Hall of Fame manifesto (1 Viewer)

[Tau837]

Great article. He should update that article every year when the ballot comes out and republish it. I wish someone would do a similar article on the Pro Football HOF.

My take:

I have always felt the Pro Football HOF is much better, because IMO it inducts fewer undeserving candidates.
A player like Candy Cummings sounds like an example of someone who should not be in. I suspect there are many similar examples of older people we’ve never heard of.
Hard to believe 8 umpires are in. Or maybe I should say it’s absurd. I mean, how in the world do they judge them? Especially since they are all older (pre-1978) guys, when statistical analysis and data was less prevalent/available. What could it be, just games umpired?
I don’t see Murray, Boggs, Gwynn, Jackson, Winfield, Puckett, Stargell, Brock, or Eckersley as “Willie Mays” HOFers. I know he defined the group as first ballot, and I'm not saying they should not have been first ballot, so this is just semantics... maybe it is just the way he named the group, but these guys are not in the class of Willie Mays or many of the others listed IMO. I mean, they are all deserving HOFers, just not in the same class as Mays, Ruth, Cobb, Koufax, et al.
I agree with the author that it is very surprising Berra did not get in on his first ballot. Same for Fisk IMO. The whole first ballot political thing is so stupid IMO.
I think people should get 5 years on the ballot and that’s it. 31 of the 174 modern era players who are in were elected by the baseball writers the 6th year or later on the ballot. If they only got 5 years, a few of them (those most deserving) would have been pulled forward, and a few who were less deserving that got in earlier might not have made it. That would be a good thing for the quality of who is in the HOF.
The Veteran’s Committee has done a lousy job. I think probably only 20 or so of the 68 players they inducted deserve to be in.
So I think about 80 of the 174 modern era players are probably undeserving. That is 46%. I’ll be charitable and give myself a margin of error and reduce that to 40%... so I’d knock out 70 of those players. I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume a better job was done with pre-1900 and especially Negro League players, along with pioneers, executives, and managers, and only knock out 20% of those groups… 21 players. I would knock out all umpires.
That means my HOF would have about 187 people in it.Thoughts?

 

[Giantseasonticketholder]

Looks like this could be Jim Rice's year. Rickey is a "first ballot".

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

I think the baseball HOF is the best, but I really do love the NHL's practice of honor the SUPER player with the waiving of the 5 year limit for induction(Mario and Gretzy among those so honored).

I disagree on the pro football HOF. The manditory minimum induction practice can't help but dilute things. Their nominee process is an unnecessary public dog and pony show that makes people look bad(I cringed through Harry Carson's grandstands). Just meet and decide. Baseball's HOF had headscratchers and dark moments, and the assesment and evaulation of this generation of guys, packed with players who hung around for statistical plateau's but we're probably real HOFers when you get down to id(Biggio, Palmiero, soon to be Sheffield). The steriod deal is going to tell the tale with the baseball Hall. Football is too hit or miss. Too hard for a guy like Ray Guy, too QB and RB heavy.

On your Cummings and umpire points, I'll defer there. A guy like Cummings I'm sure was probably a publicity campaign conducted by his family or friends and a consideration to recognize this contribution probably got him in and I think thats something that will be corrected. The guy who invented the slider isn't gonig in(but that awful Sutter induction did get the father of the splitter in).

On the umps, meh. They're enshrined by baseball people, not writers, and I think in that consensus and their constant exposure makes the worthy guardians to dictate which men in blue went in. I don't think their enshrinment is taking away from the Hall.

I agree with the Eck, Puckett, Murray, and Brock on your list. But the other guys were superstars on baseball. Reggie, larger than life, bombastic home run guy, and maybe the hype surpassed the sum of the parts, but I don't have a problem with him going in. Boggs and Gwynn were both guys you'd call a hitter's hitter. Multiple batting titles, 3000 hits, and its to the point now where the batting title is meaningless but they used to be a big deal and when it was, these guys won title after title.

Winnie and Stargell, borderline candidates for that distinction, but as you correctly point out, semantics and I don't have an issue with them as HOFers so why not first ballot.

Puckett is really just a mystifying guy to me, he was simply not an HOFer to me. I know I know, if he played in NY, he'd be a legend. Well Mattingly did and he's not in the Hall and he had his run cut short by injuries too. I won't renew that debate here, but suffice to say, putting Puckett in, first ballot no less, just set a lot of bad precedents for some admittedly borderline candidates.

