PDA

View Full Version : Reds Hall of Famers announced



Ranjo17
01-11-2006, 06:30 PM
:beerme: Congrats to Tom Browning, Lee May and Tom Seaver, just elected members of the Reds HOF.

RANDY IN INDY
01-11-2006, 06:34 PM
The "Big Bopper from Birmingham" was one of my favorites in the late 60's and early 70's. Glad to see "Big Lee" get in. I always liked Seaver, as well. Browning is one I can take or leave.

Reds Fanatic
01-11-2006, 06:43 PM
Here are the results from the fan voting for the hall of fame. Seaver and Browning were elected from the fan voting and a committee selected May.

2006 FAN
VOTING RESULTS*

1. Tom Browning: 2,865
2. Tom Seaver: 1,575
3. Chris Sabo: 1,289
4. Paul O'Neill: 1,195
5. Dave Parker: 987
6. Ron Oester: 838
7. Rob Dibble: 735
8. Hal Morris: 596
9. Ray Knight: 391
10. Dan Driessen: 332
11. Tom Hume: 255
11. Joe Oliver: 255
13. Norm Charlton: 99
14. Jeff Brantley: 74

* Top 2 elected to Reds Hall of Fame

savafan
01-11-2006, 07:27 PM
Browning had almost twice a many votes as Seaver. Crazy!

dougflynn23
01-11-2006, 10:53 PM
:confused: Congrats to all three. I'm a charter member of the HOF/Museum, and there is an effort already in place to try to convince Greg Rhodes, the Director of the HOF/Muesum to change the format from two inductees every year down to one. The thought of Chris Sabo, Paul O'Neill, etc being Reds HOF'ers is a concern to several of the charter members as we feel it will water down the honor. Any thoughts?

Cyclone792
01-11-2006, 11:11 PM
Well ... considering they just let the fans vote in a pitcher who was league average and won only 123 games in his career ... that alone should signifiy that a serious change is necessary. Since 1998, the Reds have now elected 20 players into their Hall of Fame. Even during Browning's peak he was barely above league average. Vander Meer had a similar career as Browning, but he had a stronger peak as his best years were quite a bit better than Browning's best. One player per year is still probably too much; one guy every other year might be the best route to go.

Unfortunately, there's likely very few people qualified who would be able to accurately judge whether some fringe players belong or not. Another problem with the process is considering players who were outstanding, but weren't with the Reds all that long. How do you accurately weigh very good players who played for only four to five seasons in Cincinnati compared to an above average player who was around for a dozen or more seasons? Tom Seaver is the greatest pitcher to ever put on a Reds uniform, however, his time in a Reds uniform was rather short.

dougflynn23
01-12-2006, 07:42 AM
Well ... considering they just let the fans vote in a pitcher who was league average and won only 123 games in his career ... that alone should signifiy that a serious change is necessary. Since 1998, the Reds have now elected 20 players into their Hall of Fame. Even during Browning's peak he was barely above league average. Vander Meer had a similar career as Browning, but he had a stronger peak as his best years were quite a bit better than Browning's best. One player per year is still probably too much; one guy every other year might be the best route to go.
:) I agree with the thought, but I think Browning is an exception. The combination of his popularity, his perfect game, his being the last homegrown pitcher to amount to anything, and his being a part of the last great Reds success story would have put him into any team's HOF.

In my opinion, the only retired player I can think of who is no longer a Red who deserves HOF status is Barry Larkin. Lee May was deserving, and in my opinion so was Browning. I can understand Seaver even though I did not vote for him. The Reds have a dilemma though, as inductions = game tickets and HOF tickets sold when they bring the existing HOF'ers back for that day.

RFS62
01-12-2006, 07:51 AM
Can you imagine if we'd gotten Seaver in '75?

Or if the Vida Blue deal wasn't quashed?

Cyclone792
01-12-2006, 08:41 AM
:) I agree with the thought, but I think Browning is an exception. The combination of his popularity, his perfect game, his being the last homegrown pitcher to amount to anything, and his being a part of the last great Reds success story would have put him into any team's HOF.

In my opinion, the only retired player I can think of who is no longer a Red who deserves HOF status is Barry Larkin. Lee May was deserving, and in my opinion so was Browning. I can understand Seaver even though I did not vote for him. The Reds have a dilemma though, as inductions = game tickets and HOF tickets sold when they bring the existing HOF'ers back for that day.

