PDA

View Full Version : Dick Allen, Ron Santo and Joe Torre not elected to the HOF



Unassisted
12-08-2008, 11:29 AM
Title has a question mark, since this is not yet confirmed.

http://www.dugoutcentral.com/blog/?p=2118


According to a source close to the situation, the Veteran’s Committee will on Monday announce that Dick Allen, Ron Santo and Joe Torre have been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Dick Allen played in 1,749 games for the Philadelphia Phillies, St. Louis Cardinals, Los Angeles Dodgers, Chicago White Sox and Oakland A’s from 1963-1977. He was the 1972 American League MVP. Allen played first, third and outfield. His career counting stats and averages:

1,099 runs
1,848 hits
351 home runs
1,119 RBIs
.292 BA
.378 OBP
.534 SLG
156 OPS+ (19th all time) Ron Santo played in 2,243 games for Chicago Cubs from 1960-1974 – almost all at third. His career counting stats and averages:

1,138 runs
2,254 hits
342 home runs
1,331 RBIs
.277 BA
.362 OBP
.464 SLG
125 OPS+ Joe Torre played in 2,209 games for the Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves, St. Louis Cardinals and New York Mets between 1960 and 1977, split between catcher, first base and third base. He was the 1971 National League MVP. His career counting stats and averages:

996 runs
2,342 hits
252 home runs
1,185 RBIs
.297 BA
.365 OBP
.452 SLG
128 OPS+

westofyou
12-08-2008, 11:36 AM
Torre?

Here's his two comps, I don't see it.


RUNS CREATED/GAME RC/G OBA SLG AVG AB
1 Mike Greenwell 6.06 .368 .463 .303 4623
2 Rico Carty 5.97 .369 .464 .299 5606
3 Joe Torre 5.67 .365 .452 .297 7874

HokieRed
12-08-2008, 11:54 AM
I'm not enamored with the Torre selection and I believe Vada should be in, but it is important to note that he sustained the level of play over a much longer career--cf. the at-bats--than his comps, Greenwell and Carty.

Roy Tucker
12-08-2008, 12:05 PM
Does Torre's managerial record get factored in? Or do they vote on him purely as a player?

M2
12-08-2008, 12:07 PM
Torre?

Here's his two comps, I don't see it.


RUNS CREATED/GAME RC/G OBA SLG AVG AB
1 Mike Greenwell 6.06 .368 .463 .303 4623
2 Rico Carty 5.97 .369 .464 .299 5606
3 Joe Torre 5.67 .365 .452 .297 7874


Those aren't comps. Those are two guys with similar percentages who played a lot less. Torre had a dynamite run from 1963-74, during which he played C and 3B the majority of the time. Compare him to the average C or 3B in Cooperstown and he's a pretty easy selection.

Also, there's that managerial career he's had since his playing days (he's 43 wins shy of Sparky Anderson).

If Allen, Santo and Torre have made it, they all strikes me as "about damn time" selections.

Chip R
12-08-2008, 12:16 PM
Does Torre's managerial record get factored in? Or do they vote on him purely as a player?


You have to think his managerial record in New York had something to do with it.

westofyou
12-08-2008, 12:20 PM
Those aren't comps. Those are two guys with similar percentages who played a lot less. Torre had a dynamite run from 1963-74, during which he played C and 3B the majority of the time. Compare him to the average C or 3B in Cooperstown and he's a pretty easy selection.

Also, there's that managerial career he's had since his playing days (he's 43 wins shy of Sparky Anderson).

If Allen, Santo and Torre have made it, they all strikes me as "about damn time" selections.