Agree on the catchers, but much more so with Berra than Fisk, who I found to be more of a compiler. Its odd to me though that Carter had to wait so long while Fisk waltzed in. Maybe the nickname factor again(an interesting one ala Catfish) and Pudge was better than The Kid?

I can agree with you on the five year thing, but I think you would have to revisit the Veterans committee having a stronger role. At some point, you have to say, you're a HOFer or you're not. But 5 is as arbitrary as 15, and I guess I'd be happy with a 10 year window. Waves of worthy candidates could overwhelm in that 5 year window, maybe 10 guards against it better. But the point is true, did Jim Rice or Jack Morris get better in the 15 years its taking them to get in?

I'd have to look more at the Vets committee but I agree they did a bad job, culminating in the afforementioend Mazeroski thing. There is a place for this, but I would say we've enshrined everyone worthy from the Negro's and dead ball era. Enough of digging up these obscure candidates.

We can split hairs on this fringe divisions of umps, execs, broadcasters and managers. But what post 1900 players would you take out?

I don't think there's any REALLY glaring inclusions to me in the era I've been watching baseball other than Sutter, Puckett and possibly Gossage. But therein again, Sutter in means Goose has to go in, and thats where dillution happens.

 

[Tau837]

I agree with the Eck, Puckett, Murray, and Brock on your list. But the other guys were superstars on baseball. Reggie, larger than life, bombastic home run guy, and maybe the hype surpassed the sum of the parts, but I don't have a problem with him going in. Boggs and Gwynn were both guys you'd call a hitter's hitter. Multiple batting titles, 3000 hits, and its to the point now where the batting title is meaningless but they used to be a big deal and when it was, these guys won title after title. Winnie and Stargell, borderline candidates for that distinction, but as you correctly point out, semantics and I don't have an issue with them as HOFers so why not first ballot.

I agree Reggie, Boggs, and Gwynn are deserving HOFers. I just think batting average and batting titles are overrated, and I think Jackson's reputation is inflated. I couldn't put these guys in the select company of a lot of the other players named in the "Willie Mays" group.

Agree on the catchers, but much more so with Berra than Fisk, who I found to be more of a compiler. Its odd to me though that Carter had to wait so long while Fisk waltzed in. Maybe the nickname factor again(an interesting one ala Catfish) and Pudge was better than The Kid

Yes, perhaps I overestimate Fisk a bit... James ranks him as the 6th best catcher ever, but in his writeup basically says there is a good chance he should have him higher. Regardless, he caught 2226 games, which is incredible.

I can agree with you on the five year thing, but I think you would have to revisit the Veterans committee having a stronger role. At some point, you have to say, you're a HOFer or you're not. But 5 is as arbitrary as 15, and I guess I'd be happy with a 10 year window. Waves of worthy candidates could overwhelm in that 5 year window, maybe 10 guards against it better. But the point is true, did Jim Rice or Jack Morris get better in the 15 years its taking them to get in?

I guess an issue I have is looking at the quality of the players who get in after the 5th year, but perhaps I should have really cut it off at the 10th year. These are the players who made it in years 11-15:Gabby HartnettHarry HeilmannDuke SniderBob LemonRalph KinerBruce SutterBill TerryRabbit MaranvilleRed RuffingDazzy VanceThe quality in years 6-10 was better, but still spotty IMO.

I'd have to look more at the Vets committee but I agree they did a bad job, culminating in the afforementioend Mazeroski thing. There is a place for this, but I would say we've enshrined everyone worthy from the Negro's and dead ball era. Enough of digging up these obscure candidates.We can split hairs on this fringe divisions of umps, execs, broadcasters and managers. But what post 1900 players would you take out?

