8 years with 15 or more victories. His first 10 years: 155 wins. His second ten years: 82 wins. Several losing seasons.

None of these guys came close to the usual benchmarks (3000 hits, 500 hrs, 300 wins). They didn't even make the secondary level benchmarks (2500 hits, 350 hrs, 250 wins.).

iampunha

06-23-2004, 12:40 PM

Regardless, Rose is also second only to Tris Speaker in doubles (over Stan Musial and Ty Cobb, even) and has nearly as many runs as Aaron and Ruth. Yes, he bet on baseball -- a ridiculously stupid thing to do -- but that does not diminish his talent as a baseball player and, that being the case, has my vote for the Hall of Fame. As a player, of course, considering it takes a pretty bad manager to bet against your own team.

From here (http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/rule21.html):

"(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall
bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which
the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible."

Matters naught if he had 5 hits or five million hits. Beside that, the Hall says (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/faq.htm#rose):

"As stated in the National Baseball Hall of Fame's Rules for Election, "any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate" for consideration by the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) or the Baseball Hall of Fame Committee on Baseball Veterans."

In the event that Rose is reinstated today, here's what would have to happen (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/rules.htm):

"A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election."

Rose (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/alltime/playercard?playerId=11901&type=0) would have to be elected into the Hall either in 2005 or 2006. Speculation has been interesting, to say the least. My guess is that most of the fans he had in the Hall before his book came out around Induction Weekend probably aren't as enamored of him as they once were, and that the Writers probably aren't entirely happy with him either.

kunilou

06-23-2004, 01:01 PM

Cinnamon Girl

06-23-2004, 01:32 PM

FTR, I was kidding regarding Ruth and Alston. They certainly deserve to be in the HOF.Upon re-reading your post after (unfortunately) Neurotik pointed out the breeze, I see now that you were just joking to begin with. My sincerest apologies for alluding otherwise. I had recently heard some nincompoop suggest that Babe Ruth was over-rated and made the blanket statement that "today's ballplayers are much more talented than earlier ones." Apparently, there was some residual anger left over from the verbal beating I gave him. Again, my apologies. You're so funny! :o

Cinnamon Girl, in what bizarre alternate universe does Ted Williams not belong in the Hall of Fame?
I forgive you since my reading skills appear to be lackluster as well. Perhaps my writing skills are not much better, so I'll clarify my statement:
*Not to say in the least that Williams, considered "one of baseball's greatest hitters," doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. was supposed to come across as: Williams is absolutely Hall of Fame worthy, although the stat indicates Ruth was a much more effective batter. FTR, I have a huge amount of admiration for both men and wish I had been around to watch either of them play.

iampunha, I understand the problems involved with Pete Rose and his lack of eligibility for the Hall of Fame, but I don't like it. I find it sad that any discussion about whether he belongs there or not is moot until he's reinstated and I don't see that happening anytime in the near future (or as long as Selig is commissioner -- maybe Bush should have become commissioner instead (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0918/1433403.html)). Regardless, I'd like to see it happen because I think his player record speaks for itself. I just wish we would stop requiring people to be perfect human beings, recognize that everyone does stupid things, and honor them for the great things they did achieve. I commend Rose for finally letting go of his misdirected pride and owning up to his egregious error in judgment. He deserves a second chance in my book. But then, I have an asshole too.

With any luck, this grounds the hijack I started and/or perpetuated. Apologies also to Jonathan Chance. One day, I hope, my knowledge of individual player history, will be respectable enough to contribute meaningfully to a topic like this.

Play ball! :D

Duke

06-23-2004, 01:35 PM

Cinnamon Girl, in what bizarre alternate universe does Ted Williams not belong in the Hall of Fame? Uh....she did say Teddy Ballgame deserves to be in. *Not to say in the least that Williams, considered "one of baseball's greatest hitters," doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. I've got another one: Rabbit Maranville. .258 lifetime hitter, middling-to-average in the field, and an anemic, even for his era, lifetime total of 28 home runs in 2,670 (!) lifetime games. The guy only had two good seasons out of 23 in the bigs, but in neither did he even hit .300. Longevity alone just shouldn't cut it for the Hall.

