2008 MLB Hall Of Fame Eligibles

Cafe Society
41

[QUOTE=The Walking Dude]
RickJay, I’m not complaining about you saying no to Lee Smith. I was just wondering why not? I found your opinions on everyone else very interesting and I was hoping for some insight on Smith.
[/QUOTE]

Well, because he wasn’t a very great pitcher. He was very good, but pitched 1283 innings in his entire career, which is less than half of most Hall of Fame pitchers. Its about half of Sandy Koufax, and Koufax is famous for having a short career.

I know relief pitchers are different and all that blah blah blah, but they just are not that valuable, especiually the way they’re used now where they’re often brought in to get “Saves” that the worst pitcher on the team could convery 96% of the time. Relief pitchers are as valuable as platoon players, and nobody wants to put Rance Mulliniks or Mike Easler in the Hall of Fame. Smith was probably as good as Bruce Sutter, but Bruce Sutter shouldn’t have been elected either.

Gossage, at least, pitched quite a bit more innings. To my mind there are basically three relief pitchers in the entire history of baseball who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame; Gossage, Rivera, Eckersley (and Eckersley only in part because he also has a lot of value as a starter) and Hoyt Wilhelm.

Am I being unfair? Hey, nobdy has a right to be a Hall of Famer. I eon’t think it’s any insult to a player to say he’s not a Hall of Famer, not in baseball at least (as distinct from hockey, where all you have to do is last twelve years and have a nickname.)

42

Admittedly, this is a bump that is somewhat off-topic (and a few days late), but any comments on the merits of the group elected by the various Veterans’ Committees?

43

Soputhworth and Williams are worthy choices.

As to Kuhn, O’Malley and Dreyfuss, I don’t really find the whole “builders” category worthy of enshrinement among the great players. I could see having a separate order of honor, the way they do with broadcasters; having Bowie Kuhn’s plaque along with Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays just seems stupid to me. I’d prefer the Hall of Fame itself to be about what happens on the field.

44

I don’t have a problem with any of the Veterans’ Committee selections except Kuhn, who I can’t see as anything but an utter screw-up.

45

I would vote only for Gossage. If either Morris or Mattingly had been slightly more dominant for slightly longer, I’d put them in. As it is, only Goose has my vote. McGwire, Bonds, and Sosa are all permanently out in my book for using the 'roids.

46

[QUOTE=Quercus]
By the way, from a casual baseball fan, is there a name for the players who weren’t quite superlatively good enough players to be “Hall Of Famers” but are crucial enough to baseball’s history that they should be (at least occasionally) featured in any serious baseball museum?

'Cause we all know that the single name in the above list (except possibly MacGuire re steriods) that will be most mentioned during the 2008 and future seasons is not the consensus HOFer, but the slightly-above average pitcher who had some elbow problems.
[/QUOTE]

Ever been to Cooperstown?

The Hall of Fame is a small part of the place - the rest is that baseball museum you described, tracing the history of the game.

There is also an associated library and archive, and it is comprehensive - millions of items including 130,000 baseball cards are included.

So lots of players are immortalized at Cooperstown - just about everyone who played the game.

47

[QUOTE=ChattyChattyBingBing]
For Dennis Eckersley it’s one HR per 9.47 IP
[/QUOTE]

Is that his whole career, or just as a closer? Irrelevant anyway, Eck is the only pitcher to have 200 wins and 200 saves.

48

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]

  1. It’s the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of Numbers.

  2. To clarify, the BBWAA’s *own * criteria for selection, the ones you must admit are the relevant ones, are as follows: “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.” IOW, only 1 out of 6 standards refer to the precious numbers you stat geeks think are both the be-all and the end-all. But they ain’t, and you’re wrong. Five of the six criteria are about intangibles (and will likely keep McGwire out, and should but won’t keep Bonds out).

  3. The intangible that counts most, to me at least, is “contribution to the team”, and that means performance in Big Games. The greatest players perform their best when it matters most, and bring their teams along with them on their backs. Morris did that, and was therefore great. Blyleven didn’t, and therefore wasn’t.

'Nuf sed? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]

Er, no, not even close.