Ok, percentage comp is more apt, but one item missed is that Torre played more first than 3rd and almost as much as he caught, so just comping him with HOF 3rd baseman doesn't take that into account, stats wise I don't see it, fame wise I do, long time player, MVP, player/manager (last prior to Pete) Yankee icon, etc.. etc... however as a hitter, I don't see it, he had two seasons over .900 OPS in his career and as a catcher he had 4 over .800 (as did Bill Freehan)


CATCHER
YEAR TEAM AGE G PO A E DP PB PCT
1961 Braves 20 112 494 50 10 4 10 .982
1962 Braves 21 63 325 39 5 4 3 .986
1963 Braves 22 105 584 46 4 9 11 .994
1964 Braves 23 96 518 46 3 4 10 .995
1965 Braves 24 100 589 43 6 4 13 .991
1966 Braves 25 114 607 67 11 9 13 .984
1967 Braves 26 114 580 63 6 12 16 .991
1968 Braves 27 92 492 37 2 7 4 .996
1969 Cardinals 28 17 90 8 1 0 2 .990
1970 Cardinals 29 90 571 29 8 4 5 .987
TOTALS 903 4850 428 56 57 87 .990

FIRST BASE
YEAR TEAM AGE G PO A E DP PCT
1963 Braves 22 37 335 30 2 36 .995
1964 Braves 23 70 563 48 4 49 .993
1965 Braves 24 49 433 30 2 39 .996
1966 Braves 25 36 267 20 1 24 .997
1967 Braves 26 23 205 18 2 21 .991
1968 Braves 27 29 241 11 0 19 1.000
1969 Cardinals 28 144 1270 83 6 117 .996
1970 Cardinals 29 1 12 0 0 0 1.000
1972 Cardinals 31 27 234 16 4 17 .984
1973 Cardinals 32 114 833 60 6 80 .993
1974 Cardinals 33 139 1165 102 10 144 .992
1975 Mets 34 24 111 9 4 12 .968
1976 Mets 35 78 590 49 7 40 .989
1977 Mets 36 16 83 2 1 9 .988
TOTALS 787 6342 478 49 607 .993

THIRD BASE
YEAR TEAM AGE G PO A E DP PCT RANGE
1970 Cardinals 29 73 68 133 11 12 .948 2.75
1971 Cardinals 30 161 136 271 21 22 .951 2.53
1972 Cardinals 31 117 102 182 11 17 .963 2.43
1973 Cardinals 32 58 48 68 6 3 .951 2.00
1974 Cardinals 33 18 8 19 4 1 .871 1.50
1975 Mets 34 83 61 148 11 14 .950 2.52
1976 Mets 35 4 3 3 0 2 1.000 1.50
1977 Mets 36 1 0 1 0 0 1.000 1.00
TOTALS 515 426 825 64 71 .951 2.43

OUTFIELDER
YEAR TEAM AGE G PO A E DP PCT RANGE
1963 Braves 22 2 0 0 0 0 0.00
TOTALS 2 0 0 0 0 0.00

Chip R
12-08-2008, 12:21 PM
I'm shocked that the VC has actually voted someone, much less, 3 in.

redsmetz
12-08-2008, 12:32 PM
Regarding Torre (and Hodges for that matter), I've seen reports that the committee may take into consideration the "totality" of their career, whether as a player, manager, executive, etc. This moves Torre's ultimate election up, since I think he clearly makes it as a manager.

See this story: http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spken085957123dec08,0,7540096.story

Cyclone792
12-08-2008, 12:32 PM
I'm shocked that the VC has actually voted someone, much less, 3 in.

Is this official? Sad thing is I'm almost filing it under "too good to be true" right now. Santo and Allen are excellent selections, and I don't really have any qualms with Torre either.

redsmetz
12-08-2008, 12:34 PM
Is this official? Sad thing is I'm almost filing it under "too good to be true" right now. Santo and Allen are excellent selections, and I don't really have any qualms with Torre either.

Official announcements are at 1 p.m. today. Are these the last chances for those not chosen? That would be a shame for Walters and Pinson.

Danny Serafini
12-08-2008, 01:15 PM
Someone gave you guys some bad info. Announcement is out, Joe Gordon is the lone electee.

