I sure as hell would vote Rose before Strawberry.
If Strawberry gets any votes at all…IMHO MLB loses all credibility.
I don’t follow your logic there (it might show that character isn’t that important, not that it doesn’t exist), but I’m not sure Mattingly should be in either.
Reeder, how can it be okay to vote for Rose (who compromised the game’s integrity) but wrong to vote for Strawberry?
Hell, yes, it is. Line drives to left hit the wall. If the batter has some speed and the left fielder is a stiff, they’re doubles. For a clearer picture, look at his Yankees and Rays performances, and they’re no great shakes. Without his being a native Tampon who the Rays could use for PR, he’d never have had a chance at those 3000 hits, either.
I wouldn’t complain about Boggs making it in, but you have to consider more than numbers. I’d take off points for all of his poor team play, all of his refusing to situation-hit when his average might be in danger, all his complaints about fielders getting errors, his rep for being able to recalculate his average between the crack of the bat and his arrival at first. He further brought discredit on his team and himself with that Margo Adams “I’m a sex addict” caper. I know, for some of you it’s all numerical, but it’s the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats.
Hernandez and Mattingly both need their New York discounts, btw, and so does Rich Gossage. Jim Abbott gets a spot in the Hire the Disabled wing, along with Pete Gray and Mordecai Brown.
More generally, yes, this year’s slate is pretty thin - and anyone on it who can’t get in this year probably can’t get in ever. We’ll know who to stop pushing for soon enough.
My memory of Willie McGee was when he was playing RF for the Giants. Curt Schilling was batting and hit a weak liner to right. McGee picked it up and threw it to first, but either his aim was dead on or hilariously off, because he managed to bean Schilling, who was running up the first base line, right in the batting helmet.
Anyway, no way.
In fact, screw all these guys. I’m regularly disappointed with the people who get inducted into the HoF. If we have to argue about it, they shouldn’t be in. The HoF should be to commemorate the greatest players who ever played the game, not just some guys who were pretty good at the time.
Okay, maybe Boggs. And Sandberg, but don’t tell the Cubs fans I said so. Arguing with Cubs fans is one of my favorite hobbies.
Over the weekend, I bought Pete Palmer and Gary Gillette’s new Baseball Encyclopedia (the one published by Barnes and Noble). As with the previous efforts by Palmer (the Total Baseball series, among others), it includes linear-weights-based measures of player contributions to winning games for Batting, Fielding, Basestealing, and Pitching. For each player, a value is generated for how many wins above .500 would be generated by a team composed of eight league-average players plus the player in question in each of these areas, and these values are then combined to generate a “Player Overall Wins” value for that player for that season. A league-average player would have a value of 0.0. They go on to total the Player Overall Wins values for each player’s career to produce a career value. Babe Ruth’s the all-time leader, edging out Barry Bonds on the strength of Ruth’s Pitching Wins (Bonds had a slight lead in Batting Wins + Fielding Wins after the 2003 season, the last for which data is included in the book). Among the players on this year’s HOF ballot who rank in the top 500 of all time, the values are:
Boggs 51.1 (33rd)
Sandberg 36.7 (tied for 91st)
Trammell 31.7 (tied for 127th)
Blyleven 31.1 (tied for 135th)
Gossage 29.5 (tied for 153rd)
Strawberry 23.1 (tied for 219th)
Lee Smith 22.4 (tied for 245th)
Tommy John 20.1 (tied for 298th)
Tony Phillips 19.3 (tied for 325th)
Rice 18.6 (tied for 343rd)
Dawson 18.1 (tied for 355th)
Concepcion 17.9 (tied for 362nd)
Montgomery 17.6 (tied for 374th)
Mattingly 15.9 (tied for 413th)
Parker 15.0 (tied for 443rd)
Chili Davis 14.8 (tied for 453rd)
No major surprises there, I think, and the rankings are in line with the consensus opinion that seems to be forming in this thread. My gut feeling is that the line between Hall of Famers and non-Hall of Famers should be drawn somewhere between 200th and 250th, considering the number of members already in the Hall and making allowance for members who’re in primarily for non-playing contributions to the game (executives, umpires, managers, etc.). I’m a bit surprised that Strawberry ranks as high as he does, and I’m not really ready to include him, even without considering his off-field problems.
