PDA

View Full Version : Hall of Fame



Ltlabner
06-20-2006, 11:02 PM
I think most people agree that the All Star Game is pretty much one big popularity contest. Along the same lines, there are continual arguments over who is in the HOF and who isn't.

So my question's are:

1) Who is the most deserving player that isn't in the HOF and should be? Why? At the risk of stiring up the Pete Rose fans, let's avoid him for this topic only because that topic has been hashed to death.

2) Who is the most undeserving player that is in the HOF and shouldn't be? Why?

Cyclone792
06-20-2006, 11:05 PM
1) 3B Ron Santo, because he's probably one of the six or seven greatest third basemen of all-time.
2) 1B George Kelly, because there's likely more than 50 first basemen throughout MLB history who were greater than Kelly.

dabvu2498
06-20-2006, 11:17 PM
I have this debate with my dad all the time. His litmus test is "if you have to ask... NO!"

Here's one statistical way of looking at it:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_standards

By baseball-reference.com's standards, most of the non-HOF but eligible guys are from the Dead Ball era (eg Jimmy Ryan, George Van Haltren). Their highest ranked modern era non-HOF guys are Bucky Walters, Ted Simmons, Andre Dawson, Dwight Evans and Jim Rice.

They have several other litmus metrics available there, all designed by Bill James.

Joseph
06-20-2006, 11:20 PM
Phil Rizzuto for #2

Red in Chicago
06-21-2006, 12:32 AM
santo for #1
puckett, while not the most undeserving, has always rubbed me the wrong way...think he got in mostly due to his on the field personality, which we know was not necessarily the real kirby...

Yachtzee
06-21-2006, 01:04 AM
#1 - Bert Blyleven. How can the guy who is #5 on the list for career strikeouts not be in the Hall of Fame? So what if he didn't win 300 games. That's like keeping out the #5 all-time home run hitter because he didn't have enough RBI. Keeping out a guy who was great individually because his team-dependent stats are lackluster is silly. Besides, his curve ball was a thing of beauty.

kheidg-
06-21-2006, 01:10 AM
1. Blyleven
2. Ozzie Smith

jmcclain19
06-21-2006, 01:53 AM
Answer to No. 1 - Goose Gossage - There was a 10 year stretch between the middle of the 70's to the middle of the 80's where he was one of baseball's best pitchers. Not best relief pitchers, but best pitchers.

Answer to No. 2 - Bill Mazeroski - Could make a case that Mazeroski is the worst hitter in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Embarrasingly bad hitter to be considered a hall of fame player. Was elected because of his defense, yet he didn't play one of the premium defensive spots on the field (SS, CF, C). In my mind, would be akin to electing Orlando Hudson to the HOF today - a weak hitting but excellent glove man.

RedsBaron
06-21-2006, 08:10 AM
I'm not sure who is the least deserving member of the HOF, but I'm pretty sure he played with Frankie Frisch on the New York Giants in the 1920s: Fred Lindstrom, George Kelly, Ross Youngs, Travis Jackson....Frisch suceeded in getting the Veterans Committee to elect a bunch of his undeserving cronies from the Giants into the HOF.
Most deserving? Previously posters have mentioned Santo, Blyleven and Gossage, and I can't really argue against any of them.

redsmetz
06-21-2006, 09:40 AM
2. Ozzie Smith

I'm of the mind that topnotch glove work should be a consideration in entering the Hall of Fame and I think that's the primary reason Ozzie is in the hall. I also think it's why Concepcion should be in (albeit just barely). Smith and Concepcion were at the tailend of light hitting shortstops. Today they pale beside the beefier shortstops of today (although that might be a whole different debate).

My thought on this question of defense as a factor is that ultimately it acknowledges that baseball isn't only about offense. And it's not just about the boppers, the beefy numbers (particularly home runs). I think Smith and Concepcion brought something to this game which makes it an art and not just for sluggers.

nineworldseries
06-21-2006, 09:47 PM
For most undeserving, Johnny Evers and Joe Tinker come to mind immediately.

We get it, there was a poem written about you. Maybe I'll write a famous poem about Dennys Reyes, and hopefully that will do it for him too...

BigJohn
06-21-2006, 11:09 PM
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/bp/1409616.html


The omission of Ron Santo is the most egregious mistake ever made by the Baseball Writers Association of America. They should have inducted Santo 20 years ago, and that they overlooked him throughout his 15 years on the ballot is a shame. I sincerely hope that the new Veterans Committee rights the error quickly. It will be a boon to their credibility and a honor for a man too long left outside the hallowed halls of Cooperstown.

flynn78
06-21-2006, 11:36 PM
1. Davey Concepcion
2. Phil Rizzuto

RichRed
06-22-2006, 11:56 AM
Agree wholeheartedly that Blyleven should be in. He has the numbers, as well as the added tribute of top hitters of the era saying his curveball was virtually unhittable. It's absurd that his W/L record is keeping him out, as Yachtzee said, considering the awful teams he played for.

I also think Tim Raines should be in. Had 2600 career hits and was an on-base and SB machine.

Handofdeath
06-22-2006, 01:46 PM
Jim Rice

8 time All-Star
382 career homers 1,451 RBI's .298 lifetime AVG
9 times A.L. Top Ten in RBI's (#1 twice)
9 times Top Ten in Total Bases (# 1 4 times)
8 times Top Ten in hits (#1 once)
7 times Top Ten in HR's (#1 3 times)
6 times Top Ten in AVG
6 times Top Ten in runs
51st all time in homers and RBI's
61st in Total Bases
91st in hits


Rice has to go and Santo should as well. It is a joke that neither is in right now.

terminator
06-22-2006, 03:27 PM
I have this debate with my dad all the time. His litmus test is "if you have to ask... NO!"

That's how I feel about it. If you are the 66th team and don't make it into the NCAA tournament, you really can't complain and argue that you were better than #65. If you did, then #67 would say it wasn't much different than #66 and so on down the line.

Anyway, without a lot of analysis off the top of my head I would have said Jim Rice was the most deserving not in the HOF.