And, yes, he was voted in by the writers.

Jimmy Chitwood

06-23-2004, 01:41 PM

RickJay

06-23-2004, 01:44 PM

My father was a long-time White sox fan, and he believed the only reason Early Wynn got into the Hall was because he won 300 games, and the only reason he won 300 games was because he kept hanging around after his last good season (1959). I don't know if I'd kick Wynn out, but would he have gotten in with, says, 275 vicotires instead of 300?
Well, at the end of the 1959 season he was 271-213. Similar pitchers include:

Red Ruffing, 273-225 - Hall of Famer
Robin Roberts, 286-245 - Hall of Famer
Fergie Jenkins, 284-226 - Hall of Famer
Burleigh Grimes, 270-212 - Hall of Famer
Jim Kaat, 283-237 - Not yet
Tommy John - Not yet

Actually, I suspect Wynn may have been elected anyway even if he'd quit in 1959, especially since he would have been quitting right after winning the Cy Young.

Jimmy Chitwood

06-23-2004, 01:53 PM

zev_steinhardt

06-23-2004, 02:21 PM

I had recently heard some nincompoop suggest that Babe Ruth was over-rated and made the blanket statement that "today's ballplayers are much more talented than earlier ones."
[/QUOTE]

Well, I'd hate to start up with you again now that we've made up, but I *do* feel that today's players are better than those of yesteryear. I *do* believe that if you plunked Babe Ruth down in today's lineup, there is no way on earth that he'd hit .342 and have 714 home runs. If you put Ty Cobb at the plate today, his average would dip well below .367.

That doesn't, however, mean that Ruth is overrated. Ruth was surely the greatest player in his day and that, IMHO, is the criteria by which HoF candidates should be judged. Roger Connor belongs in the HoF (even though he only had 138 home runs) because he was one of the best players in his day. I personally feel that you cannot make any meaningful comparison of players across eras. There is no way to meaningfully compare (via statistics) Roger Clemens to Cy Young, simply because the game that Roger played is not the same game that Cy Young played.

Zev Steinhardt

Jonathan Chance

06-23-2004, 02:24 PM

No problem with the hijack. Baseball discussions should wander.

Watch me do this same thing...

I had recently heard some nincompoop suggest that Babe Ruth was over-rated and made the blanket statement that "today's ballplayers are much more talented than earlier ones."

I actually agree with him. Both conditioning and the science of the sport have improved enormously over the decades to the point where the average ballplayer today IS better than the average ballplayer of yesteryear. It's unfair to consider today's average ballplayer (that you see every day) with say, Ruth, or the other standouts. Suppose you did that the other way and compared Joe Shlabotnik from 1927 against Barry Bonds today? Still not fair.

The fact that extremes of performance (both pitching and hitting) are narrowing indicates that both pitching and hitting are improving as the two sides continually war against each other for dominance.

zev_steinhardt

06-23-2004, 02:30 PM

Duke

06-23-2004, 02:39 PM

Duke, not that this is necessarily a disagreement about his HOF chops, but I thought Maranville was supposed to have been spectacular in the field. His numbers seem to be pretty well above average to me, anyway. Yeah, come to think of it, you may be right there. Although I don't think his defense was enough to make up for his no-more-than-average offense. He was no Ozzie Smith, though of course nobody from that era was.

I have heard contemporary anecdotes (and this is the sort of thing that wouldn't show up in the stat sheet) suggesting that he was such a flake that he'd intentionally botch plays, though not enough to be charged with errors. He did seem to be the product of a by-gone era in baseball...an old-fashioned vaudevillian.

Jonathan Chance

06-23-2004, 02:49 PM

Woo-hoo! Simulpost!

Actually, I'm glad to see that we agree on this Jonathan Chance. I know that when I have the same ideas that you do WRT baseball that I'm usually on solid ground. :)

Zev Steinhardt

Dude, I'm all blushing here.

Is that why you want my third baseman in the OOTP league?

