2003 - Murray for sure. All time top ten RBI, 502hr, 3000+ hits
The jury is out – Sandberg
2004 - Eckersley and Molitor
2005 - Boggs
2006 - None
2007 - McGwire, Gwynn, and Ripkin
2003: Eddie Murray is a definite yes by virtue of slamming 500 homeruns, most of which were hit prior to the current power boom. Ryne Sandberg is also in as his stats are pretty impressive for a second baseman. Lee Smith, right now, is out - he just doesn’t strike me as dominant as Eckersley was - but that may change in the future. Fernando Valenzuela is an obvious no.
2004: There are plenty of outfielders better than Joe Carter and his .306 lifetime OBP not in the hall, so he’s out. Paul Molitor is an automatic, with his 3,319 career hits. Dennis Eckersley was too dominant from 1988-92 to deny; that 1990 season still looks like a typo. Dennis Martinez’s 3.70 career ERA is too high for consideration. And Jimmy Key was very good, but not great.
2005: Wade Boggs is in, without question. Anyone ever notice how comparatively few 3B there are in the Hall?
2006: Albert Belle would get my vote, if I had one. He put together a string of seven memorable years, from 1993-99, and I’d suggest that if his name were Kirby Puckett there might not even be a discussion. Orel Hershiser is a tough no; had he began his major league career earlier, he might have racked up enough wins/innings to get my vote. Darryl Strawberry suffers from the same fate as Carter. And Will Clark lost his power stroke and turned into Mark Grace way too early to be inducted.
2007: Eric Davis had great potential (like Strawberry), but he lost too much time to injury. As for Mark McGwire, Cal Ripken, and Tony Gwynn, they’re all certainties - in fact, can you imagine someone looking at Ripken’s consecutive game streak, or Gwynn’s .338 career batting average, and thinking, “Hmm…nope, I just don’t see a Hall-of-Fame caliber career here?”
In retrospect, I’m kind of hard on pitchers, and will be until Bert Blyleven gets in. It’s really hard to vote for guys like Hershiser or Martinez while Blyleven’s out.
(P.S. Thanks, RickJay, for providing all the links to Baseball Reference. Very handy!)
2003:
Murray -1st ballot automatic HoF, despite the screechs and bleats from those who say that he was sullen/churlish. (Which is a reporters way of saying that Murray found their questions A) Inane B) Repetitive C) Mindless D) Just plain stupid
Sandberg -best 2nd baseman of the 80’s though he stayed on a few years too long
2004:
Molitor: he’s got Robin Yount pushing for him, plus his 37 game hitting streak, plus his 3000+ hits.
Eckersley -Decent as a starting pitcher, but came into his own as a closer. Not a reliever, a closer. 'Course it helped that he got off drugs. Storyteller: The game and the World Series were certainly over…for Eck and the A’s after Kirk Gibson batted in the bottom of the 9th in Game 1 of the 1988 series.
despite that, he gets in.
2005:
Boggs -Definitely, despite the hideous nude photos of Margo Adams appearing in Penthouse back in 1988/89. cmkeller: I could give a rats ass what hat Boggs wears. The player should be able to choose, NOT the HOF voting board.
2006:
Herscheiser -Yeah, but I’m not all that strong on him. he has the consecutive scorless innings streak (during which he pitched no-hitter) and he, along with Gibson, willed the Dodgers to win the WS in 1988. But he seems to have stayed on a few years too long.
2007:
McGwire - Duh. It’s a bit disappointing that he didn’t stick around and try for Aaron’s record, but I guess the injuries were really getting to him
Gwynn -Duh. Not the greatest fielder, but the best hitter of his generation.
Ripken: I got to see Cal’s 2131st game for free and got to go in the clubhouse before and after the game. One of the classiest ballplayers ever, he could have gone elsewhere and made a TON of money, but he stayed with the Orioles. One of the Top 5 shortstops of alltime, he re-defined the position. Before Ripken, the shortstop usually batted in the 7th or 8th slot in the order, Ripken transformed it into a power position. One of the smartest ballplayers ever, he didn’t make a lot of spectacular plays because he didn’t have to scramble to get into position, he would be in position. Ripken would call pitches for pitchers for games. I don’t know any body besides the catcher who would do that.
