PING (again): Baseball Guys (Re: Hall of Fame)

[albionmoonlight]

I learned a lot with the Walter Johnson/Nolan Ryan discussion yesterday, and people seemed to enjoy it. So here is another couple questions to, hopefully, spark fun discussion and help educate us unwashed masses.

Who are the five (or so) guys who are not in the Hall of Fame who should be?

Who are the five (or so) guys who are in the Hall of Fame who should not be?

[John Galt]

You might want to clearly limit the first question to Hall eligible players unless you want to discuss active players (Bonds, Griffey, Maddux, Clemens, etc.) and/or ineligible players (Shoeless Joe, Pete Rose).

[Toddzilla]

Should be in: Ron Santo

rest of discusson moot

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Who are the five (or so) guys who are in the Hall of Fame who should not be?

I'll give you one who just about everyone agrees with: Phil Rizzuto. Horrible, horrible selection. Got in with the Vet Commitee, through his friends.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by John Galt

You might want to clearly limit the first question to Hall eligible players unless you want to discuss active players (Bonds, Griffey, Maddux, Clemens, etc.) and/or ineligible players (Shoeless Joe, Pete Rose).

I thought about the Rose/Shoeless Joe thing--and I guess I don't want this to turn into yet another Pete Rose thread, personally. But, I figure since this is in the nature of a barstool discussion, the more open ended the question, the better. Let people take it wherever they want to take it.

The discussion is the thing, I think, not so much the answer.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

I, apparently, really, really like commas.

[Huckleberry]

Should be:

Dick Allen
Bert Blyleven
Frank Howard
Ron Santo
Jimmy Wynn

Shouldn't be:

Jesse Haines
Freddie Lindstrom
Rube Marquard
Ray Schalk
Lloyd Waner

By the way, I made sure to only consider ERA+ for pitchers.

[John Galt]

My initial thoughts of the best players excluded (non-active and would not have been eligible for voting) are: Shoeless Joe, Pete Rose, Ron Santo, Goose Gossage (assuming the other relievers belong), and Sadaharu Oh. But that is just a tentative list.

edit: Huckleberry posted while I was typing. He has some good candidates and I'm not sure on Gossage, but that's because the relievers are just hard to evaluate. Shoeless Joe, Rose, and Oh are all obvious wildcards depending on your views of them. Personally, I think Rose and Shoeless Joe should not be in the HOF, but they do fit the criteria of being the best players not in the HOF (although many people overrate Rose).

[John Galt]

Well, I'm going to redo my list exclusing Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. With those two out, I'm going with:

Santo
Gossage
Blyleven
Dick Allen
Oh

[Pumpy Tudors]

comedy nick esasky option

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Should be:

Jimmy Wynn

Huzzah for the Toy Cannon!

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Should be:

Dick Allen
Bert Blyleven
Frank Howard
Ron Santo
Jimmy Wynn

Shouldn't be:

Jesse Haines
Freddie Lindstrom
Rube Marquard
Ray Schalk
Lloyd Waner

By the way, I made sure to only consider ERA+ for pitchers.

I'm not sure about Wynn, but I'm definitely in on the first 4. As for should not be in - I'd say George Sisler belongs on that list, as does Phil Rizzuto (horrible pick). Blyleven was a better pitcher than Nolan Ryan, something people often fail to get.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I'm not sure about Wynn, but I'm definitely in on the first 4. As for should not be in - I'd say George Sisler belongs on that list, as does Phil Rizzuto (horrible pick). Blyleven was a better pitcher than Nolan Ryan, something people often fail to get.

I'm a big Blyleven booster and generally down on Ryan, but I find that statement hard to support. Ryan beats Blyleven in so many things that I really think this has to be a bit of hyperbole.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/blylebe01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ryanno01.shtml

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I'm not sure about Wynn, but I'm definitely in on the first 4. As for should not be in - I'd say George Sisler belongs on that list, as does Phil Rizzuto (horrible pick). Blyleven was a better pitcher than Nolan Ryan, something people often fail to get.

Rizzuto is a stretch for least qualified. There are a lot of real schmoes in there. He was borferline as a player. Add in all the historic moments he called as a broadcaster and his general impact on pop culture and he has a pretty strong argument.

Blyleven
Gossage
Santo
Allen
Buck O' Niel

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by oykib

Rizzuto is a stretch for least qualified. There are a lot of real schmoes in there. He was borferline as a player. Add in all the historic moments he called as a broadcaster and his general impact on pop culture and he has a pretty strong argument.

