Golden Days Era and Early Baseball Committee Results

[Skipscards]

Congrats to our 6 newest Hall of Famers!

Tony Oliva
Jim Kaat
Minnie Minoso
Gil Hodges
Bud Fowler
Buck O’Neil

The 2022 Golden Days Era Ballot:
Dick Allen, Ken Boyer, Gil Hodges, Jim Kaat, Roger Maris, Minnie Miñoso, Danny Murtaugh, Tony Oliva, Billy Pierce and Maury Wills

Committee Members Voting:
HOFers: Rod Carew, Fergie Jenkins, Mike Schmidt, John Schuerholz, Bud Selig, Ozzie Smith and Joe Torre; MLB Execs: Al Avila, Bill DeWitt, Ken Kendrick, Kim Ng and Tony Reagins; and Media Members/Historians: Adrian Burgos Jr., Steve Hirdt, Jaime Jarrin and Jack O’Connell.
Note: Chairman of the Board, Jane Forbes Clark will be in the room as a non-voting Chairman of the Committee

The 2022 Early Baseball Era Ballot:
Bill Dahlen, John Donaldson, Bud Fowler, Vic Harris, Grant “Home Run” Johnson, Lefty O’Doul, Buck O’Neil, Dick “Cannonball” Redding, Allie Reynolds and George “Tubby” Scales

Committee Members Voting:
HOFers: Bert Blyleven, Fergie Jenkins, John Schuerholz, Ozzie Smith and Joe Torre; MLB Execs: Bill DeWitt, Ken Kendrick and Tony Reagins; and Media Members/Historians Gary Ashwill, Adrian Burgos Jr., Leslie Heaphy, Jim Henneman, Justice Hill, Steve Hirdt, Rick Hummel and John Thorn.
Note: Note: Chairman of the Board, Jane Forbes Clark and Interim Commissioner Emeritus For Life, Bud Selig will be in the room as a non-voting Co-Chairmen of the Committee

The outcome of these votes are almost always based on who is in the room. Looking at the Golden Days Era, I see people with ties to Kaat which may bode well for him. Allen’s recent passing may help him. Anyone not making the Golden Era this round will have to wait another 5 years.

Looking at the Early Baseball Era, Dahlen always gets support but never quite enough. I think the best Negro League candidates are Vic Harris and Homerun Johnson. Buck O’Neil, John Donaldson, and Bud Fowler all have strong contributor/pioneer arguments. Any of those three wouldn’t be a surprise with O’Neil being the most recognizable. Anyone not making the Early Baseball Era this round will have to wait another 10 years.

[mcgoo2]

It's a shame that Buck O'Neil still isn't in the hall.

[jrosales]

It's a shame that Buck O'Neil still isn't in the hall.

He has a distinguished award named for him; that's quite sufficient for someone of his stature.

Stats-wise, he isn't really close.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

He has a distinguished award named for him; that's quite sufficient for someone of his stature.

Stats-wise, he isn't really close.

Stats-wise he is not, but he should still be in the Hall as a contributor to the game. When you look at his entire career in baseball (player, manager, scout, ambassador), it is clearly HOF worthy. Just naming an award after him is not enough. If the Hall doesn’t have a clear path for someone to be elected as a contributor, they should. I do think he will be elected this year, and it will be looooog overdue. It’s a shame he won’t be able to enjoy his enshrinement. To only look at his playing stats and make a decision based on that is a shame and ignores everything he did for baseball.

[gmarutiak]

I hope this is Dick Allen’s year.

[panamamyers]

Pat Gillick didn't have great stats either. Never made it to the majors.

[jrosales]

Pat Gillick didn't have great stats either. Never made it to the majors.

He's in as an executive. He was the architect for 3 World Series champion teams.

[YouTheManNick]

Stats-wise he is not, but he should still be in the Hall as a contributor to the game. When you look at his entire career in baseball (player, manager, scout, ambassador), it is clearly HOF worthy. Just naming an award after him is not enough. If the Hall doesn’t have a clear path for someone to be elected as a contributor, they should. I do think he will be elected this year, and it will be looooog overdue. It’s a shame he won’t be able to enjoy his enshrinement. To only look at his playing stats and make a decision based on that is a shame and ignores everything he did for baseball.

Agreed. Hall of Fame not Hall of Stats.