Duke

06-23-2004, 02:49 PM

Hey, speaking of Chesbro and his big season, how about Hack Wilson? Take out the 191 RBI season and he was a real good hitter, but not a Hall of Fame hitter. Only 244 HR's and barely 1000 RBI even with the one ridiculous season. True, but Hack's career was unusually short. (I believe it was curtailed by injury, but I don't have my Total Baseball to hand to confirm that.) He had more than one good season--the previous year, 1929, he had .345/39/159, surely a great season by any standard. During the four years 1927-30 he averaged .333/39/150, a one-man wrecking crew by any stretch of the imagination. That includes 599 RBI over four years!

True, I think Wilson's HoF entry was more based on "what could have been" than what actually was. But he certainly wasn't a one-season wonder.

Jimmy Chitwood

06-23-2004, 03:14 PM

Yeah, maybe you're right. Wilson played in 400 fewer games than Dimaggio, even, so his numbers suffer more than I thought. I believe his career was shortened not by injury, though, but by a decline in skills, probably fueled by his drinking habits. He was the guy they said was a low-ball hitter and a high-ball drinker, was he not?

Cinnamon Girl

06-23-2004, 03:17 PM

No problem with the hijack. Baseball discussions should wander.A man after my own heart... :)

I actually agree with him. Both conditioning and the science of the sport have improved enormously over the decades to the point where the average ballplayer today IS better than the average ballplayer of yesteryear. It's unfair to consider today's average ballplayer (that you see every day) with say, Ruth, or the other standouts. Suppose you did that the other way and compared Joe Shlabotnik from 1927 against Barry Bonds today? Still not fair.

The fact that extremes of performance (both pitching and hitting) are narrowing indicates that both pitching and hitting are improving as the two sides continually war against each other for dominance.I think that was my point as well. It's unfair to compare today's players to those of 50+ years ago primarily because of the fact that athletic conditioning has improved. Legal supplements, creatine and Androstenedione, are now being used by many of today's best athletes. TMK, the heroes of yesteryear weren't taking performance-enhancing supplements. Additionally, injuries are better dealt with reducing healing time and an injury's effect on performance.

Certainly, technology's contribution to management has had a major effect on how the game is played. It's probably based a lot more on information more easily compiled and referenced than intuition. I've read that today's pitchers are less likely to call the pitches on their own but rely on the manager to do so. I'm not certain of the veracity of that, however. But if it's true, then Babe Ruth presumeably had more going for him mentally than Nolan Ryan.

It's not that I don't think today's players aren't as talented as our old heroes. For all I know, ballplayers may have to work even harder to stand out then did those of the past. I simply, but strongly, believe it's an unfair comparison. Not to mention the fact that he called the Babe overrated. I shoulda taken a bat to his head.

Jonathan Chance

06-23-2004, 03:46 PM

Well, that LAST part is just crazy. Ruth is, without a doubt, one of the top five baseball players there has EVER been.

But as an aggregate we're seeing the greatest collection of players ever.

Sure, it's a fantasy, but I'd love to see how say, the 1906 Cubs would stack up against the 1989 Athletics with McGwire and Canseco.

I'm currently reading 'The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers' and in the history section it give information on the development of the pitches in the history. Would Christy Mathewson still have been great without the casual doctoring of the ball that Neyer and James explicitly state every pitcher used? He never knew a slider, for example. If Three-Finger Brown could only bring his sailor pitch and fastball to the game would Barry Bonds send it 500 feet?

kunilou

06-23-2004, 03:57 PM

A man after my own heart... :)
It's not that I don't think today's players aren't as talented as our old heroes. For all I know, ballplayers may have to work even harder to stand out then did those of the past. I simply, but strongly, believe it's an unfair comparison. Not to mention the fact that he called the Babe overrated. I shoulda taken a bat to his head.

I think Babe Ruth should be excluded from any discussion of past vs. present ballplayers. He was simply in a category all his own.

From 1919 (when he stopped pitching) through 1933, Ruth only had two seasons where he failed to play at least 130 games. That suggests he was pretty injury-free during most of his career and probably quite capable of handling a 162-game season.