Yeah, doesn't he get performance credit for his voice-over work on Meat Loaf's "Paradise by the Dashboard Light"?

[ISiddiqui]

Rizzuto a borderline HoF as a player?! WTF? He has an OPS+ of 93. And while he was above average as a fielder, it didn't make up for his deficiencies with the bat, as it does for Ozzie Smith.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I'm a big Blyleven booster and generally down on Ryan, but I find that statement hard to support. Ryan beats Blyleven in so many things that I really think this has to be a bit of hyperbole.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/blylebe01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ryanno01.shtml

I never considered the direct comparison before, so here goes:

Category	Ryan	Blyleven
Wins	324	287
Winning Pct	0.526	0.534
Games	807	692
Complete Gms	222	242
Shutouts	61	60
Innings	5386	4970
162 gm avg IP	231.7	245.3
H/9IP	6.555	8.388
BB/9IP	4.670	2.394
K/9IP	9.548	6.702
K/BB	2.044	2.800
ERA	3.19	3.31
ERA+	112	118
WHIP	1.247	1.198
W titles	0	0
ERA titles	2	0
K titles	11	1
Cy Young Top 3	3	2
WHIP titles	2	1
All Stars	8	2
Innings titles	1	2
ERA+ titles	2	1

I think the nod has to go to Ryan. But the exercise further reinforces that Blyleven was great and belongs in the Hall.

[WSUCougar]

Blyleven and Santo are sort of the poster children for HOF wannabes.

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by John Galt

With those two out, I'm going with:

Santo
Gossage
Blyleven
Dick Allen
Oh

I like this list. Actually, I love this list. I think I even love the order of this list. Oh was a great, great player from everything that I have read. That said, Japan does have a HOF of their own which makes me wonder if "our" HOF should be adding "their" players or not. If so we certainly should be adding more players than Oh and he should just be the tip of the iceberg.

Lastly, I would vote to keep Jackson and Rose out of the HOF. IMO the order of badness should go something like:
fixing games > betting on baseball > taking steroids > corking bats, greasing baseballs

Maybe Jackson didn't actually fix any games but from what I read I think he did. If proven otherwise then he deserves to be in. I'm not sure if the line for exclusion from then HOF should include steroids or not but I do believe that betting on baseball should keep you out for good.

[Huckleberry]

Re: Jimmy Wynn -

He was a great player that played in the cavernous Astrodome. He was also a very-good-to-great defensive centerfielder, and centerfielders don't get enough consideration for that. They sort of get lumped in with the corner outfielders.

Plus he's an Astro.

http://www.astrosdaily.com/files/team/wynn/wynn.html

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

I think the nod has to go to Ryan. But the exercise further reinforces that Blyleven was great and belongs in the Hall.

Thanks for providing the comparison, but I'm not sure why the nod has to go to Ryan. IMO, the 4 most important categories are K/BB, HR/9, ERA+, & WHIP. The only one of those that favor Nolan is HR/9. Plus Blyleven's lead in WHIP would be larger and the gap in HR/9 lessened if those numbers were adjusted for Era/Park effects (because Blyleven's ERA is higher than Ryan's, but his ERA+ is better).

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

I never considered the direct comparison before, so here goes:



I think the nod has to go to Ryan. But the exercise further reinforces that Blyleven was great and belongs in the Hall.

This list reinforces everything that was said about Ryan in the other thread - he pitched a long time, and walked and struck out a ton of batters. And of course, Ks are to pitchers what homers are to hitters, hence his 8 All-Star appearances (and the public's fascination with no-hitters).

Give Ryan the nod on Ks and a few more years pitching; otherwise, the two are pretty much dead-even.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Blyleven's and Santo's names are always the ones that come up in these discussions. I saw Blyleven play, so I can understand why people argue for him, but Santo was before my time. I looked up his stats to see why he's always mentioned, and for the life of me, I don't see why he gets such praise. I'm obviously missing something, but what is the major argument for Santo's induction? I see that he was a great power hitter (by 1960s standards), and he drew a lot of walks, but none of the numbers are really jumping out at me. Does the argument for Santo have anything to do with Mike Schmidt? I mean, I guess if Schmidt got in, Santo should get in, too. I just can't see what all the fuss is about.

Please don't confuse me for one of those guys who thinks that you have to have hit 40 or 45 home runs in a season to be considered a real power hitter. I'm trying to adjust my view based on the era that Santo played, particularly the '60s, and I know that very few players were going to hit 40 homers back then. Just what sets Santo apart from everybody else and makes people say "He should be in the Hall of Fame!"? Does the fact that he won several Gold Gloves at 3B play a big part? Was he that much better than other NL third basemen at the time? Is it the Schmidt thing?