Other interesting data points: players in the top 100 who have been eligible for the Hall but are no longer on the ballot include:
[ul]
[li]Bobby Grich (31st) (!)[/li][li]Ron Santo (40th)[/li][li]Darrell Evans (63rd)[/li][li]Dick Allen (70th)[/li][li]Willie Randolph (88th)[/li][li]Lou Whitaker (97th)[/li][/ul]
Grich was something of a surprise to me, but the formula for Fielding Wins does tend to boost the numbers for middle infielders (FWs push Nap Lajoie up to 3rd on the all-time POW list, even though he’s only 21st all-time in Batting Wins). Still Grich does rank 122nd all-time in Batting Wins alone, and by a more familiar measure like Adjusted OPS, his career number is 125 and he was above 100 almost every season of his career. The other guys on this list are all ones who’re perennially mentioned in discussions of who should be in the Hall but isn’t.
And RickJay, regarding Hernandez vs. Mattingly: Hernandez ranks 103rd all-time in POW, compared to Mattingly at 413th. I think the main reason Mattingly’s still on the ballot is that he’s only been eligible for a few years, and he played in NY, so he stays in the minds of the voters. His vote totals have declined each year from his peak of 145 in 2001 (his first year on the ballot). Hernandez never got more than 52 votes (and nearly dropped off after his first year of eligibility in 1996, getting only the 24 votes required to remain on the ballot). There are guys who’re more deserving than Hernandez of being in who have dropped off, but it’s inexplicable to me that there are still at least 40 or so voters who think Mattingly’s one of them.
They’re not as good, but he was 35 when he came to NY and hit .300 his first four years there, and .292 the next. And he hit .280 and .301 at 40 and 41 with Tampa. Given his age, I don’t think that’s a preciptious drop.
If you leave off those two seasons, he still has 2800 hits and his career average goes up to .331. Still decent if you ask me.
Baseball has probably had more jerks than any other sport, it seems a shame to stop acknowledging great players based on their jerkiness now. 
Yes. Exactly the reasoning that kept Ty Cobb out!
Oh, wait . . . .
Um, Rick? Did Don Mattingly insult your mother? Kill your puppy? Pee on your house? I’m trying hard to understand the animosity toward a guy who ISN’T in the Hall of Fame and is never GOING to be in the Hall of Fame!
Personally, I “haven’t the foggiest notion” how anyone can get so angry about a player just being on the freaking ballot!
Up front, I was a Yankees fan for many years, and Mattingly was one of my favorite players, along with Ron Guidry. That said, if I were a sportswriter, would I vote to put either man in the Hall of Fame? Sigh… nope, I’m afraid not. Great players and (seemingly) great guys though they were, they just didn’t have ENOUGH stellar seasons to merit inclusion in the Hall of Fame. And despite the allegedly all-powerful New York media, neither man is (or ever will be) in the Hall of Fame.
That OUGHT to be enough to satisfy your sense of justice, but apparently it isn’t. Hence, the gratuitious jabs at Mattingly’s “character,” and the suggestion that he “presided” (how does any player “preside” over a team?) over the Yankees’ longest playoff drought.
Now, I grant you that many players lauded by the media for character are really scumbags (perfect example: Kirby Puckett. A very good player, sure, but would he have been such an overwhelming first-ballot selection if he hadn’t been perceived as the saintliest man alive? I doubt it!), and some that the media pillory are decent guys (Eddie Murray comes to mind). But the New York media didn’t lionize Don Mattingly, and they didn’t love him- the FANS did. Contrary to what outsiders may believe, New York fans don’t toe the media line! (The New York press adored Reggie Jackson- fans generally just tolerated him.)