People who say that Ruth couldn't compete in the modern era aren't admitting that he would have all the advantages of the modern era (weight and strength training, a livelier baseball, safe appendectomies and modern antibiotics). If the Babe didn't develop a cocaine habit, he'd most likely be in better shape and might have even posted better numbers at his peak and/or in the last couple of years of his career.

On the other hand, if Ty Cobb tried to bunt a modern baseball, he might set an all-time record for pop-ups to third base.

RickJay

06-23-2004, 07:30 PM

I On the other hand, if Ty Cobb tried to bunt a modern baseball, he might set an all-time record for pop-ups to third base.
But on the other hand, if you plunked Ty Cobb into 2004 and asked him to play modern baseball, he'd probably adapt his game and start hitting 25+ homers a year. Whatever his faults, Cobb was not stupid. That's why it's pointless to worry too much about the time line.

As to the Hack Wilson issue, he wasn't a very good Hall of Fame choice. He had some great years, but they weren't SUPER great. His 1930 season, in context, isn't any more impressive than John Olerud's 1993 season, or Jeff Kent in 2000, or at least a few Roberto Alomar seasons, or Will Clark's 1989. Overall he wasn't any better a player than Dolph Camilli, who had the same number of win shares and, in context, pretty much the same batting numbers. Wilson certainly doesn't deserve to be one of the first five guys kicked out, but he wasn't really a GREAT player.

Jonathan Chance

06-24-2004, 09:10 AM

Yeah, Hack Wilson would definitely be on my 'out' list, too. A very good player for a while but I'd like to see a high standard for admission.

Ross Youngs would be another borderline case for me. Good hitter (.322 AVG) but a very short career and not a lot of great counting stats.

What about Drysdale? A good pitcher but was he great? Sure, his ERA looks good but he was pitching in the era of the pitcher. And he only won 209 games. He was very good...but was he great?

zamboniracer

06-24-2004, 12:08 PM

When you guys are done with culling the Baseball HOF, would you mind taking a look at the Hockey HOF? You could literally take out 1/4 to 1/3 of the HHOF and not really lose anything. I mean they let just about anybody in. Baseball does a much better job.

We could kick that thief Eagleton out of the HHOF again just for good measure, if you like.

(For the uninformed Alan Eagleton (sp) was elected to the HHOF based on his contributions as a league organizer, player agent and player union agent. He was kicked out when it was learned he stole money from the players' pension funds.)

zamboniracer

06-24-2004, 12:19 PM

What about Drysdale? A good pitcher but was he great? Sure, his ERA looks good but he was pitching in the era of the pitcher. And he only won 209 games. He was very good...but was he great?

I was just about to put Drysdale on my list. He was famous, because he pitched in LA, but I don't think he was great. Others I'd boot would be Maranville, Hafey, and Rizzuto and I'd seriously consider defrocking former saint Kirby Puckett. I think I'd let Kirby stay based on baseball considerations, but I'd seriously consider it. Since I've got one boot left, I'd close up shop on the Veterans Committee itself.

As to who I'd let it, he wasn't a player but I think Marvin Miller has got to go in. For players I'd put in Jack Morris, Bert Blyleven and Jim Kaat.

Jonathan Chance

06-24-2004, 12:22 PM

I utterly agree on Miller. He arguably had the second most influence on the modern game after Judge Landis.

I flip back and forth on Morris and Kaat but I'm with you on Blyleven. There are many pitchers in the hall less deserving than Blyleven.

And the new way the Veteran's Committee does it is, I think, far superior. The only get to vote every two years and the electorate is all living members of the Hall of Fame. So you have to convince the guys already in that you deserve to join their number.

RickJay

06-24-2004, 07:46 PM

What about Drysdale? A good pitcher but was he great? Sure, his ERA looks good but he was pitching in the era of the pitcher. And he only won 209 games. He was very good...but was he great?
I've been back and forth about Drysdale.

Let me put it this way; should Juan Marichal be in the Hall of Fame? I'm guessing most people would say "Hell, yeah."

So show me Marichal was a better pitcher than Drysdale. No, really. Look at the numbers.

Marichal started 457 games, pitching 3507 innings with an ERA 22 percent better than league (adjusted for park.)