For starters, the group above. And about 50 of the vet committee nominations. I'd have to look closely at it to pick the exact set of players, but probably most of this group:First base: Frank Chance, Jim Bottomley, George KellySecond base: Johnny Evers, Red Schoendienst, Bill MazeroskiShortstop: George Davis, Phil Rizzuto, Hughie Jennings, Joe Sewell, Dave Bancroft, Joe Tinker, Bobby Wallace, Travis JacksonThird base: George Kell, Freddie LindstromRightfield: Elmer Flick, Sam Rice, Kiki Cuyler, Chuck Klein, Harry Hooper, Ross YoungsCenterfield: Max Carey, Earle Combs, Lloyd WanerLeftfield: Goose Goslin, Fred Clarke, Zack Wheat, Heinie Manush, Chick HafeyPitchers: Jim Bunning, Eddie Plank, Hal Newhouser, Joe McGinnity, Rube Waddell, Red Faber, Burleigh Grimes, Eppa Rixey, Waite Hoyte, Addie Joss, Vic Willis, Chief Bender, Stan Coveleski, Jesse Haines, Rube MarquardThat's a lot to start with.

But therein again, Sutter in means Goose has to go in, and thats where dillution happens.

I disagree with this line of thinking, and I think it's a big problem with the baseball HOF. Sutter in does not mean Gossage should be in, though I do think Gossage was more deserving than Sutter. It is the wrong approach IMO to say "player A is in, and player B is more deserving than player A, so player B must get in." First off, if the first player really doesn't deserve to be in, it just compounds the mistake and continues to lower the bar. More importantly, a player should be judged on his own merits, and if comparisons to other players are to be made, then he should be compared to his peers.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

In regard to the old timers, I'll at least defer that they were observed and in many cases voted in by their contemporaries. I think we need to look at modern day voting and trends more than anything. I think these guys have been a pretty fair guardian of the gate to the hall, but to each their own.

However, in regard to the "If he goes in, he goes in" debate, it may be flawed thinking, but its the most logically appropriate debate measure to apply. Since the Hall is by definition subjective, that basis of comparison for similar players holds value. Especially in a borderline role like "closer". As such it becomes a comparitive consideration to say "what is a hall of famer". Well now, Bruce Sutter is a Hall of Famer, so if you say, Gossage was as good as or better than Sutter, you have to put him in. Of course excepting for some really glaring entries and I'm looking right at you Maz.

 

[Koya]

Chuck Klein

I know the guy played in a bandbox, but he is NO BRAINER to me. His OPS+. including adjustment for his park, is stupid good. People think that he left Philly and there went his batting since he was in a new park, but if I recall correctly, his dip in production had more to do with injury than a change of scenery.Yes, his numbers were helped, but they were so ungodly, even in an offensive era, that I don't see how he is on the outside looking in on anyone's list.

 

[oso diablo]

Baseball has been around for over 150 years, and has had at least one professional league since 1876. There have been about 17,000 MLB players in that time. Of that set of players, there have been around 200 HOF inductees. Or just over 1%. Or about 1.5 players per playing year.

as for the article, the author just blithely dismisses any baseball played before 1900. Why?

And then this notion of a "Willie Mays HOFamer" is just silly. In any HOF there are going to be levels of quality. It's not like the standard for Canton is Willie Payton or Jerry Rice. And no matter where you wish to cut it off, there are going to be huge debates about who is on which side of that line*. Using the article's demarcations, guys like Yogi Berra, Mel Ott, Jimmie Foxx, Eddie Collins, and Eddie Mathews wouldn't fall into the "slam dunk" category. I think that's nuts.

* for an experiment, pick a cutoff line and let's then have a debate

for sure, the VC picked some clunkers, and the 200 enshrined aren't the best 200 ever, but it's pretty close.

 

[Tau837]

Baseball has been around for over 150 years, and has had at least one professional league since 1876. There have been about 17,000 MLB players in that time. Of that set of players, there have been around 200 HOF inductees. Or just over 1%. Or about 1.5 players per playing year.as for the article, the author just blithely dismisses any baseball played before 1900. Why?And then this notion of a "Willie Mays HOFamer" is just silly. In any HOF there are going to be levels of quality. It's not like the standard for Canton is Willie Payton or Jerry Rice. And no matter where you wish to cut it off, there are going to be huge debates about who is on which side of that line*. Using the article's demarcations, guys like Yogi Berra, Mel Ott, Jimmie Foxx, Eddie Collins, and Eddie Mathews wouldn't fall into the "slam dunk" category. I think that's nuts.* for an experiment, pick a cutoff line and let's then have a debatefor sure, the VC picked some clunkers, and the 200 enshrined aren't the best 200 ever, but it's pretty close.