Now, Mattingly always SEEMED like a wonderful gent, just as Guidry did, but obviously, none of us really knows what he’s like. If I met him, I might detest him. But on the field, he always performed at a high level, always gave his all, and always worked extremely hard to improve his game. Since you cite Keith HErnandez as a better first baseman, it might interest you to know that MAttingly agreed with you. Mattingly was a very good first baseman, but he was well aware that his crosstown rival Hernandez was much better and routinely made plays that Mattingly couldn’t- so Mattingly regularly sought advice and instruction from Hernandez!
Years ago, I read a Stephen Jay Gould essay about Mickey Mantle. Gould says Mantle was at Yankee Stadium hours before a game, around 1986, and shook his head when he saw Mattingly taking extra batting practice with the rookies. “He doesn’t need to be there,” Mantle laughed. “I sure never was.”
THAT reflects the “character” New York fans loved in Mattingly. He was devoted to the game, and even as his skills ebbed, he never stopped working hard to stay as close to the top of his game as possible. THAT kind of character is not a media construct.
If you just meant to say that character doesn’t necessarily have much to do with how productive a player is, sadly, you’re right. Mattingly’s character didn’t translate into pennants for the Yankees. That doesn’t make his character any less admirable. And let’s be honest: if the Yankees failed to win the pennant from 1984-86, it sure WASN’T because Mattingly wasn’t holding up his end.
Oh, as for the original question…
Ryne Sandberg should be a Hall of Famer for sure.
Wade Boggs, too.
I’d probably vote for Bert Blyleven and Goose Gossage, too.
Definitely Boggs, possibly Sandberg and/or Blyleven. The rest of those guys are a dime a dozen. Dawson, Garvey, Mattingly, Murphy, Parker, and Rice are all effectively the same player.
Add me to the list people who disagree with the statement, “If X is in, Y should be too.” One (or twenty) mistake(s) do not justify another.
Those are all excellent reasons not to vote for him. But it still doesn’t explain your surprise that he’s on the eligibility list.
By being the captain of the team, which Mattingly was (I believe)?
290 ft. line drives to the opposite field aren’t easy to hit either. My point is that there is very little room in left field at Fenway, which makes it hard to drop in the types of singles that Boggs hit consistently. While the short left field helps right-handed power hitters, it hurts left-handed singles hitters.
How is anybody calling Sandberg a borderline ballot member? Seriously.
He was the best 2B in the NL from 1984 until 1992 or 1993. During 6 of those 9 seasons he was the best 2B in all of baseball. I don’t know why anyone is considering him a borderline candidate. He had 5 seasons with VORPs over 60 and 2 with VORPs over 75. For reference, 75 is about equivalent to Bret Boone’s 2003 season or Alfonso Soriano’s 2002 season, and 60 is about equivalent to what Jeff Kent put up in 2001.
If a player has an 9 year stretch where he is the best player at his position, that sort of dominance should be rewarded with a HOF trip.
Ty Cobb did a hell of a lot more than bring a batting average. He drove his teammates, and scared the opposition. He’d sac to move a runner. He’d do whatever it took - if he was a Boggs-type hitter his average would have been even higher.
Sandberg, Trammell, and Lou Whitaker have all been hurt because they weren’t born 5 years earlier. If they had, then their HOF eligibility would have come right before the major offensive explosion in baseball overall and middle infielders specifically. They are hampered by the comparisons to what is currently happening in baseball. Trammell and Sandberg (and Whitaker to a slightly lesser extent) are all worthy candidates who deserve to be voted in.
I think, other than Boggs, this will be the year where you can say “If he didn’t get in now, he might as well just wait for the veteran’s committee.”
Even higher? Yes, we all know how low it was. :rolleyes:
Cobb wasn’t exactly a team player. He’d do whatever was necessary to win, but always on his own terms. How many more games could his team have won in the 20s if he hadn’t deliberately refused to hit home runs*?