For starters, I was replying to a quote from you in which you said, simply: “Sorry, Bert, too many taters.” What am I supposed to take from this, regarding your dismissal of Blyleven’s candidacy? It sure sounded like you were eliminating Bert because of a, you know, number. All I did was point out that Jack Morris was a bigger server of gopher-balls over his career than Blyleven was.

For another thing, your weird desire to segregate all baseball fans into either soulless “stat geeks” or people who truly love and understand baseball is woefully misguided and, frankly, insulting.

For yet another, deciding that “contributions to their team” means “performance in Big Games” is ridiculous. I assume, for instance, that you think Ernie Banks should have his HoF membership rescinded – I mean, he never played in a single World Series game! If he never played in a Big Game, how could he meet your criteria? And what about Willie Mays, who was absolutely awful in four World Series, of which his teams lost three?

For yet another, did you actually bother to check how Bert Blyleven performed in his own “Big Games?” He played in three LCS and two World Series (both of which his teams won), and in those WS games he went 2-1 with a 2.35 ERA. In 47+ postseason innings, he was 5-1 with a 2.47 ERA. In other words, in his opportunities, he performed slightly better in “Big Games” than Morris did – you just remember Jack because he had 2 or 3 famous complete game victories in the post-season. And I’m reasonably sure that HoF voters are specifically told not to base selection on a tiny number of individual games or records (which is why Roger Maris and Don Larsen haven’t simply been acclaimed by consensus among voters).

So, what we have are “player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”

I have no reason to separate Morris from Blyleven in terms of integrity, sportsmanship and character. For player’s record and ability, it’s not even close – Blyleven was a superior player by every meaningful measurement we have. And for “contributions to the team,” Blyleven objectively outperformed Morris in their post-season games – you know, “when it counted.” Of course, it seems like the fact that I try to look at things objectively makes me, in your eyes, some kind of spiritless automaton.

Finally, I’ve always been sorry you never replied to my last post in this old thread. From your tone in this post, I’d guess you never even read it.

-P

49

To single McGwire for steroids is unfair. I suspect that eliminating steroid users will empty the HOF from future inductees. It was not illegal when he took it. And, his leaving Andro in his locker triggered the interest in drugs in baseball that will appear to eventually clean it up.
To Detroiters we always hoped Trammel and Whitaker would go in together. They played about 20 years together and turned the DP like ESP was involved. It was beautiful thing to see.
Jim Rice was an awesome hitter and deserves to go in.
Morris was the dominating RT hander of the American league. You can argue for him too. Pitched a lot of innings. Pitchers that challenge hitters will give up more HRs. HRs given up is a over rated stat.

50

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
To single McGwire for steroids is unfair. I suspect that eliminating steroid users will empty the HOF from future inductees. It was not illegal when he took it.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, it was. From the Mitchell Report (SR-10):

“Many have asserted that steroids and other performance enhancing substances were not banned in Major League Baseball before the 2002 Basic Agreement. This is not accurate. Beginning in 1971 and continuing today, Major League Baseball’s drug policy has prohibited the use of any prescription medication without a valid prescription. By implication, this prohibition applied to steroids even before 1991, when Commissioner Fay Vincent first expressly included steroids in baseball’s drug policy. Steroids have been listed as a prohibited substance under the Major League Baseball drug policy since then, although no player was disciplined for steroid use before the prohibition was added to the collective bargaining agreement in 2002.”

51

Rich “Goose” Gossage was the only one elected.

He got 466 of 543 votes. Well exceeding the 75% required. Hooray for Goose.

Jim Rice was second and is getting close. He had 392 votes.

Jim

More here: http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/10565288
Second Edit: Voters agreed with me and several others, I just checked.

52

The very low vote total for Raines (24%) is borderline criminal.

If given Raines and Rice to draft, knowing that their careers would play out exactly as they in fact did (adjusting for era & park effects and such of course), I’d be 100% confident that by choosing Raines I would be making the correct choice.

53

[QUOTE=John DiFool]
The very low vote total for Raines (24%) is borderline criminal.