[Skipscards]

Stats-wise he is not, but he should still be in the Hall as a contributor to the game. When you look at his entire career in baseball (player, manager, scout, ambassador), it is clearly HOF worthy. Just naming an award after him is not enough. If the Hall doesn’t have a clear path for someone to be elected as a contributor, they should. I do think he will be elected this year, and it will be looooog overdue. It’s a shame he won’t be able to enjoy his enshrinement. To only look at his playing stats and make a decision based on that is a shame and ignores everything he did for baseball.

It’s a fair point. I do think his contributions to the game merit induction but it’s obviously more subjective for contributors. But, there are other contributors who had arguably just as important contributions, but Buck outlived them and he’s better remembered. John Donaldson literally created the barnstroming business model that enabled the Negro Leagues to survive. Fowler was the first black person to play professionally.

[sportzluvr1]

Suck it Whitey!

[LCM1223]

He's in as an executive. He was the architect for 3 World Series champion teams.

Imma take a wild guess and say Panama was being facetious

[Timsterino]

I am all about Gil Hodges and Roger Maris finally getting some much deserved recognition.

[WizardofOz1982]

He has a distinguished award named for him; that's quite sufficient for someone of his stature.

Stats-wise, he isn't really close.

There are several men in the Hall of Fame on their contributions to baseball alone. O'Neil more than deserves that honor based on his 80 year long ambassadorship for the game and his milestones like first African American coach and his role growing scouting amongst African American players and integration. There are also plenty of men in the Hall who did a whole lot less for baseball than Buck and nobody wants to take them out.

John Donaldson would be my other pick among the Negro League candidates though I can see the arguments for Vic Harris and Homerun Johnson.

Bill Dahlen and Dick Allen are the only other two from either of the lists that I think should be considered.

I think Allen should have been years ago. The raw numbers are borderline but knowing his story and understanding the context of his career makes it obvious he should be in I think.

Bill Dahlen is a borderline guy that probably should have already been inducted if he was going to get in. It's so hard to form a frame of reference for Dead Ball era guys now and I feel like any arguments that could have been made already have been in his case. I wouldn't disagree with him getting in but it would certainly leave the question of why it didn't already happen hanging out there.

I know Kaat will get some support, especially with the guys who are currently on the committee, but 24 years to get 283 wins and 70 WAR. His peak was okay but he was never really dominant and he was never remotely close to the best pitcher in baseball conversation at any point in his career. He was a really good pitcher for about 5 years and the other 20 he was league average or a little better. That's not a Hall of Fame career to me.

Boyer will probably get quite a bit of support too (given the high number of people with St Louis ties on the committee) but I've never understood the push for him, even as a Cardinals fan. He was a really good player. He wasn't a great player.

[fabiani12333]

MLB Network is broadcasting the results tonight. I dont usually care about veteran committee votes, but this one is pretty interesting with all the notable players.

[Skipscards]

There are several men in the Hall of Fame on their contributions to baseball alone. O'Neil more than deserves that honor based on his 80 year long ambassadorship for the game and his milestones like first African American coach and his role growing scouting amongst African American players and integration. There are also plenty of men in the Hall who did a whole lot less for baseball than Buck and nobody wants to take them out.

John Donaldson would be my other pick among the Negro League candidates though I can see the arguments for Vic Harris and Homerun Johnson.

Bill Dahlen and Dick Allen are the only other two from either of the lists that I think should be considered.

I think Allen should have been years ago. The raw numbers are borderline but knowing his story and understanding the context of his career makes it obvious he should be in I think.

Bill Dahlen is a borderline guy that probably should have already been inducted if he was going to get in. It's so hard to form a frame of reference for Dead Ball era guys now and I feel like any arguments that could have been made already have been in his case. I wouldn't disagree with him getting in but it would certainly leave the question of why it didn't already happen hanging out there.

I know Kaat will get some support, especially with the guys who are currently on the committee, but 24 years to get 283 wins and 70 WAR. His peak was okay but he was never really dominant and he was never remotely close to the best pitcher in baseball conversation at any point in his career. He was a really good pitcher for about 5 years and the other 20 he was league average or a little better. That's not a Hall of Fame career to me.

Boyer will probably get quite a bit of support too (given the high number of people with St Louis ties on the committee) but I've never understood the push for him, even as a Cardinals fan. He was a really good player. He wasn't a great player.