I’ll also point out Ted Williams, another player who concentrated on his own stats and not on team play. And Cap Anson, such a virulent racist that he kept Blacks out of MLB for 50 years. Or Roger Clemens, who can’t be bothered to suit up with his team on days he’s not pitching (and he’ll be elected to the HOF the first time he’s eligible). And there’s also Barry Bonds.
“Works and Plays Well With Others” is not a baseball statistic.
*Cobb told reporters that he didn’t think home runs were as exciting as scoring by singles and steals. When challenged that he couldn’t hit them, he told reporters that, for the next two games, he’d swing for the fences. He hit 5 HRs in those two games, setting an AL record both for HRs and total bases (he also had a double) in 2 games that lasted at least until the 60s.
On most of these guys, I have no opinion. There’s two, though.
Lee Smith was as reliable as a gravestone. Fans knew that if they were winning when big Lee ambled in, they could sit back and smile. It was in the bag. Not many relievers get in the Hall, but Lee Smith should go in if any do.
Darryl Strawberry was a brilliant player, but his endless line of cocaine relapses will keep him out. That’s fine with me.
I would vote for Strawberry, Jim Abbot, Doug Decinces, Minnie Mendoza, my brother who hasn’t played since he was in ninth grade, and my dog before I voted for Pete Rose.
Boggs and Sandberg are definite Hall of Famers in my eyes. They were both among the best players at their positions for years, and any team in the league would have been thrilled to have them. I think Blyleven deserves it as well. My reaction to the other eligibles ranges from “I wouldn’t vote for 'em, but it wouldn’t bother me to see them inducted” (Trammel and Gosage) to “no way in hell” (Nixon and Steinbach).
And Tommy John’s surgeon should be inducted for his lasting impact on the game.
It has been fairly well established by recent research that Linear Weights simply do not work for defensive statistics, and are in a lot of cases insanely wrong. Lajoie’s stats in particular are hopelessly misinterpreted. Suggesting that
Grich was a great and underrated player, but Linear Weights is near-useless for measuring fielding skill, and the entire system has the significant problem of rating an average player as having no value, which does not make any sense and will tend to overvalue players who were good in short careers.
I’d like to point out a few other things:
-
Ty Cobb did not “refuse to hit home runs.” He didn’t take uppercut swings, like almost everyone else at the time, not because he thought it was less exciting but because like most people in baseball at the time he felt it was a sucker’s game to hit fly balls. That was not something unique to Ty Cobb, it was the accepted wisdom throughout baseball. the story about his 5-homer performance being a response to that challenge is probably apocryphal; I have never found a primary source for it.
-
Cobb was also not nearly as hated or as disliked as people think today. It’s worth noting that when he was suspended in 1912, his teammates refused to play without him. Would they have done that for someone they disliked, someone who didn’t like playing for the team? He wasn’t a good man or a nice man by my personal standards, but he wasn’t Satan.
-
astorian, I don’t understand what you’re saying. Geez, did I sound like I was furious? Relax.
Furious, no. Snide and irrationally hostile, yes.
All you had to say was “Nope” or “Mattingly was excellent for a few seasons, but on the whole, didn’t have a Hall of Fame career.” You’d have been right, even passionate Yankees fans would have agreed, for the most part, and we’d have moved on.
There was no need to sugest that his (seemingly) admirable character was simply a media construct (it was real enough, it just didn’t translate into a Yankees dynasty). There was no need to question his presence on the ballot (there are usually dozens of good-but-not-quite-great candidates on the ballot every year- why single him out?), especially when there’s no chance at all he’ll actually be elected.
Interesting you should say that.
Here’s what BP has to say about Chili Davis:
In a sense that can count for most of the players on the eligible list. Even if they’re not HoF caliber performers they’re still (mostly) great players who should be remembered, not for being non-great, but for being truly good at the game.