If given Raines and Rice to draft, knowing that their careers would play out exactly as they in fact did (adjusting for era & park effects and such of course), I’d be 100% confident that by choosing Raines I would be making the correct choice.
[/QUOTE]

I kind of think that, like, Rob Neyer and Bill James should create an entirely separate Hall-of-Fame, for the players who are actually good players. Raines and Bert Blyleven could be among the early inductees. Oh, well.

54

[QUOTE=John DiFool]
The very low vote total for Raines (24%) is borderline criminal.

If given Raines and Rice to draft, knowing that their careers would play out exactly as they in fact did (adjusting for era & park effects and such of course), I’d be 100% confident that by choosing Raines I would be making the correct choice.
[/QUOTE]

You would think this was a no-brainer. But then look at the voters.

55

[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
You would think this was a no-brainer. But then look at the voters.
[/QUOTE]

That link is hilarious.

“Sorry, Hank.”

56

[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
But then look at the voters.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks - very useful link. I’d always suspected it was bad - glad someone is at least making a record of this.

57

Great link. I like this Jack Morris bit (context: HoF voter says vote for Morris based on game 7 of 1991 WS):

Well, it worked for Bill Mazeroski. (admittedly, not by the BBWAA)

58

[QUOTE=John DiFool]
The very low vote total for Raines (24%) is borderline criminal.
[/QUOTE]

Well, yes and no. Certainly, Tim Raines was unquestionably a better player than Jim Rice or Andre Dawson.

However, for whatever reason, this is the way the BBWAA does things; your vote totals go up year by year. I don’t understand that, personally. I don’t know why you would think in 2008 that Goose Gossage was a Hall of Famer, but didn’t think it in, say, 2002. For that matter, I do not understand how an intelligent person who knows anything about baseball would have voted for Bruce Sutter but not Gossage; even comparing two guys who did they same thing, they voted the wrong guy in first. But that’s how they do it.

As has been illustrated, a lot of the folks who do the voting don’t really seem to put a lot of thought into their decisions. I know of one Toronto-based writer who has a vote really who doesn’t know a great deal about baseball and baseball history in general. The fact is that the HoF’s admissions are determined by a group of people who aren’t truly representative of baseball’s body of expert opinion and historical knowledge, and many of them just don’t know much about it and can’t be bothered to really think it through.

Bear in mind that some writers voted against Hank Aaron. Hank Aaron. Some voted against Willie Mays. And this year, one guy voted for Todd Stottlemyre.

As much as I hate to say this, the existing Hall of Fame class really does not represent baseball’s greatest players - it includes Chick Hafey, who wasn’t half the player John Olerud was, and excludes a hundred or two hundred guys who were better. They’ve got the top 100 guys pretty much bang on, but beyond that it’s a mix of deserving guys, borderline guys, and out-and-out ridiculous picks like Hafey or George Kelly or Jesse Haines. There’s really no realistic chance that the BBWAA could make things worse; to match Hafey, Kelly and Haines, you’d have to elect, say, Jesse Barfield, Jeff Conine, and Bob Welch. The fact that they vote stupidly doesn’t mean a whole lot to me anymore.

59

[QUOTE=RickJay]

As much as I hate to say this, the existing Hall of Fame class really does not represent baseball’s greatest players - it includes Chick Hafey, who wasn’t half the player John Olerud was, and excludes a hundred or two hundred guys who were better. They’ve got the top 100 guys pretty much bang on, but beyond that it’s a mix of deserving guys, borderline guys, and out-and-out ridiculous picks like Hafey or George Kelly or Jesse Haines. There’s really no realistic chance that the BBWAA could make things worse; to match Hafey, Kelly and Haines, you’d have to elect, say, Jesse Barfield, Jeff Conine, and Bob Welch. The fact that they vote stupidly doesn’t mean a whole lot to me anymore.
[/QUOTE]

I know it won’t ever happen, but there really needs to be a concerted effort to review and amend most of the veteran’s committee work done under Frankie Frisch. Without his biased work, we’d be free both of a lot of clearly undeserving entrants and a lot of the “Well, player A is better than the already enshrined player B” arguments.

60

Sadly playing in a small town or no World Series holds back players. It is unfair that playing for Montreal or a team that does not go to post season holds back your chances. Playing on the national stage makes you more electable.It does not make you a better player.