Kaat is also arguably (with Maddux and Greinke) the greatest fielding pitcher in history. And 283 wins is no joke no matter how you slice it. He’s not my first choice (personally I’d really like to see Oliva and Minoso) but he deserves to get in.

[bronxburner24]

Based on the who is listed as Golden Era committee members, I think Allen, Minoso and Oliva will get in today. I thought Kaat had a chance before I saw the list of voters, but I now believe he will come up a vote or two short.

As for the Early baseball era - O'Neil doesnt really belong on this list as he had very little "pre-1950" contribution of note. But I guess they really don't know what to do with him and that's probably why he isn't in yet - really they should have a contributor committee that has nothing to do with specific years. But since they don't hopefully he gets in here and it will no longer be an issue. I'd guess O'Neill, Harris and Dahlen make it.

[Skipscards]

Also I’m ready to see Hodges get in.

[Skipscards]

Based on the who is listed as Golden Era committee members, I think Allen, Minoso and Oliva will get in today. I thought Kaat had a chance before I saw the list of voters, but I now believe he will come up a vote or two short.

As for the Early baseball era - O'Neil doesnt really belong on this list as he had very little "pre-1950" contribution of note. But I guess they really don't know what to do with him and that's probably why he isn't in yet - really they should have a contributor committee that has nothing to do with specific years. But since they don't hopefully he gets in here and it will no longer be an issue. I'd guess O'Neill, Harris and Dahlen make it.

Kaat played with Carew and Schmidt.

[Hollywood42]

Live stream here for anyone interested - https://www.mlb.com/video/hof-era-committee-results-show-3962

[SupermanBrandon]

Suck it Whitey!

Im offended!

[Skipscards]

Congrats to Gil Hodges!!

[Skipscards]

Congrats to Jim Kaat!!

[Hollywood42]

Jim Kaat!!

https://i.imgur.com/8movxI6.jpg

[Skipscards]

Congrats to Minnie Minoso!!

[Skipscards]

Congrats to Tony Oliva!!

[Hollywood42]

Tony O too!! What a great day!!

https://i.imgur.com/vG2Ri8A.jpg

[Skipscards]

And 2 of the 3 living candidates got in! Great class!

[Skipscards]

What an amazing day!

[Hollywood42]

So, so happy for the pair of Twins. So glad they are alive to see the honor

[Skipscards]

Congrats to Bud Fowler!!

[Skipscards]

Congrats to Buck O’Neil!!

[hammertime]

FINALLY!

[pspa123]

And all three living candidates got in! Great class!

Oilva, Kaat, who's the third?

[hammertime]

Wow Dick Allen was so close. And zero votes for Bill Dahlen?

[ThoseBackPages]

BUCK IS IN!!!!!!!!!!

[Skipscards]

Oilva, Kaat, who's the third?

Sorry, two. I was updating way too fast. Scratch that, 3, Maury Wills! Ok, now I feel better. I’m not crazy.

[Skipscards]

Wow Dick Allen was so close. And zero votes for Bill Dahlen?

Not zero. They only report totals for people with at least 4 votes. He may have gotten zero, one, two, or three.

[KevinC]

Jim Kaat!!

https://i.imgur.com/8movxI6.jpg

I bet you he's going through his speech now and removing all his Negro League jokes.

[awz50]

Love to see it!

[87toppsproject]

Another reason why the Baseball Hall of Fame is a farce. Dick Allen got shafted again.

[LCM1223]

Another reason why the Baseball Hall of Fame is a farce. Dick Allen got shafted again.

It’s a damn shame

[MoreToppsPlease]

With this large of a class, people will think less of the PED guys not getting in.

[vpina87]

What a great HOF class!!!!
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51727300301_378618d97b_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mNXWec)Screen Shot 2021-12-05 at 7.09.33 PM (https://flic.kr/p/2mNXWec) by victor pina (https://www.flickr.com/photos/194331975@N03/), on Flickr

[DioBrando]

I fail to see how Jim Kaat made it but not Ken Boyer. Kaat was the definition of hall of very good. He played forever but didn't compile enough for any of the usual hallmark stats(300 wins, 3000k). Pitching version of Harold Baines I guess

[mchenrycards]

I fail to see how Jim Kaat made it but not Ken Boyer. Kaat was the definition of hall of very good. He played forever but didn't compile enough for any of the usual hallmark stats(300 wins, 3000k). Pitching version of Harold Baines I guess

Did you see him play?