I didn't get the impression he was "dismissing" players before 1900, I thought he was just focusing on the modern era players.Speaking of modern era players, there are 174 of them so far, who played the bulk of their careers after 1900. With the 5 year window, and the fact that many HOFers get in many years after first eligible, that's closer to 1.7 players per playing year in the modern era. If the average HOF career was 12 years (pure guess), that's an average of at least 20 HOFers playing at any given time. Is that appropriate? Seems a bit excessive to me.What 20+ HOF players played in 2008?Pitchers: Johnson, Maddux, Martinez, Smoltz, RiveraCatcher: RodriguezFirst base: PujolsSecond base: ?Shortstop: JeterThird base: RodriguezOutfield: Griffey, RamirezI'm sure I'm missing some, since this list is just off the top of my head. And logically, some are probably young players that we don't yet recognize as future HOFers. But I've only named 11 here. Are there 9 young players playing right now that will merit HOF induction?Furthermore, between 1900 and now, the major leagues doubled in size. I'm not sure it makes sense that the same number of HOFers should have been playing in 1900 or 1950 as in 2008... the number should have been lower in the earlier years of the modern era.

 

[Koya]

What 20+ HOF players played in 2008?Pitchers: Johnson, Maddux, Martinez, Smoltz, RiveraCatcher: RodriguezFirst base: PujolsSecond base: ?Shortstop: JeterThird base: RodriguezOutfield: Griffey, Ramirez

Chipper Jones Vlad Guerarro (weak on the black ink, but already there on the other HoF metrics) Frank Thomas And I would think there were 3-5 HOFers that we couldnt/wouldnt even name - younger guys who need to show a lot more. Utley or someone, a few someones, will emerge to have HoF careers you'd assume. Hanley Ramirez has talent, Cabrerra has some impressive numbers very early on... but its just that, very early on. Chances are they fade, but some sustain to be HOFers.Some good young pitching talent too... Santana has had an extrended great peak, but has a ways to go. Who knows if a Lincecum can stay healthy and just have stupid stuff for a career, or again, someone we arent even thinking of. Peavy? If he goes to another stadium might he be a little exposed? B Webb is as old as Santana, he have enough time to compile... but again, some of these guys or their peers will make it.

 

[Tau837]

What 20+ HOF players played in 2008?Pitchers: Johnson, Maddux, Martinez, Smoltz, RiveraCatcher: RodriguezFirst base: PujolsSecond base: ?Shortstop: JeterThird base: RodriguezOutfield: Griffey, Ramirez

Chipper Jones Vlad Guerarro (weak on the black ink, but already there on the other HoF metrics) Frank Thomas And I would think there were 3-5 HOFers that we couldnt/wouldnt even name - younger guys who need to show a lot more. Utley or someone, a few someones, will emerge to have HoF careers you'd assume. Hanley Ramirez has talent, Cabrerra has some impressive numbers very early on... but its just that, very early on. Chances are they fade, but some sustain to be HOFers.Some good young pitching talent too... Santana has had an extrended great peak, but has a ways to go. Who knows if a Lincecum can stay healthy and just have stupid stuff for a career, or again, someone we arent even thinking of. Peavy? If he goes to another stadium might he be a little exposed? B Webb is as old as Santana, he have enough time to compile... but again, some of these guys or their peers will make it.

Definitely forgot Frank Thomas. Thought about Chipper and Vlad and did not include them because I'm not certain they are HOFers. Also thought about Mussina and Schilling but don't think they make the cut.Let me also point out that an average HOF career may very well be longer than 12 seasons (my earlier assumption), especially today. Nowadays, they can be in the neighborhood of 20 seasons long. So if you raise the average duration of career, you also have to raise the number of HOFers playing simultaneously. For example, if the average modern era HOFer played 16 seasons, then on average 27 were playing simultaneously. That is too many IMO.

 

[oso diablo]

i haven't studied it, but my instincts are that the pace of induction has slowed down in recent decades, mostly due to a needed reigning in of the VC. if true, negates the extrapolations you are doing.

also, i'm not sure the logic of your math is correct. have to think about it some more...

 

[The_Man]

You lost me when you said that Eddie Murray wasn't in the top tier of Hall of Fame players. He and Mantle are the best switch-hitters in history, and he's one of 3 guys with 500 HRs and 3,000 hits (Willie Mays and Hank Aaron are the others).