Drysdale started 465 games, pitched 3432 innings with an ERA 21 percent better than league.

The difference between them in actual pitching skill was negligible; Drysdale probably made up for it with his bat. The only significant difference in pitching numbers between them is W-L. Their defense-independent numbers are remarkably similar. By any measurement EXCEPT W-L they were the same pitcher. By Win Shares they are almost dead even: Marichal 263, Drysdale 258.

Now, I don't have support numbers for the pitchers individually... but it seems pretty clear to me that the reason for the disparity in W-L is offensive support. The two pitchers were regular starters in the NL at the same time for nine years, 1961-1969. Here are the runs scored by their teams:

1961: Giants 773, Dodgers 735
1962: Giants 878, Dodgers 842
1963: Giants 725, Dodgers 640
1964: Giants 656, Dodgers 614
1965: Giants 682, Dodgers 608
1966: Giants 675, Dodgers 606
1967: Giants 652, Dodgers 519
1968: Giants 599, Dodgers 470
1969: Giants 713, Dodgers 645

The Giants outscored the Dodgers EVERY YEAR that Drysdale and Marichal simultaneously pitched regularly. Granting that Dodger Stadium is a pitcher's park and Candlestick was more or less neutral, that doesn't account for the difference here. After Drysdale retired, Marichal continued to pitch and be supported by excellent offenses. He was supported by the best offense in baseball in 1970, the NL's #3 offense in 1971, #5 in 1972, #3 in 1973.

I actually think Drysdale wasn't a bad choice, although I used to think otherwise. I don't at all understand why you would pick Jack Morris to replace Drysdale; Morris had a slightly longer career but wasn't nearly as effective.

zamboniracer

06-25-2004, 08:21 AM

I don't at all understand why you would pick Jack Morris to replace Drysdale; Morris had a slightly longer career but wasn't nearly as effective.

I think Morris was the best AL pitcher throughout the 1980s and was the anchor of two different World Series champions.

Drysdale wasn't. Koufax and Gibson were better than him, and Koufax was the achor of the Dodgers World Series winners.

Neurotik

06-25-2004, 08:55 AM

Jack Morris career ERA+: 105
High ERA+: 127
Low ERA+: 78
Seasons Over ERA+ 100: 11
Seasons Under ERA+ 100: 6

Don Drysdale career ERA+: 121
High ERA+: 154
Low ERA+: 75
Seasons Over ERA+ 100: 11
Seasons Under ERA+ 100: 3

Drysdale's numbers destroy Jack Morris's. He had 6 seasons that were better than Morris's best season.

BobLibDem

06-25-2004, 01:54 PM

Roger Bresnahan Career BA .279, 26 career HR. One of the very early players, he was an innovator in catching equipment. However, those career batting stats are lowly.

Bill Mazerowski NEVER hit .300. Best year .283, most HR in one season 19. Great defensive player, but too weak offensively for me.

Juan Marichal 243-142. Only six great years. Stats got him in, but that ugly Roseboro incident is what I'll always think of when his name comes up.

Phil Niekro sure he got 318 wins, but he hung around forever to get it. He never was the dominant pitcher of his time.

Don Sutton- same as Niekro. Hanging around forever to get 300 wins shouldn't be a lock to get you in. For some prolonged period, you should be THE dominant player at your position. Neither Sutton nor Niekro were.

Trunk

06-25-2004, 02:03 PM

I can't believe I made it through 48 posts and no one had said Mazeroski (no 'w').

And, then BLAMMO!

He's in because of one hit.

BobLibDem

06-25-2004, 02:24 PM

Sorry to misspell Mazeroski's name. That was always my feeling- that he got in for THE home run. If Roger Maris is excluded because everyone says he only had one stellar year, then how did Maz get in for one stellar at bat?

Mr. Moto

06-25-2004, 02:33 PM

You guys are both wrong. If anything, Mazeroski was kept out of the Hall of Fame way too long.

First of all, his hitting was perfectly respectable (career .260), especially considering the fact that all of his home games were played in one of the deepest parks ever built. Forbes Field was so damn deep that the batting practice backstop would just be wheeled out and stored against the outfield wall.