I'm not looking to argue against Santo. I'm just trying to understand the viewpoint of people who are much more familiar with him than I am.

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Give Ryan the nod on Ks and a few more years pitching; otherwise, the two are pretty much dead-even.

Which is why it is so astonishing that Blyleven can't get elected while Ryan pulled the highest vote total in history.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Re: Jimmy Wynn -

He was a great player that played in the cavernous Astrodome. He was also a very-good-to-great defensive centerfielder, and centerfielders don't get enough consideration for that. They sort of get lumped in with the corner outfielders.

Plus he's an Astro.

http://www.astrosdaily.com/files/team/wynn/wynn.html

He held the Astros single-season home run record for nearly 30 years...that's gotta count for something!

He was also the Astros all-time home run leader until Bagwell broke his record a few years ago.

[ntndeacon]

If I have to pick 5 guys who aren't in the hall that should be I choose...(Assuming I don't select any that are first time eligible in the next election)
1. Blyleven
2. Alan Trammell
3. Gossage
4. Ron Santo
5. Dave Parker
But I can only really make arguements for the first 3.
Who doesn't belong?
Heinie Manush (although having a name like Heinie helps his cause)
Joe Tinker
Frank Chance
Jim Bunning
Orlando Cepeda

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Blyleven's and Santo's names are always the ones that come up in these discussions. I saw Blyleven play, so I can understand why people argue for him, but Santo was before my time. I looked up his stats to see why he's always mentioned, and for the life of me, I don't see why he gets such praise. I'm obviously missing something, but what is the major argument for Santo's induction? I see that he was a great power hitter (by 1960s standards), and he drew a lot of walks, but none of the numbers are really jumping out at me. Does the argument for Santo have anything to do with Mike Schmidt? I mean, I guess if Schmidt got in, Santo should get in, too. I just can't see what all the fuss is about.

Please don't confuse me for one of those guys who thinks that you have to have hit 40 or 45 home runs in a season to be considered a real power hitter. I'm trying to adjust my view based on the era that Santo played, particularly the '60s, and I know that very few players were going to hit 40 homers back then. Just what sets Santo apart from everybody else and makes people say "He should be in the Hall of Fame!"? Does the fact that he won several Gold Gloves at 3B play a big part? Was he that much better than other NL third basemen at the time? Is it the Schmidt thing?

I'm not looking to argue against Santo. I'm just trying to understand the viewpoint of people who are much more familiar with him than I am.

I think the most coherent argument for Santo is that he's one of the 10-15 best third basemen of all time. His career does seem a little short from my perspective, though.

[Katon]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think the most coherent argument for Santo is that he's one of the 10-15 best third basemen of all time. His career does seem a little short from my perspective, though.

Not just one of the 10-15 best. Going off BBref, there are 18 third basemen currently in the hall who were inducted as players. Out of those eighteen, here are the players with a higher career OPS+ than Santo: Home Run Baker, Eddie Mathews, Harmon Killebrew, Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Wade Boggs. That's it.

So he's a better hitter (per plate appearance) than two thirds of the HOF 3Bs, one of the guys ahead of him played more often at first (Killebrew) and he was a very good defensive third baseman who won several gold gloves. At this point, the only argument for keeping him out would be if his career was incredibly short, but it really wasn't. He played 15 seasons in total, and for eleven of those he played at least 154 games. That's not stunningly impressive by Hall standards, but it's hardly grounds to keep him out.

[Huckleberry]

C

SS
2B
3B/CF



RF

LF
1B

That's how defensive positions are typically valued. 3B and centerfielders tend to be evaluated by the general public more unfairly than other positions. They're not shortstops so they're expected to have hitting numbers on par with left fielders. Santo is well qualified for the Hall.

[bosshogg23]

Originally Posted by ntndeacon

If I have to pick 5 guys who aren't in the hall that should be I choose...(Assuming I don't select any that are first time eligible in the next election)
1. Blyleven
2. Alan Trammell
3. Gossage
4. Ron Santo
5. Dave Parker

Took longer than I expected to see Trammell. He definitely would be in my top 5, along with Gossage & Blyleven. I cant think of 2 more I would enthusiastically support.