 

[David Yudkin]

JWB -

I think a better exercise would be to go back a few years instead, as some guys would have had a few years of production since then to be on the right track.

So if we took 2003 as an example, candidates would include . . .

Roberto Alomar

Jeff Bagwell

Carlos Beltran

Craig Biggio

Barry Bonds

Roger Clemens

David Cone

Carlos Delgado

John Franco

Andres Galarraga

Nomar Garciaparra

Jason Giambi

Tom Glavine

Juan Gonzalez

Luis Gonzalez

Ken Griffey

Vladamir Guerrero

Todd Helton

Rickey Henderson

Trevor Hoffman

Derek Jeter

Randy Johnson

Chipper Jones

Jeff Kent

Barry Larkin

Greg Maddux

Edgar Martinez

Pedro Martinez

Fred McGriff

Mike Mussina

Rafael Palmiero

Andy Pettitte

Mike Piazza

Alburt Pujols

Manny Ramirez

Mariano Rivera

Alex Rodriguez

Ivan Rodriguez

Curt Schilling

Gary Sheffield

John Smoltz

Sammy Sosa

Ichiro Suzuki

Miguel Tejada

Frank Thomas

Jim Thome

Omar Vizquel

Larry Walker

Matt Williams

I count 26 guys that would be in if steroids weren't an issue and the rest in at least a discussion (some more likely than others). Who on that list would get in IYO? (And there are still younger guys that could make it way down the round.)

 

[oso diablo]

So if we took 2003 as an example, candidates would include . . .Roberto AlomarJeff BagwellCraig BiggioBarry BondsRoger ClemensTom GlavineKen GriffeyVladamir GuerreroRickey HendersonTrevor HoffmanDerek JeterRandy JohnsonChipper JonesJeff KentBarry LarkinGreg MadduxEdgar MartinezPedro MartinezMike MussinaMike PiazzaAlbert PujolsManny RamirezMariano RiveraAlex RodriguezIvan RodriguezCurt SchillingGary SheffieldJohn SmoltzIchiro SuzukiFrank Thomas

I got 30. About 5-8 of those guys are fence-sitters for me, and another 5 or so i deleted wouldn't bother me if they got in.

 

[Tau837]

You lost me when you said that Eddie Murray wasn't in the top tier of Hall of Fame players. He and Mantle are the best switch-hitters in history, and he's one of 3 guys with 500 HRs and 3,000 hits (Willie Mays and Hank Aaron are the others).

Yes, I know the numbers. I don't see Murray in the same class as Mays, Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, Dimaggio, etc. YMMV.

 

[Koya]

You lost me when you said that Eddie Murray wasn't in the top tier of Hall of Fame players. He and Mantle are the best switch-hitters in history, and he's one of 3 guys with 500 HRs and 3,000 hits (Willie Mays and Hank Aaron are the others).

Yes, I know the numbers. I don't see Murray in the same class as Mays, Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, Dimaggio, etc. YMMV.

Is anyone arguing that Murray is in that class of player? This has already been discussed, but do we want a Hall that has 15 members, or a hall that doesnt let a Maz sneak in? Because unless you are talking about only the creme of the creme of the creme, Murray is a no brainer HoFer...Of course, if you look at his numbers without context of the era (he was just before the roids his, and guys from the 70-s and 80's are really hurt by those inflated numbers... Poor Eddie would "only" hit 30-35 HRs a year after all!), or for those who dont remember the first half of his career during which he was an exceptional defensive play, then I can see why there might be some uninformed questioning of Ed-die's credentials.

 

[Tau837]

JWB -I think a better exercise would be to go back a few years instead, as some guys would have had a few years of production since then to be on the right track.So if we took 2003 as an example, candidates would include . . .Roberto Alomar - INJeff Bagwell - INCarlos BeltranCraig Biggio - INBarry Bonds - INRoger Clemens - INDavid ConeCarlos DelgadoJohn FrancoAndres GalarragaNomar GarciaparraJason GiambiTom Glavine - INJuan GonzalezLuis GonzalezKen Griffey - INVladamir GuerreroTodd HeltonRickey Henderson - INTrevor HoffmanDerek Jeter - INRandy Johnson - INChipper JonesJeff KentBarry Larkin - INGreg Maddux - INEdgar MartinezPedro Martinez - INFred McGriffMike MussinaRafael Palmiero - INAndy PettitteMike Piazza - INAlburt Pujols - INManny Ramirez - INMariano Rivera - INAlex Rodriguez - INIvan Rodriguez - INCurt SchillingGary SheffieldJohn Smoltz - INSammy Sosa - INIchiro SuzukiMiguel TejadaFrank Thomas - INJim ThomeOmar VizquelLarry WalkerMatt WilliamsI count 26 guys that would be in if steroids weren't an issue and the rest in at least a discussion (some more likely than others). Who on that list would get in IYO? (And there are still younger guys that could make it way down the round.)