Next, he didn't get in on one hit, and he wasn't merely a great defensive player. He was considered by some the greatest fielder ever to play the game. Opposing players would watch him during fielding practice the way they watch Sosa and Bonds today at batting practice.

He continues to hold the MLB double play record, for a second baseman, at 1,706.

He led the league in assists 9 times, and in double plays 8 times. He has 8 Golden Gloves.

Your opinion, say what you will. But Mazeroski stays in the Hall of Fame in any sane world.

Jonathan Chance

06-25-2004, 02:54 PM

I dunno, man. A lifetime OBP of .299? By that reasoning Rey Ordonez belongs in the HoF.

Career Batting: .260/.299/.367
League Batting: .263/.327/.398

So he wasn't respectable. He was below average for all players. His SB% was 54%...that's a detriment, too. Break even there tends to be about 2/3.

Fielding was better, I admit.

FPct: .983
LgFPct: .976

RFct: 5.57
LgRfct: 4.71

Good numbers. Toss in 7 All Star Games and 8 Gold Gloves and just 1 Top Ten MVP voting appearance and I still think it adds up to a good but not great player.

And if HE'S in...

FREE THE SANDBERG ONE!!!

Career Batting: .285/.344/.452
League Batting: .269/.337/.404

FPct: .989
LgFPct: .981

RFct: 5.10
LgRFct: 4.47

All Star Games: 10
Gold Gloves: 9
MVP: 1
Top Ten MVP: 4

Treviathan

06-25-2004, 03:24 PM

Nobody here has taken issue with my nomination of Tony Perez, and as much as I'd like to assume that my sheer sabermetric brilliance has simply cowed you all into submission, I think it's probably 'cause no one read it. :)

So, to summarize: I do not believe Tony Perez deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

His top five most similar players are Harold Baines, Dave Parker, Andre Dawson, Rusty Staub, and Dwight Evans. Good players all, but aside from maybe Dawson none of them deserve to be enshrined.

Perez only placed in the top ten in OPS three times in his career. He was never truly dominant, just consistently good for a long period of time. Yes, the RBI totals are impressive, but on some of those Cincinatti teams it would be hard not to drive in a hundred batting third or fourth.

Plus, he played first base, where posting a career 122 OPS+ makes you definitely an above-average player, probably an all-star, but not Hall-worthy.

Jonathan Chance

06-25-2004, 03:37 PM

MY sabermetric computer-like mind was simply viewing that as one of those obvious things that didn't need concurrence.

Marley23

06-25-2004, 05:01 PM

I heard about Maranville years ago, and I have to agree that he doesn't belong. I'm less of a stat-head when it comes to baseball sometimes- can someone give me an average fielding percentage for a shortshop? Maranville's career percentage was .956. I'm browsing totals for other HOF shortstops, and that seems average at best. It's well behind Ozzie Smith (.978), and Ozzie had a slightly better batting average.

Bill James apparently rated him as one of the top five shortstops ever, but as always, Bill James can eat my ass. :p

Jimmy Chitwood

06-25-2004, 05:36 PM

Neurotik

06-25-2004, 06:03 PM

Fielding percentages, as with almost all other categories, vary widely by era. Maranville's career FP as a SS was .952, and the league average for that time period was .940. Ozzie Smith's .978 came at a time when the league average was .966. So as disparate as the numbers seem, they're relatively equal when compared to the league average.
Well, you also have to look at their range.

For instance, I could have a 1.000 fielding percentage as a major league shorstop right now if I simply bothered to field the one ball per game I could actually handle and didn't even try to get the others.

So the question is, which would you rather have - a high FPC and low range or high range and low FPC. The really great defensive players like the Wizard and Mazeroski destroyed the rest of the league in both.

Zelski

06-25-2004, 06:03 PM

Hey Jonathan Chance,

I like where you started to go with the stats, but you didn't get all of the way there. You should be adjusting the hitting stats for era, ballpark, league, and you should probably be comparing him to other 2B.