Amusing anecdote: ESPN did one of their The Season progrmas on Ripken during his last season and they had a clip from the AL clubhouse at the the All-Star game. Joe Torre was saying that the only sign they would have would be for stealing. As he gave thesign, you hear Ripken’s voice: “Oh, it’s the same one you use during the regular season, huh?” 
Memorial Stadium was a very poor hitters’ park. During the first 4-5 years of Murray’s career it was one of the worst hitters’ parks in baseball; for the rest of his career in Baltimore it was mediocre.
I would say Murray is the second best first baseman in major league history who is not in the Hall of Fame, after McGwire.
Broodha asks:
I was trying to limit the discussion to the serious candidates coming up for nomination; Rice and Evans, of course, have already been on the ballot.
I wouldn’t vote for either. Rice was absurdly overrated - a good player, but not a great one. Evans was better but I can think of better players I’d put in first.
WSLer:
Normally I’d agree, but I’m specifically referring to what I understand was a stipulation in the contract he signed with Tampa Bay that he choose a Devil Rays cap when he’s voted into the Hall of Fame. While it’s true that Boggs agreed to it, I think it’s pretty underhanded for a spanking-new expansion team, and quite frankly, an awful one, to try to instantly create a “legacy” of some sort by hosting a Hall of Famer whose HOF credentials were built during his years with the Red Sox and, to a lesser degree, the Yankees. Teams as well as individuals should earn their place.
Chaim Mattis Keller
I realize Maz is already in the HOF, but his numbers aren’t really good enough to use as a benchmark for future players. Yes, he was a great defensive player, but he was largely voted in on the strength of his ninth-inning Series-winning homer (the first of its kind in Series play) in 1960.
However, if popular appeal and flash-in-the-pan fame of this sort is the bar for admittance, I have no problem voting for Fernando Valenzuela; he easily changed the complexion of baseball fandom (though he was neither the first nor the best Hispanic player in the game).
So, given Kirby Puckett, should the benchmark be sheer numbers (with adjustment made for the player’s park and era) or should it be those players who had a significant role to play in the history of the game, such as Ray Chapman or… dare I say, Pete Rose?
After all, is [hijack] the Hall of Fame about the best players with the best numbers… or about the players who affected the game the most… or about having a building in Cooperstown that people will pay money to get into? [/hijack]
FISH
FISH
There is no debate about Murray.
3000 hits is a lock for getting into the hall.
So is 500 HR’s.
Murray’s got both. Like him or not, he’s in.
I suspect Mazeroski’s election was more due to his status as bieng arguably the best defensive second baseman to ever play the game than the 1960 homer. That’s the argument I heard every year until they picked him.
[QUOTE]
After all, is [hijack] the Hall of Fame about the best players with the best numbers… or about the players who affected the game the most… or about having a building in Cooperstown that people will pay money to get into? [/hijack]
I think both quality and impact have to be CONSIDERED. There’s no magic formula that will arrive at a solid conclusion. I can’t think of any way Mike Schmidt changed the way the game is played, but obviously his “Best player” credentials are off the freakin’ charts. On the other hand, Jackie Robinson might have only played 10 years, but his impact credentials are off the charts (not a great example, though, because he was legitimately a superior player.)
In the case of Fernando, I strongly suspect his “impact” is somewhat overblown and a little more limited to southern California. I have difficulty seeing why you’d elect someone just because of his playing a historical role; I mean, Jackie Robinson was an absolute Grade A megastar, maybe the best player in baseball for a few years, which you can’t really say about Fernando.
IMHO, the election of Bill Mazeroski was not a smart one; there are 10-15 second basemen who’re better than he was and not in the Hall. It’s not a grevious mistake, though, like George Kelly was, because in his case you can at least say that while there are many players better than him, he does have the “impact” points of being A) the best gloveman to ever play the position and B) the first guy to end a World Series with a home run.