[mcgoo2]

Great class! Now I just need Kent Hrbek to make the Hall and I'll have a wooden Twins baseball with all HOFers :p

https://live.staticflickr.com/4408/36441212193_0635a33ce2_o.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/4439/37255703765_48279756ac_o.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/4429/36441212423_4c446b19e5_o.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/4354/36441215863_ec5e13a37b_o.jpg

[fabiani12333]

Can someone explain the difference between Jim Kaat and Jamie Moyer?

Kaat's induction seems like the pitching version of Harold Baines.

[D-Lite]

With this large of a class, people will think less of the PED guys not getting in.

I don't think they bumped up the induction from this process completely on purpose to cover for the shenanigans that are coming, but maybe they're not completely innocent on that.

[DioBrando]

Did you see him play?

Kaat? No, no I did not. Just going off stats, same with Boyer. Though Boyer was one of my uncles favorite players and he always talked about seeing him play.

[BAHoopla]

About time for Buck

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211206/5f865908a191ad61dd273dfa88cb679e.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[fabiani12333]

I'm just going to guess Kaat is personally popular with the committee members. He does broadcasting for MLB Network.

He seems like a pretty good color commentator, for what it's worth.

[ThoseBackPages]

Could be a nice guy, like Harold Baines

[JrFinest]

Good to see Kaat get in.

[DioBrando]

Can someone explain the difference between Jim Kaat and Jamie Moyer?

Kaat's induction seems like the pitching version of Harold Baines.

That's a really good comparison for Kaat. Very close in WAR, Kaat does gave the gold gloves.

[awz50]

Can someone explain the difference between Jim Kaat and Jamie Moyer?

Kaat's induction seems like the pitching version of Harold Baines.

I would say kaat is above Baines in hof credentials

[RTP316]

Minnie. Finally.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

[no10pin]

Congrats to all the new HOFers!

Checking out stats on some of them, and I had forgotten how good Minnie was at getting hit. He led the league in HBP (10 times) in every full season he played except one.

[mchenrycards]

Kaat? No, no I did not. Just going off stats, same with Boyer. Though Boyer was one of my uncles favorite players and he always talked about seeing him play.

I think sometimes you need to look beyond stats and see what kind of player he really was. Much like Billy Pierce, who should be in the hall as well, Kaat went up against many of the other teams best. It always seemed the ace of the staff would always meet up with the other teams ace as the starting pitchers rarely missed a start or they could lose their place in the rotation. Billy Pierce went up against Whitey Ford almost every time the Sox and Yankees played and frequently lost 1-0 but pitched masterfully and Kaat in his prime was much the same way. The "golden days" were different than the current MLB in so many ways and it is hard to hold these past greats up to the light of today's game.

As for Boyer...yeah...I believe he should be in the hall as well but sadly he will never get the call. The stats do not tell the entire story.

[wood minis]

Can someone explain the difference between Jim Kaat and Jamie Moyer?

Kaat's induction seems like the pitching version of Harold Baines.

16 consecutive gold gloves and a distinguished post-playing announcing career.

[mfw13]

I guess the new policy is just to let everybody in.....

All of these guys were good players....none of them were HOF-level players.....

[mchenrycards]

I guess the new policy is just to let everybody in.....

All of these guys were good players....none of them were HOF-level players.....

Once again I ask the question...how many did you see play?

[Silent George]

And both living candidates got in! Great class!

Maury Wills is living and didn’t make it. Too bad for him. Unique and fun player who deserves to be remembered.

Still, I can hardly be more pleased with these votes. 4 in. 2 living. Seriously clears the deck for next time. Hodges seemingly yearly consideration finally over. Dick Allen almost a for sure shoe in in 5 years, and maybe finally time for real consideration for Boyer and others. Extremely pleased.

And of course I’m happy with Buck, happy Dahlen didn’t come close, just all around happy.

[Skipscards]

Can someone explain the difference between Jim Kaat and Jamie Moyer?

Kaat's induction seems like the pitching version of Harold Baines.

Sure. Kaat didn’t give up the most homeruns in baseball history like Moyer. Also his career ERA is nearly a full run better than Moyer’s. Then there’s 16 consecutive Gold Gloves and his 180 Complete Games.