Rey Ordonez played in the comparatively hit-happy nineties. Maz played in the pre-expansion, higher pitching mound era. Furthermore, there are approximately 5 players (maybe 6) on every team (of that era) you'd expect to hit better than your second baseman (LF, RF, CF, 1B, and 3B, maybe C), so the 2B hitting stats are lower than league averages. No, Maz couldn't swing with the Mays of the era, but then, should HOF be about that? If so, how does any pitcher get in? If so, why didn't every team put an OF at 2B? Maz was a great 2B of his era.

I don't have good references for the stats (nor am I Bill James), so I can't do all of the adjustments, etc. But, here are some snippets from 1960 National League:

Pittsburgh_____Bill Mazeroski_____.273/.320/.392____11
Milwaukee_____Chuck Cottier_____.227/.273/.301_____3
St. Louis_______Julian Javier______.237/.273/.341_____4
Los Angeles____Charlie Neal______.256/.321/.363_____8
San Francisco___Don Blasingame___.235/.302/.300_____2
Cincinnati______Billy Martin________.246/.304/.334____3
Chicago_______Jerry Kindall_______.240/.253/.346_____2
Philadelphia____Tony Taylor_______.284/.331/.377_____5

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL_1960.shtml

These players played the majority of their teams games at second base in 1960. I showed BA, OBP, SLG and HR. I know that Tony Taylor (at least) split time between two teams (here CHC and PHI) and I listed his composite stats. Because these stats are all from the 1960 NL and they are all the majority 2B, I feel they are close to adjusted for era, league, and position. The only thing not there is the ballpark factor, and as mentioned Forbes was huge. Maz looks like a pretty good hitter on that stat sheet!

Every NL team would've traded straight up for him immediately. His hitting is that much better than what they had and he really was referred to as the best defensive 2B ever. He turned 162 double plays in one season! Disclaimer: Maz only turned 127 in 1960, the year given above.

As an aside, I dislike hearing about Gold Gloves. They are voted on by people who care about star power which mostly means hitting not defense. I can get behind Sandberg for the HOF to a great extent, but he didn't really deserve those Gold Gloves. He got the votes because he was the most feared hitting 2B of his day. Check out Palmeiro's Gold Glove a few years back. The one he got when he played 39 games at first...

Jimmy Chitwood

06-25-2004, 06:26 PM

Well, you also have to look at their range.

For instance, I could have a 1.000 fielding percentage as a major league shorstop right now if I simply bothered to field the one ball per game I could actually handle and didn't even try to get the others.

So the question is, which would you rather have - a high FPC and low range or high range and low FPC. The really great defensive players like the Wizard and Mazeroski destroyed the rest of the league in both.

I wasn't advancing any particular argument about which shortstop was better. I was answering Marley's question about average fielding percentage:

I'm less of a stat-head when it comes to baseball sometimes- can someone give me an average fielding percentage for a shortshop?

Zelski, I don't think anybody's saying that Mazeroski was a bad hitter or a bad player. Even the numbers you produced indicate that he was just a little better than most second basemen of his era at the plate. So, great in the field, better than average for his position at the plate. Still not, in my opinion, good enough for the Hall of Fame.

Neurotik

06-25-2004, 06:45 PM

I wasn't advancing any particular argument about which shortstop was better. I was answering Marley's question about average fielding percentage:
True. But I wanted to bring that point up since everyone seemed to be focusing on FPC when measuring relative defense in the thread. That's all. Yours just happened to be the last post I saw on the subject.
Zelski, I don't think anybody's saying that Mazeroski was a bad hitter or a bad player. Even the numbers you produced indicate that he was just a little better than most second basemen of his era at the plate. So, great in the field, better than average for his position at the plate. Still not, in my opinion, good enough for the Hall of Fame.
So, do you think that Ozzie should be in the hall?

Maz was apparently, by far, the best defensive second baseman of his era (Ozzie Smith good from what I hear) and he was also one of the top offensive second baseman in the league, too.

And statistics relative to position are what you should be measured on!

Zelski

06-25-2004, 06:46 PM

Jimmy,

Actually some people do say he was a bad hitter. I referenced Jonathan Chance for a reason. He said Maz was below average.