I got 23 on my first pass. I ignored steroid issues for this. I'd want to research and think about some of them (e.g., Thome).

 

[Tau837]

You lost me when you said that Eddie Murray wasn't in the top tier of Hall of Fame players. He and Mantle are the best switch-hitters in history, and he's one of 3 guys with 500 HRs and 3,000 hits (Willie Mays and Hank Aaron are the others).

Yes, I know the numbers. I don't see Murray in the same class as Mays, Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, Dimaggio, etc. YMMV.

Is anyone arguing that Murray is in that class of player? This has already been discussed, but do we want a Hall that has 15 members, or a hall that doesnt let a Maz sneak in? Because unless you are talking about only the creme of the creme of the creme, Murray is a no brainer HoFer...Of course, if you look at his numbers without context of the era (he was just before the roids his, and guys from the 70-s and 80's are really hurt by those inflated numbers... Poor Eddie would "only" hit 30-35 HRs a year after all!), or for those who dont remember the first half of his career during which he was an exceptional defensive play, then I can see why there might be some uninformed questioning of Ed-die's credentials.

I didn't say Murray is not a valid HOFer. Like I said, I am familiar with his case. I simply remarked that the linked article characterized a class of elite HOFers as the "Willie Mays" HOFers, and I don't think Murray is in the same class as many of the others listed.So, yes, the post I just responded to was taking issue with that statement and saying that Murray is in that class of player. Reread my original post for the context of this exchange that you jumped into.

 

[David Yudkin]

You lost me when you said that Eddie Murray wasn't in the top tier of Hall of Fame players. He and Mantle are the best switch-hitters in history, and he's one of 3 guys with 500 HRs and 3,000 hits (Willie Mays and Hank Aaron are the others).

Yes, I know the numbers. I don't see Murray in the same class as Mays, Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, Dimaggio, etc. YMMV.

Is anyone arguing that Murray is in that class of player? This has already been discussed, but do we want a Hall that has 15 members, or a hall that doesnt let a Maz sneak in? Because unless you are talking about only the creme of the creme of the creme, Murray is a no brainer HoFer...Of course, if you look at his numbers without context of the era (he was just before the roids his, and guys from the 70-s and 80's are really hurt by those inflated numbers... Poor Eddie would "only" hit 30-35 HRs a year after all!), or for those who dont remember the first half of his career during which he was an exceptional defensive play, then I can see why there might be some uninformed questioning of Ed-die's credentials.

Murray's total numbers are HOF worthy, but growing up in his timeframe I never thought of him as a sure fire HOFer. IMO, year to year he was solid but he wasn't a guy that was head of the class each year.In 21 seasons he ranked Top 5 in AVG 3 times, HR 5 times, RBI 5 times, and OPS 6 times. He never won an MVP Award (2nd twice). Again, solid numbers all around, but not dominant numbers. So IMO, he was very good for a very long time. But if we were to line up all the players in the history of the game and took the Top 50, he wouldn't make it on my list. He's not a no brainer HOFer like some of the other legends.

 

[Koya]

You lost me when you said that Eddie Murray wasn't in the top tier of Hall of Fame players. He and Mantle are the best switch-hitters in history, and he's one of 3 guys with 500 HRs and 3,000 hits (Willie Mays and Hank Aaron are the others).

Yes, I know the numbers. I don't see Murray in the same class as Mays, Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, Dimaggio, etc. YMMV.