M2
12-08-2008, 01:18 PM
Ok, percentage comp is more apt, but one item missed is that Torre played more first than 3rd and almost as much as he caught, so just comping him with HOF 3rd baseman doesn't take that into account, stats wise I don't see it, fame wise I do, long time player, MVP, player/manager (last prior to Pete) Yankee icon, etc.. etc... however as a hitter, I don't see it, he had two seasons over .900 OPS in his career and as a catcher he had 4 over .800 (as did Bill Freehan)

He played in 1960s. Put him in a 750-run environment and he's .800+ almost every season of his career. He's got a career 128 OPS+, same as Mickey Cochrane and a hair in front of Bill Dickey.

He played 2/3 of his career at C and 3B. Every other player in baseball history has been judged by the highest value positions where he played the majority of his career and I see no reason to treat Torre any differently. He hit like a 1B/corner OF at two high value defensive positions. He wasn't much of a receiver, but he had a strong arm (41% CS). Certainly he was a better defender back there than Mike Piazza.

He might have spent the bulk of his career at 3B under different circumstances, but he could catch and Eddie Mathews was the Braves 3B when Torre came along.

Statswise, comp him against HOF Cs and 3Bs and he's an easy pick. Heck, he's better than a lot of 1Bs in the HOF too.

Anyway, even if you're on the fence about his playing record, his managerial record obliterates the fence.

M2
12-08-2008, 01:19 PM
Someone gave you guys some bad info. Announcement is out, Joe Gordon is the lone electee.

Bummer, though it figures they'd ignore more modern players for a Golden Era guy.

Cyclone792
12-08-2008, 01:20 PM
Someone gave you guys some bad info. Announcement is out, Joe Gordon is the lone electee.

That's unfortunate, though I figured it was too good to be true.

George Anderson
12-08-2008, 01:28 PM
Someone gave you guys some bad info. Announcement is out, Joe Gordon is the lone electee.

Thats to bad, I was looking forward to the surly Dick Allen's speech.

Chip R
12-08-2008, 01:30 PM
Too good to be true I suppose.

cumberlandreds
12-08-2008, 01:31 PM
Here's the link. Joe Gordon was the only one elected. He was from the pre 1943 list. No one from the post 1943 list made it. Santo was 9 votes short.


http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081208&content_id=10390&vkey=hof_pr

redsmetz
12-08-2008, 01:37 PM
None of the post 1942 eligible players came anywhere near having enough votes. Interestingly, the closing statement of the press release had this:


Fans wishing to voice their opinion in support of their favorite candidates may do so in two ways. By sending a single letter to the address below or by clicking here and sending an e-mail.

Hall of Fame Veterans Committee
25 Main Street
Cooperstown, NY 13326

The Hall of Fame does not forward petitions to the voting members, but makes all correspondence known to any interested voting members as well as to the Screening Committee members and Historical Overview Committee members.

I'd like to see the Reds put some efforts into making their eligible players better known.

Unassisted
12-08-2008, 01:57 PM
Someone gave you guys some bad info. Announcement is out, Joe Gordon is the lone electee.Glad I used that question mark in the title. Guess this is another log on the fire for why bloggers can never replace traditional media.

RANDY IN INDY
12-08-2008, 02:01 PM
The veterans committee is getting to be a joke.

RedsBaron
12-08-2008, 02:04 PM
Joe Gordon isn't a terrible pick, as he was a better player than several other secondbasemen already in the HOF, but he also was hardly the most deserving candidate available.

RANDY IN INDY
12-08-2008, 03:29 PM
The veterans committee is a little "full of itself" right now, in my opinion.

Chip R
12-08-2008, 03:44 PM
The veterans committee is a little "full of itself" right now, in my opinion.

Just right now?

westofyou
12-08-2008, 03:44 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8350




Joe Gordon is now a Hall of Famer. I'm nonplussed. Nothing against Gordon, who was a fantastic and under-appreciated player in his career, but expanding the Hall of Fame to include more players from the over-represented first half of the 20th century isn't advancing the discussion.