Of course, Boggs can REQUEST any cap he wants. The Hall of Fame has no obligation to put it on his plaque; they’re a private institution and can do whatever they please. Several players don’t even have a team logo on their plaques, including Yogi Berra
and Catfish Hunter.
Ah, crap. Can a mod fix that coding?
Offhand, I’d say this:
2003: Maybe Sandberg. I’d have to think long and hard. None of the rest were anything special. Murray did do the best he could with what he had.
2004: Maybe Molitor, but that could be sentiment talking.
2005: Boggs.
2006: None.
2007: Gwynn, McGwire. Maybe Ripken, I’d have to look real hard at his numbers.
jm
Well, I agree that he’ll most likely make it. But the problem with some career number being a lock, is that that’s only true until some player who doesn’t feel like a hall-of-famer reaches it. At one time 400 HRs was a lock, but then came Dave Kingman, and Darrell Evans, followed more recently by Andre Dawson (who may still get in, but didn’t on his first chance last year). 1500 RBIs has been a lock in the past. Through 2001 38 players had 1500+ RBIs, and 34 of them were in the HOF. The four who weren’t in the HOF weren’t eligble due to still being active or too recently retired. But one of those players was Dawson and, like I said, he might make it in still, but since he only got around 50% of the vote in his first year, I’d say he’s pretty clearly not a lock. Another one of those four is Harold Baines, who has almost no chance of making the HOF, in spite of being number 21 all time in RBIs (which isn’t as impressive as being number eight, but is still very good).
With the current home run banaza that’s going on, it’s likely that sooner or later a player will end up with 500+ home runs, and still not make it into the HOF. Murray is probably not that player, but I think it will happen. Canseco might have done it if he had been able to hang on for a few more years, but he retired a little early (at 37, I believe) because of injury problems. He had 462 career HRs, but if he had managed to put together one last good year and gotten, say 39 HRs for 501 total, it wouldn’t have moved him in my mind from “good but not HOF” to a lock.
As for Dwight Evans, he’s not currently eligble for the HOF, as he received less than 5% of the votes in 1999, and thus doesn’t appear on current ballots. He won’t be eligble again until the Veterans Committee is able to consider him; I’m not sure when that will happen.
This debate is fun in and of itself, but its value and relevance suffer somewhat because of the little black cloud that hovers over the HOF. Until Pete Rose is admitted to join the dozens of other inveterate gamblers, as well as the drunkards, drug-abusers, wife-beaters, carousers and general hell-raisers that are sprinkled through the ranks, the HOF is irrelevant.
Didn’t mean to piss in your Post Toasties, folks.
That really was my point, TBone. The Hall of Fame is a building meant to commemorate the pure and honest history of a sport that retains its unique monopoly status, systematically discriminated against black players from 1884 to 1948, and colluded to destroy the free-agent system even when under court order. And they want to exclude a few players because the players weren’t entirely ethical? Real reason: the ethics of the players endangered the owners’ money supply.
What I mean is, to me, the Hall of Fame is a building that people pay to get into. It is, first and last, a commerical enterprise by a large corporation. Is it truly the desire to create a HoF that incorporates only the best sports, the truest characters, and the highest achievements? Or is it simply a museum of attractions that charges you a double sawbuck to get in the door?
The trouble I have with players like Maz and Fernando (and, indeed, Kirby Puckett) is that different standards apply to popular personalities with less-than-stellar numbers, or accident-shortened careers, or favorable ballparks, and so on. If the HoF is about character as well as stats, you’d almost have to revise the thing to remove Babe Ruth (alcoholism) and Ty Cobb (racism) and a number of other well-known players, owners, and managers. If it’s about only numbers, surely there are players in the HoF that would have to be edited out and others brought in (Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe).
It’s hard for me to imagine a set of conditions that should constitute a “lock” on the HoF, no matter how many HRs or RBIs the player has. The existing standards are too far across the board, and at times we’re judging yesterday’s players by today’s morals, or today’s players by yesterday’s stats.