Yep, I see Browning as a sort of Reds version of Kirby Puckett. Statistically very borderline, but his immense popularity pushes him in easily. He's also a guy that's going to help sell an extra couple thousand seats when they induct him, which as you say is a large issue with the whole process. It's the typical fashion of tug o' war of marketing/revenue vs. maintaining honor in the HOF. Hate to say it, but the marketing/revenue side might win out, especially if they start putting guys like Chris Sabo in the HOF.

I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to find one deserving player per year to elect if the Reds sifted through their entire history, though the problem then becomes electing a player from the 1920s doesn't fuel the revenues like a guy from the 1980s would. Ticket sales would likely spike only minimally, and 90 percent of the fans wouldn't pay any attention nor care about Player A's great nephew sitting on the field for 10 minutes as his relative is inducted.

Cyclone792
01-12-2006, 08:46 AM
Can you imagine if we'd gotten Seaver in '75?

Or if the Vida Blue deal wasn't quashed?

Seaver and Blue would be local icons, and both the '75 and '76 team might have the upper hand in all those arguments against the '27 and '39 Yankee squads. Heck, Seaver won 22 games with a 145 ERA+ for a Mets team in 1975 that scored only 646 runs. It's tough to fathom what kind of single season win totals he could have put up with Big Red Machine run support. :yikes:

RedsBaron
01-12-2006, 09:03 AM
:confused: Congrats to all three. I'm a charter member of the HOF/Museum, and there is an effort already in place to try to convince Greg Rhodes, the Director of the HOF/Muesum to change the format from two inductees every year down to one. The thought of Chris Sabo, Paul O'Neill, etc being Reds HOF'ers is a concern to several of the charter members as we feel it will water down the honor. Any thoughts?
The above posts and several others on this thread seem to imply that the standards for election to the Reds HOF have recently been watered down and there needs to be a return to the more strict standard that previously was in effect. I can't see that.
IMO Tom Browning was as worthy of Reds HOF induction as were Vander Meer (class of '58), Mario Soto ('01), Gary Nolan ('83), Brooks Lawrence ('76), Jim O'Toole ('70), Jack Billingham ('84) and Don Gullett ('02). Browning wasn't as good as some of those other guys at his peak, but he also won more games as a Red than any of the others did, so complaining about Browning only having 123 wins as a Red seems to be a bit misleading to me.
As for the possible election to the Reds HOF of Chris Sabo or Paul O'Neill, while I'm not sold on either of them, there are certainly players already in the Reds HOF with similar or lesser qualifications, such as Jerry Lynch (class of '88), Smokey Burgess ('75), Mike McCormick ('66), Ival Goodman ('59) and Gordy Coleman ('72).
None of the aforementioned players or pitchers belong in Cooperstown of course, but if the standards for election to the Reds HOF are placed as high as they should be for election to The Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, the Reds may only elect a person to their HOF every decade or two.

RedsBaron
01-12-2006, 09:05 AM
Can you imagine if we'd gotten Seaver in '75?

Or if the Vida Blue deal wasn't quashed?
The 1975-76 Reds would now be regarded as clearly the greatest team in history had they had Seaver.
The 1978 Reds would probably have won the NL West had they had Blue.

westofyou
01-12-2006, 10:26 AM
:confused: Congrats to all three. I'm a charter member of the HOF/Museum, and there is an effort already in place to try to convince Greg Rhodes, the Director of the HOF/Muesum to change the format from two inductees every year down to one. The thought of Chris Sabo, Paul O'Neill, etc being Reds HOF'ers is a concern to several of the charter members as we feel it will water down the honor. Any thoughts?Well, don't Wayne Granger and Smoky Burgess already do that?

And isn't Chris Sabo a better pick than Harry Craft was?

Ranjo17
01-12-2006, 10:31 AM
I think all 3 players are deserving. Obviously, Browning's career was no where near Seaver's but did spend his whole career here and provided one of the most historical (perfect game) events in Reds history. Popularity is going to be a part of the voting in any HOF balloting. I don't think it is necessarily right but face it, it is fact of life. How ridiculous is it that some writers didn't vote for Steve Carlton because he wouldn't give them the time of day?

Ranjo17
01-12-2006, 10:33 AM
I also find it amusing looking back at Bowie Kuhn's rejection of the Blue trade because it was not in the 'best interest of baseball". My how times have changed. :bang:

registerthis
01-12-2006, 10:35 AM
The above posts and several others on this thread seem to imply that the standards for election to the Reds HOF have recently been watered down and there needs to be a return to the more strict standard that previously was in effect. I can't see that.

i don't think that listing a plethora of players with similar stats to others being considered goes very far in proving your point. Supporting the induction of mediocrity with evidence that mediocrity has been added in the past, to me, is more of an argument FOR imposing stricter standards than not.