When the Hall was launched, we had 60 years of baseball history under our belts, and 60 years of players to vote into the Hall. Even a reasonably well-designed system would struggle to catch everyone, and when the powers that be realized that there was a backlog of qualified candidates, they started creating committees to address the problem. This permanently screwed up the Hall's standards, but that's not really my point. The point is that in the early days of the system, you needed a second track to cover players who were more or less unknown to the voting pool. It was a good idea executed poorly.

What should have happened is that after a couple of decades, you would then say that anyone who was a candidate had been considered by both the BBWAA and the various veterans' committees, and that the second door was now closed. What happened instead was that the VC took on a life of its own, considering not just players the writers had no experience with, the Dan Brouthers of the world, but players the writers passed on 15 times. The writers have made mistakes of omission, but that's not why you have a second committee. You have that second committee to cover issues created by a flaw in the voting structure. If it doesn't sunset, you then have a back door with a completely different set of characteristics.

The VC should have died off 40 or 50 years ago. Instead, it keeps finding players from a time before time to honor, and what that does is skew the Hall even more towards long-dead players at a time when the BBWAA has become as stingy as ever with its vote. It's long past time to acknowledge that the various committees have done their job, not comment on the quality of their work, and create a one-track path to the Hall for players. (A second track can and should exist for non-players, and consist largely if not entirely of non-player evaluators.) The BBWAA is far from perfect, and their standards have failed to adjust to changes in the game, but you don't address that with a back door that lets in Joe Gordon, you address it through education of the voting pool.

I have nothing against Gordon, but the process by which he became a Hall of Famer is terribly flawed. The Veterans Committee should be dissolved forever.

RANDY IN INDY
12-08-2008, 04:45 PM
Just right now?

It seems to be getting worse with time.

Chip R
12-08-2008, 04:49 PM
It seems to be getting worse with time.


Well, at least they deigned to elect someone this year.

RANDY IN INDY
12-08-2008, 05:49 PM
It's a "Good Ol' Boys" club, for sure. Sounds like a bunch of entitled, militant, angry old men.

MrCinatit
12-08-2008, 06:32 PM
Joe Gordon? Really?
Huh. Maybe they're just making sure every pre-1943 MVP goes into the Hall. Jake Daubert should be elected in a couple of years.
BTW, for a good chuckle, take a look at the career comparison for Gordon on Baseball Reference. It is good for quite a chuckle.

redsmetz
12-08-2008, 06:54 PM
Joe Gordon? Really?
Huh. Maybe they're just making sure every pre-1943 MVP goes into the Hall. Jake Daubert should be elected in a couple of years.
BTW, for a good chuckle, take a look at the career comparison for Gordon on Baseball Reference. It is good for quite a chuckle.

I know you're jesting, but you'd think Bucky Walters would have made it on that criteria.

Cyclone792
12-08-2008, 07:06 PM
I know you're jesting, but you'd think Bucky Walters would have made it on that criteria.

Apparently Allie Reynolds fell one vote short of election. And Bucky Walters was a greater pitcher than Allie Reynolds.

MrCinatit
12-08-2008, 07:15 PM
I know you're jesting, but you'd think Bucky Walters would have made it on that criteria.

Indeed - though I would like to argue that Walters was much more dominant at his craft than Gordon...but I would be making that claim with absolutely nothing backing that up than my Red fandom.

M2
12-08-2008, 07:27 PM
Apparently Allie Reynolds fell one vote short of election. And Bucky Walters was a greater pitcher than Allie Reynolds.

That can't be. Walters never pitched for the Yankees. Next you'll tell me Herb Pennock was a shaky HOF selection.

RedsBaron
12-08-2008, 07:47 PM
Apparently Allie Reynolds fell one vote short of election. And Bucky Walters was a greater pitcher than Allie Reynolds.