There a several paths to the Hall of Fame.

[Skipscards]

Maury Wills is living and didn’t make it. Too bad for him. Unique and fun player who deserves to be remembered.

Still, I can hardly be more pleased with these votes. 4 in. 2 living. Seriously clears the deck for next time. Hodges seemingly yearly consideration finally over. Dick Allen almost a for sure shoe in in 5 years, and maybe finally time for real consideration for Boyer and others. Extremely pleased.

And of course I’m happy with Buck, happy Dahlen didn’t come close, just all around happy.

That’s the third one I was thinking! Thank you!

[Skipscards]

Maury Wills is living and didn’t make it. Too bad for him. Unique and fun player who deserves to be remembered.

Still, I can hardly be more pleased with these votes. 4 in. 2 living. Seriously clears the deck for next time. Hodges seemingly yearly consideration finally over. Dick Allen almost a for sure shoe in in 5 years, and maybe finally time for real consideration for Boyer and others. Extremely pleased.

And of course I’m happy with Buck, happy Dahlen didn’t come close, just all around happy.

And agreed. This was fantastic. Hodges and Oliva were two of just five players in history to get 40%+ of the BBWAA vote and not make it. Hodges and Oliva were also the only players to ever finish top three on any BBWAA ballot and not eventually get in. Now, every player to ever finish in the top 5 of any BBWAA ballot has eventually been inducted except Garvey and Maris. And here’s the only three left who haven’t made it despite getting at least 40% of the BBWAA vote:

Marty Marion
Maury Wills
Steve Garvey

[bronxburner24]

And of course I’m happy with Buck, happy Dahlen didn’t come close, just all around happy.

Were you rooting against him?

[Skipscards]

And here’s a couple I have pics of…


https://www.skipscards.com/uploads/1/3/2/3/13236336/274106f3-333d-43f3-b2a2-61bad7363500_orig.jpeg
https://www.skipscards.com/uploads/1/3/2/3/13236336/d68c8a9b-5f6e-4470-94e3-57b0c102b094_orig.jpeg

[gmoney328]

Ummmmm. Dick Allen!?!? What a ridiculous farce.

[Skipscards]

Ummmmm. Dick Allen!?!? What a ridiculous farce.

Not really a farce. They inducted 4 on that Committee and he missed by just one vote. It’s almost a certainty that he’ll get in next time.

[fabiani12333]

Sure. Kaat didn’t give up the most homeruns in baseball history like Moyer. Also his career ERA is nearly a full run better than Moyer’s. Then there’s 16 consecutive Gold Gloves and his 180 Complete Games.

There a several paths to the Hall of Fame.

Moyer pitched during the steroid era.

Dennis Martinez had 122 complete games and numbers not far off from Kaat's.

Tommy John had better numbers than Kaat -- better ERA; more innings; more wins; 162 CGs.

[gmoney328]

Not really a farce. They inducted 4 on that Committee and he missed by just one vote. It’s almost a certainty that he’ll get in next time.

I hope so. He was a dominant hitter in a pitchers era. He deserves it in my opinion.

[WizardofOz1982]

Sure. Kaat didn’t give up the most homeruns in baseball history like Moyer. Also his career ERA is nearly a full run better than Moyer’s. Then there’s 16 consecutive Gold Gloves and his 180 Complete Games.

There a several paths to the Hall of Fame.

16 Gold Gloves is great but he's a pitcher. He played 4500 innings in the field in 25 years. That's like 3.5 seasons worth of innings in the field for any other defensive player. Someone has to win the award but proclaiming excellence for a guy who had less than 50 fielding chances a season is kind of meh.

I guess as long as he made plays on all 30 balls that were hit to him in a season then great. That's an average week for a shortstop or outfielder.

It seems odd to try to grant Hall of Fame candidacy vindication based on pitcher fielding.

Kaat was never at any point in his career the best pitcher in baseball. He was never even top 5 in any single season, much less over an extended period of time. In 25 years he lead the league in a positive pitching category twice with 25 wins and 19 complete games in 1966.

[WizardofOz1982]

Not really a farce. They inducted 4 on that Committee and he missed by just one vote. It’s almost a certainty that he’ll get in next time.

He got 11 of 12 votes last time too. It's a joke but I'm not sure he ever gets in.