Is anyone arguing that Murray is in that class of player? This has already been discussed, but do we want a Hall that has 15 members, or a hall that doesnt let a Maz sneak in? Because unless you are talking about only the creme of the creme of the creme, Murray is a no brainer HoFer...Of course, if you look at his numbers without context of the era (he was just before the roids his, and guys from the 70-s and 80's are really hurt by those inflated numbers... Poor Eddie would "only" hit 30-35 HRs a year after all!), or for those who dont remember the first half of his career during which he was an exceptional defensive play, then I can see why there might be some uninformed questioning of Ed-die's credentials.

I didn't say Murray is not a valid HOFer. Like I said, I am familiar with his case. I simply remarked that the linked article characterized a class of elite HOFers as the "Willie Mays" HOFers, and I don't think Murray is in the same class as many of the others listed.So, yes, the post I just responded to was taking issue with that statement and saying that Murray is in that class of player. Reread my original post for the context of this exchange that you jumped into.

Fair enough. He is most certainly NOT in that uber elite class, so we agree.That said, I always wore #33, was born in Baltimore and my dad's name Eddie was always Ed-Die when he played softball and I watched as a kid, so Im a bit protective of his legacy.

 

[Koya]

You lost me when you said that Eddie Murray wasn't in the top tier of Hall of Fame players. He and Mantle are the best switch-hitters in history, and he's one of 3 guys with 500 HRs and 3,000 hits (Willie Mays and Hank Aaron are the others).

Yes, I know the numbers. I don't see Murray in the same class as Mays, Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, Dimaggio, etc. YMMV.

Is anyone arguing that Murray is in that class of player? This has already been discussed, but do we want a Hall that has 15 members, or a hall that doesnt let a Maz sneak in? Because unless you are talking about only the creme of the creme of the creme, Murray is a no brainer HoFer...Of course, if you look at his numbers without context of the era (he was just before the roids his, and guys from the 70-s and 80's are really hurt by those inflated numbers... Poor Eddie would "only" hit 30-35 HRs a year after all!), or for those who dont remember the first half of his career during which he was an exceptional defensive play, then I can see why there might be some uninformed questioning of Ed-die's credentials.

Murray's total numbers are HOF worthy, but growing up in his timeframe I never thought of him as a sure fire HOFer. IMO, year to year he was solid but he wasn't a guy that was head of the class each year.In 21 seasons he ranked Top 5 in AVG 3 times, HR 5 times, RBI 5 times, and OPS 6 times. He never won an MVP Award (2nd twice). Again, solid numbers all around, but not dominant numbers. So IMO, he was very good for a very long time. But if we were to line up all the players in the history of the game and took the Top 50, he wouldn't make it on my list. He's not a no brainer HOFer like some of the other legends.

He had a 5 year stretch that was dominating - an amazingly consisten (something like four of those five years with an OPS+ of 156). Is he a top 50 player ever? No. But the HoF is not the top 50 ever... in the context of the hall, with his ability to dominate games, if not post stupid high numbers, his exceptional defense and overall presence on a team and his great consistency at a high level equate to sure fire hall of fame, without question for me.But that doesnt mean he is top 50 ever.

 

[Tau837]

also, i'm not sure the logic of your math is correct. have to think about it some more...

This could very well be true.

 

[David Yudkin]

You lost me when you said that Eddie Murray wasn't in the top tier of Hall of Fame players. He and Mantle are the best switch-hitters in history, and he's one of 3 guys with 500 HRs and 3,000 hits (Willie Mays and Hank Aaron are the others).

Yes, I know the numbers. I don't see Murray in the same class as Mays, Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, Dimaggio, etc. YMMV.

Is anyone arguing that Murray is in that class of player? This has already been discussed, but do we want a Hall that has 15 members, or a hall that doesnt let a Maz sneak in? Because unless you are talking about only the creme of the creme of the creme, Murray is a no brainer HoFer...Of course, if you look at his numbers without context of the era (he was just before the roids his, and guys from the 70-s and 80's are really hurt by those inflated numbers... Poor Eddie would "only" hit 30-35 HRs a year after all!), or for those who dont remember the first half of his career during which he was an exceptional defensive play, then I can see why there might be some uninformed questioning of Ed-die's credentials.

Murray's total numbers are HOF worthy, but growing up in his timeframe I never thought of him as a sure fire HOFer. IMO, year to year he was solid but he wasn't a guy that was head of the class each year.In 21 seasons he ranked Top 5 in AVG 3 times, HR 5 times, RBI 5 times, and OPS 6 times. He never won an MVP Award (2nd twice). Again, solid numbers all around, but not dominant numbers. So IMO, he was very good for a very long time. But if we were to line up all the players in the history of the game and took the Top 50, he wouldn't make it on my list. He's not a no brainer HOFer like some of the other legends.