Otherwise, you'll start getting guys like Joe Oliver and Bret Boone elected to the Hall. And, really, what would be the point of the HoF after that?

savafan
01-12-2006, 10:40 AM
Otherwise, you'll start getting guys like Joe Oliver and Bret Boone elected to the Hall. And, really, what would be the point of the HoF after that?

For dad's to someday bring their sons to the Reds' Hall of Fame and Museum, point to whatever it is honoring Joe Oliver and tell those young lads about what Joe did in the 1990 playoffs and World Series for the Reds.

Face it, since Johnny Bench, the Reds have had maybe three good catchers, Oliver, Taubensee and LaRue.

Chip R
01-12-2006, 10:42 AM
I also find it amusing looking back at Walter O'Malley's rejection of the Blue trade because it was not in the 'best interest of baseball". My how times have changed. :bang:

I fixed that for you.

westofyou
01-12-2006, 10:42 AM
I fixed that for you.
Perhaps, but Kuhn did think he had a cape stuffed in the back of his suit.

westofyou
01-12-2006, 10:44 AM
Face it, since Johnny Bench, the Reds have had maybe three good catchers, Oliver, Taubensee and LaRue.Eh?

Joe Oliver was not a good hitter and lost his starting skills behind the plate by age 27.

Face it if Reds fans think that Oliver deserves mention in the same breath as Bench then they deserve to have his water mixing with the wine of the real hall of famers.

Chip R
01-12-2006, 10:51 AM
Perhaps, but Kuhn did think he had a cape stuffed in the back of his suit.

Indeed. But when the most powerful man in baseball is backing you up, you have a tendency to believe that you are more important than you really are.

Ranjo17
01-12-2006, 10:53 AM
Uhhhh Chip? Bowie was the Commish that rejected the proposed trade.

westofyou
01-12-2006, 10:56 AM
Uhhhh Chip? Bowie was the Commish that rejected the proposed trade.And Walter O'Mally was the reigning owner of teh NL. at the time the NL and AL were 2 distinct organizations, with factions of leaders and followers.

Walter O'Mally had more boardroom pull than Kuhn, hence he had Kuhn's ear.

savafan
01-12-2006, 10:56 AM
Eh?

Joe Oliver was not a good hitter and lost his starting skills behind the plate by age 27.

Face it if Reds fans think that Oliver deserves mention in the same breath as Bench then they deserve to have his water mixing with the wine of the real hall of famers.

I didn't say that Oliver deserves mention in the same breath as Bench. Tone is hard to relay on a message board. Here is what I said in script form:

Face it, since Johnny Bench, (pause for breath) the Reds have had maybe three good catchers, (pause to think who they may be, and yet another breath) Oliver, Taubensee and LaRue.

RedsBaron
01-12-2006, 10:56 AM
i don't think that listing a plethora of players with similar stats to others being considered goes very far in proving your point. Supporting the induction of mediocrity with evidence that mediocrity has been added in the past, to me, is more of an argument FOR imposing stricter standards than not.


My point was that the standards have not recently been watered down, as some other posters asserted. I cannot think of any better way of proving that point than with evidence that the standards were no higher in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s and 1980s than they are now. Yesreday's election of Tom Browning did not "water down" the standards of the Reds HOF.
The argument for now imposing stricter standards is a different argument. Actually the issue of what standards to use and the criteria for selection to either the Reds HOF or the HOF in Cooperstown is an interesting issue, but one that I have never found an definitive resolution for.

westofyou
01-12-2006, 11:03 AM
Face it, since Johnny Bench, (pause for breath) the Reds have had maybe three good catchers, (pause to think who they may be, and yet another breath) Oliver, Taubensee and LaRue. Tone noted.

Joe Oliver was filler, never a better than average catcher. Eddie was perhaps the worst fielding Reds catcher who started since Ed Baily.

I'll note this though, no organization can boast of the hitting catchers the Reds have had, McLean, Hargrave, Lombardi, Bailey, Burgess, Bench, Taubensee all were good hitters.

vs other cathers


OPS DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE AB
1 Johnny Bench .142 .826 .684 6771
2 Ernie Lombardi .129 .828 .699 3980
3 Bubbles Hargrave .117 .838 .721 2367
4 Ed Bailey .090 .796 .706 2227
5 Eddie Taubensee .061 .803 .741 2097
6 Jason LaRue .031 .747 .716 2035
7 Larry McLean .021 .637 .616 2126
8 Ivy Wingo .007 .654 .647 3091
9 Johnny Edwards -.003 .684 .688 2377
10 Joe Oliver -.010 .686 .696 2408

Chip R
01-12-2006, 11:09 AM
Uhhhh Chip? Bowie was the Commish that rejected the proposed trade.