Now maybe if there were a Fans’ Baseball Hall of Fame, just a list somewhere in a book (and no building and no entrance fee) then we could put in whoever we wanted. And Abner Doubleday wouldn’t be in it.
It is my understanding that after word reached the HoF that Boggs had agreed to wear a TB hat for a fee, they changed the rules; they themselves decide what hat goes on the plaque.
Very nicely said, Fish!
My days as a true fan of the game are long in the past, but being raised in Dayton, OH, I was a fanatic for the Reds from the time I can remember. Not only Pete Rose, but Joe Nuxhall, Jim Maloney, Gordy Coleman, Vada Pinson, Frank Robinson, Jim O’Toole, Tommy Harper, and on and on… These guys were heroes for me, real people with real personalities, and they came back year after year after year to play in old Crosley Field in Cincinnati.
Then came Riverfront Stadium, BIG money, and worst of all, free agency. Loyalty was gone. A sense of home and belonging was gone. I’ll never forget or forgive the way the “Big Red Machine” was methodically dismantled in the late '70’s. I found that I didn’t have the time or inclination to learn a complete new roster for my favorite team every spring. And I haven’t shelled out for a ticket to an MLB game since the Reds put together a one-shot year and stomped the Oakland Apoplectics in the World Series in 1990 (?) or was it '91?
I still love the game, but I’d rather watch Little League or a scratch softball match at the local park than I would a pack of overpaid primadonnas forever “pulling shoestrings,” hopping from team to team, refusing to sign autographs, and constantly angling for better contracts and more lucrative endorsements. And I’d have to say that the HOF’s snubbing of Pete Rose put a lot of the icing on my cake.
Sorry about the lengthy rant, folks. And thanks again, Fish for putting some flesh on my bones of contention.
2003: Eddie Murray - Yes. Consistency was his hallmark, like teammate Cal Ripken, and he put up strong numbers for a long, long time.
Ryne Sandberg - Yes. With the possible exception of Honus Wagner, the best second baseman ever. With nine straight Gold Gloves, the most chances in a season (IIRC he has the top three seasons), an MVP award, and a home run championship (quick: name all the other 2Bs to hit 40 HR – answer: nobody, including Jeff Kent and Alfonso Soriano) without the aid of the juiced ball, he’s peerless. The only knock I have against him is his unretiring.
Lee Smith - No. One of the first pure closers, but never as sure a thing as some of his contemporaries.
Fernando - No. His career was too spotty, plain and simple.
2004: Joe Carter - No. Scary good with men in scoring position. Second guy ever to win a World Series with a dinger. Genuinely likable. Not much else, I’m afraid.
Paul Molitor - No. I don’t vote for guys whose best years were spent at DH.
Dennis Eckersley - Yes. Cy Young starter and reliever. How many people can say that? As a closer, he redefined the term “stopper.”
El Presidente - Sorry, but 14 wins a year, longevity, and a perfect game don’t quite cut it for me. Like Carter, another player I really like, but not HoFer material.
Jimmy Key - Not even close.
2005:Wade Boggs - Yes. Best hitting 3B ever, including Brett and Schmidt. Plus he learned enough about defence to earn a Gold Glove later in his career.
2006: Albert Belle - No. Too surly to get votes (hell, he had a sure-thing MVP award stolen out from under him), not enough longevity, and a defensive liability.
Will Clark - No. One of the best at his position for a few years, but I don’t think he was strong enough for long enough to make the cut.
Orel Hershiser - No. He was steady and had a couple sensational years, setting the scoreless streak along the way. But he also only averaged 14 wins a year. He didn’t dominate enough to make it IMO.
Darryl Strawberry - No. Even without the pathos, he doesn’t fit the bill. Sad, really, as will be the legacy of Doc Gooden, who also had the tools to go all the way, but fell apart.
2007: Tony Gwynn - Yes. Best pure hitter of his generation. Also mixed in five Gold Gloves before he won five batting titles. Serious base stealing threat before he got fat and his knees gave out. Incidentally, also probably the best college point guard to ever play in the Majors. Took less money to stay at home throughout his career. Pure class. He’s a no brainer. (Can you tell I’m a fan?)
