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.
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.
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?
Rick Ferrell. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
How on earth did Eppa Rixey 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.
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!
I don’t think the Scooter would be one of my first five ejections. In order, I would pick:
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.
Ray Schalk. Let’s be honest; the only reason Ray Schalk is in the Hall of Fame is that he wasn’t dishonest.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rizutto: Statistics don’t tell the tale. He was a major star of his time, numbers or not.
Marquard: Statistics or not, he was also a major star. Leaving him out would be like leaving out Dizzy Dean.
Hunter: see comment for Marquard.
Waner: Where is it written that a singles hitter doesn’t deserve to be in the Hall?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.