Without looking up the numbers on baseball reference I know George Kell is considered borderline at best. Bill Mazeroski is one whose numbers are pretty appalling offensively but everyone he played against says he was an HOFer. A friend of mine, who hates the Yankees mind you, always rails against Tony Lazzeri.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I'm not sure about Wynn, but I'm definitely in on the first 4. As for should not be in - I'd say George Sisler belongs on that list, as does Phil Rizzuto (horrible pick). Blyleven was a better pitcher than Nolan Ryan, something people often fail to get.

Kind of curious why you would say Sisler does not belong. He was a .340 career hitter, 13 Seasons over .300, 2 Seasons over .400, probably would have won more than the 2 Batting titles he won had part of his career not bridged a couple of pretty good Detroit batsmen in Cobb and Heilmann.

Rizzuti does not belong and I don't think Tinker or Evers does. Chance was the most complete player of that Cubs infield and those two kind of rode the coattails of the Tinker to Evers to Chance legend.

Jesse Haines also does not belong, not even in Blyleven's league as a Pitcher and Ray Schalk got in as much because he was the lone key player of the 1919 Sox that stayed clean, as for anything he ever did on the field.

In addition to Blyleven I think Santos belongs as does Dick Allen. Buck O'Neil definitely belongs, he was a solid player and has done far more for the memory and recognition of the old Negro Leagues than anybody.

My last vote would be for Shoeless Joe......He was a complete Rube, who in all reality was bullied and conned into participation in the fix. I don't think he had the full mental capacity to truly understand the ramifications of what he was getting involved in. He played hard in the Series and I truly believe he never would have participated if he was even remotely educated. He is one of the best 3 or 4 natural hitters that ever lived and I would pardon him long before Rose.

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, good calls on Tinker and Evers. They were average batters who were imortalized in a famous poem. Chance was the only Hall of Famer in that infield (as player AND manager).

As for Sisler, the guy has an OPS+ of 124, meaning he was a pretty fine hitter (and better than some other HoFers). He may be on the low side on my totem pole, but not even close to being one of the biggest errors.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Btw, good calls on Tinker and Evers. They were average batters who were imortalized in a famous poem. Chance was the only Hall of Famer in that infield (as player AND manager).

As for Sisler, the guy has an OPS+ of 124, meaning he was a pretty fine hitter (and better than some other HoFers). He may be on the low side on my totem pole, but not even close to being one of the biggest errors.

Yeah, but what I meant with him is that as a 1b, while that's not overly impressive, . I'm a small hall kinda guy, so Sisler bugs me. His OBP was basically 20 points above league average for his time - he had limited power, and he rarely if ever walked. Heck, Will Clark was a significantly better player than Sisler , and as much as I love the guy (Giants fan here ), he's not a HOF. Sisler's performance was equivalent to a John Olerud, without the defense. I agree he's not the worse, but he's extremely overrated, primarily due to that career BA of .340.

[ISiddiqui]

Plenty of guys overrated in the Hall (like Kirby Puckett, but that's another entire discussion), but I don't think he's close to being the Bottom 5 worst.

Maybe we need a Top 5 Overrated?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'll give you one who just about everyone agrees with: Phil Rizzuto. Horrible, horrible selection. Got in with the Vet Commitee, through his friends.

So have 20-30 other guys as well. Without reading this thread any further, I have been of the opinion that there is about twice as many players in the HOF that should not be.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by oykib

Rizzuto is a stretch for least qualified. There are a lot of real schmoes in there. He was borferline as a player. Add in all the historic moments he called as a broadcaster and his general impact on pop culture and he has a pretty strong argument.

What impact on pop culture did Rizzuto have? Outside of New York, that is.

[Ksyrup]

The Money Store commercials!

And Jim Palmer was borderline as a pitcher - he only made it because he posed in his underwear.

[clintl]

If you're going to start throwing guys out of the Hall of Fame, Ray Schalk and Rabbit Maranville should be the first two to go.

[Arctus]

Originally Posted by clintl

If you're going to start throwing guys out of the Hall of Fame, Ray Schalk and Rabbit Maranville should be the first two to go.

I could not agree more.

I can't believe Maranville got more votes than Joe DiMaggio in '54.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, it's because Maranville was the Ozzie Smith of his time (interestingly in similarity scores, Smith is closest to Maranville) and defense, seemingly, was more valued at the time.

Though he never should have gotten more votes than DiMaggio.

[ntndeacon]

I love the fact that Maranville got in. Basically most of the votes the Writers do are spot on.A lthough I am not a fan of Tony Perez...The veteran's Committee is where most of the real travesties occur.