Big Mac - Yes. Man could that freak hit home runs. Didn’t just break Maris’ record, he obliterated it. And won a Gold Glove in 1990 for good measure. Popular and charismatic. He’s in.
Cal Ripken, Jr. - Yes. Very steady glove. Outstanding offensive shortstop. Apparently incapable of making mental errors. Extremely classy and personable. And I guess going 17 years without missing a game is okay.
Paul O’Neill - No. Not even in the same district as the Hall of Fame.
Eric Davis - No. I would have loved to see what this guy might have done if he had stayed healthy, because he was the complete package when he came up. But you don’t get to the Hall on potential.
You of course, have documented proof of the dozens of other inveterate gamblers who have been elected to the HoF, right?
Let’s see that proof please.
Pete Rose is not in the HoF for a very simple reason, well a couple of very simple reasons.
- He violated a rule **which is posted in ** EVERY major league clubhouse. The rule: No player, coach or manager is allowed to bet on baseball games.
Simple, straightforward, easy to remember, unlike say, the infield fly rule.
-
Even after being shown the mass of overwhelming evidence contained in the Dowd report which conclusively showed that Rose not only had been betting on baseball games for over 10 years, but had also bet on the Redswhile he was managing them.
-
Rose has not only refused to admit that yes, he did bet on baseball games, he has repeatedly insulted former commissioner Fay Vincent, consistently referring to him as “that cripple,” but he has also refused to apologize.
Bud Selig has said that all Rose has to do is admit that yes he did bet on baseball games and that it was a dumb thing to do and make an apology. Rose doesn’t even really have to mean it. Not that he would mean it.
But Rose is WAY to egomaniacal and self-centered to ever do that.
It’s interesting that whenever Rose has been confronted with the evidence in the Dowd Report he goes off on a completely unrelated tangent about he’s the greatest player ever and how all of the fans want him in the HoF.
It’s also interesting that when Johhny Bench was inducted, there were a number of fans who were clamoring, “We want Pete! We want Pete!” Bench said, “You can have him.”
Still waiting for that proof.
Sorry, but this is an ignorant argument, and since we’re here to fight ignorance I must object.
Pete Rose gambled on baseball. That carries a lifetime ban, and it carries a lifetime ban for a very good reason; because allowing players, managers and coaches to gamble on baseball would destroy the sport.
No member of the Hall of Fame carries any serious accusation of gambling on his own team’s games. Drunkenness, drug abuse and hell raising are bad things, but they do not threaten the integrity of the sport as a legitimate contest of skill. Gambling does.
In ANY profession, not just baseball, there are cardinal rules, rules that for the sake of the integrity of the profession can never be broken or else you’re out on your ass. A psychiatrist would lose his license for gossiping about a patient. He would not lose his license for drunkenness or hitting his wife, but a conflict of interest with a patient is a cardinal sin. A doctor cannot sleep with a patient. I could not work for my company’s competitor. Those are critical acts that threaten the very integrity of the profession.
Pete Rose MUST be banned from baseball, for the rest of his life. Major League Baseball has no other option; it is the only safe way to deal with those who gamble on their own teams. And if he’s banned for life it would be silly to put him in the Hall of Fame.
Rose knew the rule. The rule is posted in every clubhouse, on a great big sign in block letters: THE PENALTY FOR GAMBLING ON BASEBALL IS LIFETIME SUSPENSION. And that is the only appropriate penalty. Rose must never be allowed into baseball again.
What WSLer and RickJay said. Rose is out, and deservedly so, because his actions threatened the most basic integrity of the game, as surely as the actions of the Black Sox. Being a drunken, racist jerk has never kept anyone out of the HOF. Throwing games, or even putting yourself in a situation where that might result, most assuredly does keep you out.
Er, in my universe Honus Wagner was a shortstop. Perhaps you’re thinking of Rogers Hornsby?
On a listing of all-time greats at 2B, Roberto Alomar would be above Sandberg.
jm
A baseball discussion site for anyone who’s interested.