I posted the (admittedly incomplete) stats to disprove that. Furthermore, I think he was a good hitter for his position. Look again at the chart. He is almost 30 points better in BA than the average, he is about 25 points better in OBP, and he is 55 points better at Slugging. That means he is about 80 points better in OPS. He is the league's leading homerun hitter among 2B, with almost three times as many HR as average. Those are significant improvements. The best argument made is that those numbers aren't big compared to league averages for all positions. I think that is unfair. An HOF player should be dominant at his position, not necessarily dominant compared to the league. If that kind of thinking prevailed, a successful team would play eight (heavy-hitting) outfielders and a pitcher. No one does, because the positions are different. Different positions mean different standards. Maz was a dominant 2B in his era, more defensively than offensively, but still pretty dominant at the plate.

Zelski

06-25-2004, 06:51 PM

Jonathan Chance

06-25-2004, 08:35 PM

Well, you certainly can't consider bringing just one year in and make a HoF case from it. By that standard Kevin Mitchell would be in for 1989 and Darin Erstad would be in for 2000. I think we can all agree that's invalid.

By choosing only 1960 you're skewing the data in your arguments favor. Suppose I selected...1963. Suddenly he's scraping for time again.

I don't have my copy of Win Shares available yet (it's still in boxes) but I'd be interested in seeing what sort of WS he put up over his career.

Jimmy Chitwood

06-25-2004, 09:27 PM

So, do you think that Ozzie should be in the hall?

I don't know, probably not. He was a little bit better hitter than Mazeroski, though. Anyway, I agree with your premise- if Ozzie's in, Maz should probably be, too. I also agree that you should be judged in relation to others at your position, to some extent. You still have to take into account the possibility that the other NL second basemen weren't Hall of Famers either. Historically speaking, Mazeroski was a very forgettable hitter, whether he was a pretty good option at second base in 1960 or a very good option at second base in 1960. I can certainly see the case for Mazeroski defensively, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure that a very forgettable hitter deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

Actually some people do say he was a bad hitter. I referenced Jonathan Chance for a reason. He said Maz was below average.

That's because he was below average. He never had an OPS+ over 100. His career BA, SLG, and OBP are below the league averages for that time period. Jonathan Chance was referring to the league average for all players, not by position. He was a better than average batting 2nd baseman, and a worse than average batter disregarding position.

Mr. Moto

06-25-2004, 10:04 PM

Sure, pick 1963, Jonathan Chance. Maz led the league in double plays that year.

He was in a streak then, running from 1960 to 1967, where he led the league in double plays.

Maybe you all don't remember how much an injustice it was seen that Mazaroski wasn't in the hall. It was seen as a slight against great fielders. George Will campaigned hard for his induction. Brooks Robinson called himself Mazeroski's biggest fan.

And now you want to kick him out? Good thing ya can't :D

Jonathan Chance

06-25-2004, 10:21 PM

Right, but double plays, like RBI are context dependent and therefore limited in their usefullness as an evaluational tool. That's why I prefer Range and FPct (as limited as those two are)(defensive metrics still have some serious distance to come).

And with all respect to Brooks...he's everyone's best friend. One of the true saints in the world. Take his positive comments about someone with that in mind.

Mr. Moto

06-25-2004, 10:58 PM

All stats are context dependent.

All of Mazeroski's batting stats were racked up in an era dominated by great pitching, and he worked all of his home games in a field that was huge.

The Veterans Committee took all of this into account, I'm sure.

Was he a balanced player? Not as much as some, no. But keeping runs off the scoreboard helps your team win too. Any team in the majors would have been glad to have Mazeroski.

astorian

06-25-2004, 11:55 PM

The election of Bill Mazeroski didn't outrage me (actually, NOBODY in the Hall outrages me... it just doesn't seem that important to me, really. Twenty years ago, I'd have been ready to fight over this, but I have a hard time taking the issue that seriously any more), but I still find him undeserving.

Look at Frank White's numbers. They're quite comparable to Mazeroski's in most categhories, and a little BETTER in the rest. Does anybody think Frank White is a Hall of Famer?

Mr. Moto, care to explain why Maz is more deserving than Frank White?