I agree. Reynolds (182) and Walters (198) both fell short of 200 wins. For a starting pitcher to be HOF worthy with fewer than 200 career wins I like to see a few totally dominant seasons, such as the four year run Sandy Koufax had in 1963-66, which put Koufax in the inner circle of the HOF despite having only 165 career victories.
Neither Walters nor Reynolds was Koufax of course, but Walters rather clearly had more and better peak seasons than Reynolds, with the 1939 Walters season in which he won 27 games, leading the NL in wins, ERA and Ks easily being the best season either man had. Walters won a MVP award, which Reynolds never did. Walters would have won 3 Cy Young awards had the award existed then, while Reynolds may not have won even one such award had it been available.
Walters had a better career, despite not having the support of the Yankees, and had greater peak seasons, yet Reynolds is the guy who alomost gains induction. :thumbdown

Cyclone792
12-08-2008, 08:32 PM
Joe Gordon isn't a terrible pick, as he was a better player than several other secondbasemen already in the HOF, but he also was hardly the most deserving candidate available.

Yep, that's pretty much how I feel on Gordon too. He's legitimately borderline, depending on how far deep into the rankings of second basemen people want to go.

Here's my top 20 at 2B:

1) Eddie Collins*
2) Rogers Hornsby*
3) Joe Morgan*
4) Nap Lajoie
5) Craig Biggio
6) Jackie Robinson
7) Roberto Alomar
8) Charlie Gehringer
9) Ryne Sandberg
10) Frankie Frisch
11) Rod Carew
12) Jeff Kent
13) Bobby Grich
14) Larry Doyle
15) Billy Herman
16) Joe Gordon
17) Nellie Fox
18) Lou Whitaker
19) Bobby Doerr
20) Willie Randolph

*I go back and forth on Collins/Hornsby/Morgan at the top. I don't think there's a right or wrong order there.

I've got Gordon ranked 16th (same as James, interestingly). That's not too bad for a HOFer, but there are several other players currently being left out who I think were greater players than Gordon ... two of them being Bobby Grich and Larry Doyle, IMO. Jeff Kent's also a HOFer in my book when he becomes eligible, and I think he's easily higher than Gordon.

Chase Utley's a guy to watch in the future. His best three seasons so far (out of only four total full seasons) are a wash with Gordon's best three seasons, IMO.

RedsBaron
12-08-2008, 08:54 PM
Yep, that's pretty much how I feel on Gordon too. He's legitimately borderline, depending on how far deep into the rankings of second basemen people want to go.

Here's my top 20 at 2B:

1) Eddie Collins*
2) Rogers Hornsby*
3) Joe Morgan*
4) Nap Lajoie
5) Craig Biggio
6) Jackie Robinson
7) Roberto Alomar
8) Charlie Gehringer
9) Ryne Sandberg
10) Frankie Frisch
11) Rod Carew
12) Jeff Kent
13) Bobby Grich
14) Larry Doyle
15) Billy Herman
16) Joe Gordon
17) Nellie Fox
18) Lou Whitaker
19) Bobby Doerr
20) Willie Randolph

*I go back and forth on Collins/Hornsby/Morgan at the top. I don't think there's a right or wrong order there.

I've got Gordon ranked 16th (same as James, interestingly). That's not too bad for a HOFer, but there are several other players currently being left out who I think were greater players than Gordon ... two of them being Bobby Grich and Larry Doyle, IMO. Jeff Kent's also a HOFer in my book when he becomes eligible, and I think he's easily higher than Gordon.

Chase Utley's a guy to watch in the future. His best three seasons so far (out of only four total full seasons) are a wash with Gordon's best three seasons, IMO.

At first glance, I find myself largely in agreement with your rankings.
I see you have Gordon ranked slightly ahead of Doerr. Bill James also had Gordon ahead of Doerr, his contemporary and chief rival for the distinction of being the leading AL 2B of the 1940s. Doerr made the HOF several years ago.
I really agree with Alomar being in the top ten, and 7th seems about right. He should be a first ballot HOF inductee, but I expect it will take many years before he gains induction.
I'd rank Jackie Robinson 4th all time.
My top two are Collins and Morgan. While I can't fault Hornsby as a hitter, he wasn't much of a fielder or a positive clubhouse presence.