He had a 5 year stretch that was dominating - an amazingly consisten (something like four of those five years with an OPS+ of 156). Is he a top 50 player ever? No. But the HoF is not the top 50 ever... in the context of the hall, with his ability to dominate games, if not post stupid high numbers, his exceptional defense and overall presence on a team and his great consistency at a high level equate to sure fire hall of fame, without question for me.But that doesnt mean he is top 50 ever.

We may be picking nits, but Murray ended his career with an OPS+ of 129. Given his era that is pretty solid, but that ranks tied for 165th all-time (matching J.D. Drew among others). Certainly there is more to player evaluation than OPS+, but over his career that one isolated stat is not a defining example of dominance.

 

[Koya]

You lost me when you said that Eddie Murray wasn't in the top tier of Hall of Fame players. He and Mantle are the best switch-hitters in history, and he's one of 3 guys with 500 HRs and 3,000 hits (Willie Mays and Hank Aaron are the others).

Yes, I know the numbers. I don't see Murray in the same class as Mays, Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, Dimaggio, etc. YMMV.

Is anyone arguing that Murray is in that class of player? This has already been discussed, but do we want a Hall that has 15 members, or a hall that doesnt let a Maz sneak in? Because unless you are talking about only the creme of the creme of the creme, Murray is a no brainer HoFer...Of course, if you look at his numbers without context of the era (he was just before the roids his, and guys from the 70-s and 80's are really hurt by those inflated numbers... Poor Eddie would "only" hit 30-35 HRs a year after all!), or for those who dont remember the first half of his career during which he was an exceptional defensive play, then I can see why there might be some uninformed questioning of Ed-die's credentials.

Murray's total numbers are HOF worthy, but growing up in his timeframe I never thought of him as a sure fire HOFer. IMO, year to year he was solid but he wasn't a guy that was head of the class each year.In 21 seasons he ranked Top 5 in AVG 3 times, HR 5 times, RBI 5 times, and OPS 6 times. He never won an MVP Award (2nd twice). Again, solid numbers all around, but not dominant numbers. So IMO, he was very good for a very long time. But if we were to line up all the players in the history of the game and took the Top 50, he wouldn't make it on my list. He's not a no brainer HOFer like some of the other legends.

He had a 5 year stretch that was dominating - an amazingly consisten (something like four of those five years with an OPS+ of 156). Is he a top 50 player ever? No. But the HoF is not the top 50 ever... in the context of the hall, with his ability to dominate games, if not post stupid high numbers, his exceptional defense and overall presence on a team and his great consistency at a high level equate to sure fire hall of fame, without question for me.But that doesnt mean he is top 50 ever.

We may be picking nits, but Murray ended his career with an OPS+ of 129. Given his era that is pretty solid, but that ranks tied for 165th all-time (matching J.D. Drew among others). Certainly there is more to player evaluation than OPS+, but over his career that one isolated stat is not a defining example of dominance.

I agree. We will see where JD drew is after his 5+ years of decline. It wont be near Murray's. And as mentioned, Im a bit of a homer here and it's tough to take off them goggles.

 

[Tau837]

Unconventional wisdom: How to improve Hall of Fame voting

This guy is on my wavelength.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Unconventional wisdom: How to improve Hall of Fame voting

This guy is on my wavelength.

These guys only seem to be shamed into change, but this guy is right on the money in regard to Whitaker. Its criminal he's not being considered(and I'd personally put him in).

 

[Tau837]

Another interesting Posnanski column: Hall of Fame Entry Points

 

[oso diablo]

Another interesting Posnanski column: Hall of Fame Entry Points

worse than the previous column. sorry, but that's just some very lazy analysis. Bill James, for one, has looked at HOF inductions in-depth, and even developed a metric he calls the HOF Monitor. I'm not a fan of it, mostly because it gets misused as a qualifier, when it's really just a predictor of what voters tend to do.it's odd, though, because he (Posnanski) reaches quality conclusions (Raines > Rice).

p.s. i appreciate you posting these HOF stories. I'm a big fan of the HOF.