Yeah, but Dodgers owner Walter O'Malley was the power behind the throne. He got Kuhn the job and, as I said, he was the most powerful man in baseball. The Reds and Dodgers were the two powers in that division. Getting Blue would make the Reds even more powerful. Not that Kuhn needed much prodding since he intensely disliked Charlie Finley but I'd bet the farm O'Malley gave him a nudge.

RedsBaron
01-12-2006, 11:15 AM
I'll note this though, no organization can boast of the hitting catchers the Reds have had, McLean, Hargrave, Lombardi, Bailey, Burgess, Bench, Taubensee all were good hitters.


Well, the hated Yankees did have a few catchers who could hit: Wally Schang, Bill Dickey, Yogi Berra, Elston Howard, Thurman Munson and Jorge Posada come to mind.

westofyou
01-12-2006, 11:17 AM
Well, the hated Yankees did have a few catchers who could hit: Wally Schang, Bill Dickey, Yogi Berra, Elston Howard, Thurman Munson and Jorge Posada come to mind.Noted.. no NL team... Damn Yankees.

savafan
01-12-2006, 11:19 AM
Well, the hated Yankees did have a few catchers who could hit: Wally Schang, Bill Dickey, Yogi Berra, Elston Howard, Thurman Munson and Jorge Posada come to mind.

How could you forget Bob Geren, Damon Berryhill and Joe Girardi? :p:

RedsBaron
01-12-2006, 12:59 PM
:confused: Congrats to all three. I'm a charter member of the HOF/Museum, and there is an effort already in place to try to convince Greg Rhodes, the Director of the HOF/Muesum to change the format from two inductees every year down to one.
While I do not believe that recent voting has "watered down" the standards for election to the Reds HOF, changing the format form two inductees every year to one might be a good idea. It should give greater attention to the one honoree without suddenly imposing much higher standards upon more recent players.
By the way, while I realize that one shouldn't simply induct into the HOF every player who met the standards of the least qualified player already in the Hall, it has always bugged me to see guys such as Phil Rizzuto called a Hall of Fame shortstop while a better shortstop such as Alan Trammell is on the outside looking in. Ron Santo and Ken Boyer are not Hall of Fame thirdbasemen, but Fred Lindstrom is in the HOF.

Cyclone792
01-12-2006, 04:33 PM
My point was that the standards have not recently been watered down, as some other posters asserted. I cannot think of any better way of proving that point than with evidence that the standards were no higher in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s and 1980s than they are now. Yesreday's election of Tom Browning did not "water down" the standards of the Reds HOF.
The argument for now imposing stricter standards is a different argument. Actually the issue of what standards to use and the criteria for selection to either the Reds HOF or the HOF in Cooperstown is an interesting issue, but one that I have never found an definitive resolution for.

I'm not opposed to Browning going into the Hall, though I wasn't clear on that at all in my earlier posts so I can definitely see where you're coming from. :p:

I could be wrong as I haven't analyzed Reds' HOFers too in-depth, but my feeling is that Browning is most likely on the bottom tier of Reds HOFers. I also believe that it was probably moreso his popularity than his actual stats that landed him in the Hall (though one can also argue that his solid stats made him more popular so it's kind of a circular argument :laugh: ).

As you mention in another post, we are starting to get to a point where inducting more than one player per year might result in guys who may not deserve to be there. And then we get to the whole problem of the criteria itself. Cooperstown criteria is already difficult enough as it is, but an individual team's HOF is even more difficult. Do we look at just a players Reds' stats, or do we slightly consider what each player did on other teams? Then there's also the popularity factor for each player. While most people don't believe popularity should play a large role in Cooperstown (the exception being the actual voters sometimes), we might have to ask ourselves if we should at least consider a player's popularity as a Red to some slight degree.

It's tough, and I'm not yet sure what the answer may be.

savafan
01-13-2006, 12:47 AM
Well, since it's called the Hall of Fame and not the Hall of Stats, I can see Chris Sabo, one of the most popular Reds of the early 1990s, someday getting inducted, and since it's not called the Hall of Stats, I can't argue with that.