Vada Pinson Fan
12-08-2008, 11:12 PM
The Veterans Committee, by showing the apathy toward more than deserving players , should rename themselves to the "Not Now, Not Ever Committee". Richie(Dick)Allen was one tough customer and the powerfully built player was a masher. Allen was a badboy intimidator. A cut-above. Joe Torre could hit and hit but he couldn't run a lick which made the batting title he won simply amazing!!!
Ron Santo was a smooth third baseman with a dependable bat. As a young teenager, I didn't like seeing those three guys coming to Crosley or Riverfront because they were difference makers. Same thing with Vada but you've seen my opinion concerning Vada before. To me, each of these men, and others, had the overall stats necessary for induction. We could critique those enshrined and make a great case for most of those on the pre and post 1943 list.

I'm beginning to think the Veterans Committee is nothing more than a stiff bunch of egotistical bores. Much too proud of their own stats to think any other post-1943 player that wasn't selected during the first fifteen years of eligibilty doesn't deserve a second thought from them.

I'm going to check the committemen's noses when I see them the next time to notice if those noses are pointing skyward (in a stuck [up] position). IMHO the Veterans Committee should consist ONLY of select broadcasters,writers and... Redszoners:thumbup::beerme: . No former players.:bang:

RedsBaron
12-10-2008, 07:24 AM
Apparently Allie Reynolds fell one vote short of election. And Bucky Walters was a greater pitcher than Allie Reynolds.

The more I look at the record, the dumber the near election of Reynolds appears to be. First, it is silly to include Reynolds in the pre-1943 group. Yes, he appeared in the 1942 season, and is credited with exactly one Win Share. The other 169 Win Shares he earned in his career were gained between 1943 and 1954.
The total of 170 Win Shares earned by Reynolds in his career is the second issue. Normally a starting pitcher should get above the 250 Win Share threshold to become a legitimate HOF candidate. Luis Tiant had 256 Win Shares and Jim Kaat had 268 Win Shares. Bucky Walters had 258 Win Shares; his longtime Reds teammate, Paul Derringer, had 231 Win Shares. Reynolds had 170.
Reynolds has no advantage in peak performance either. Only once in his career did Reynolds exceed 20 Win Shares in a season, 1952, when a 20-8 record and an AL leading 2.06 ERA gave him 24 Win Shares. The rest of his career his best seasons were 16, 16, 14, 17, 19, 11, 11---good, but not HOF.
Walters had peak Win Share seasons of 38, 32, 27, 20, 15, 32 and 16 in a run from 1939 through 1945. Included in that string were years when he lead the NL in wins with 27, 22 and 23; two ERA titles; the pitching triple crown in 1939; and the 1939 NL MVP award.
At first glance, the career won-loss records of Reynolds and Walters are not that different. Reynolds went 182-107, a .630%, while Walters was 198-160, a .553%. Each had a career ERA of 3.30, with Walters havng a slight edge in ERA plus, 115 to 110.
However, Reynolds spent most of his career with the Yankees dynasty, while, other than a brief interlude in 1939-40, most of Walters's teams were not that good. The Stats Neuatralizer at Baseball Reference.com finds that Reynolds adjusted record is only 155-125, a .554%, while the adjusted record of Walters is 213-140, a .603%.
Incidentally, the Stats Neutralizer gives Derringer a slight boost as well, upping him from 223 career wins to a record of 234-182.
Derringer won 20 games in four different seasons during his career; Walters had three 20 win seasons; and Reynolds had but one.
Bucky Walters is a borderline HOF candidate. He wasn't Greg Maddux. There certainly are lesser pitchers in the HOF than Walters, and Allie Reynolds came within one vote of adding to the tally of pitchers in the HOF who were not as good as Walters.