[fabiani12333]

16 Gold Gloves is great but he's a pitcher. He played 4500 innings in the field in 25 years. That's like 3.5 seasons worth of innings in the field for any other defensive player. Someone has to win the award but proclaiming excellence for a guy who had less than 50 fielding chances a season is kind of meh.

I guess as long as he made plays on all 30 balls that were hit to him in a season then great. That's an average week for a shortstop or outfielder.

It seems odd to try to grant Hall of Fame candidacy vindication based on pitcher fielding.

Kaat was never at any point in his career the best pitcher in baseball. He was never even top 5 in any single season, much less over an extended period of time. In 25 years he lead the league in a positive pitching category twice with 25 wins and 19 complete games in 1966.

He committed 8 errors in one of those Gold Glove seasons -- 6 in another.

[cjraleigh]

16 Gold Gloves is great but he's a pitcher. He played 4500 innings in the field in 25 years. That's like 3.5 seasons worth of innings in the field for any other defensive player. Someone has to win the award but proclaiming excellence for a guy who had less than 50 fielding chances a season is kind of meh.

I guess as long as he made plays on all 30 balls that were hit to him in a season then great. That's an average week for a shortstop or outfielder.

It seems odd to try to grant Hall of Fame candidacy vindication based on pitcher fielding.

Kaat was never at any point in his career the best pitcher in baseball. He was never even top 5 in any single season, much less over an extended period of time. In 25 years he lead the league in a positive pitching category twice with 25 wins and 19 complete games in 1966.

Agree with the first sentence in red, but have to disagree with the rest of the paragraph.

Kaat was arguably the top AL pitcher in ‘66, but had the misfortune of going up against the greatest final season ever with Koufax for the Cy. Kaat did not even credit for 2nd place because at the time writers would only cast their vote for 1st place….not to mention that only one award was given for both leagues.

Otherwise, Kaat had far more positive category “black ink” scores than just his ‘66 win and CG totals.

Shutouts, Starts, IP, BB/9, FIP, K/BB

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kaatji01.shtml

Most seem okay with Kaat’s election, but no one is suggesting he’s an inner circle HOFer. But, he does pave the way for Tommy John, Luis Tiant, and maybe a couple others from this era.

[Skipscards]

Moyer pitched during the steroid era.

Dennis Martinez had 122 complete games and numbers not far off from Kaat's.

Tommy John had better numbers than Kaat -- better ERA; more innings; more wins; 162 CGs.

True on all counts. But you are picking singular things. I could do the same thing and creat false equivalencies for any player too. Babe Ruth only hit 506 doubles. But Jimmy Rollins hit 511. Therefore Babe must not be as good as Jimmy Rollins.

Also, it is inevitable that Tommy John will get in eventually.

16 Gold Gloves is great but he's a pitcher. He played 4500 innings in the field in 25 years. That's like 3.5 seasons worth of innings in the field for any other defensive player. Someone has to win the award but proclaiming excellence for a guy who had less than 50 fielding chances a season is kind of meh.

I guess as long as he made plays on all 30 balls that were hit to him in a season then great. That's an average week for a shortstop or outfielder.

It seems odd to try to grant Hall of Fame candidacy vindication based on pitcher fielding.

Kaat was never at any point in his career the best pitcher in baseball. He was never even top 5 in any single season, much less over an extended period of time. In 25 years he lead the league in a positive pitching category twice with 25 wins and 19 complete games in 1966.

The 16 consecutive Gold Gloves certainly doesn’t make him Brooks Robinson, but it’s not the only argument for Kaat. It’s just one point in his favor. It is not unreasonable to assume Kaat’s defensive contribution amounts to something. Even if we say it’s only worth 3 or 4 Gold Gloves, most HOFers don’t have that many.

As for the best pitcher in baseball, I’d say there are several pitchers in the Hall that were never the best pitcher in baseball. That’s not the bar for the Hall. As for top 5 in any given season, I’d disagree. I’m sure I could find a season or two.

But here’s the thing. There are essentially 3 paths to the Hall for a player. 1. Those in because of overall career value. Longevity driven. Players like Don Sutton. Stick around long enough, hit a big number we can't ignore and you are in the club. 2. Those in because of peak value. Someone who was so dominant over a short period of time that voters felt they could not ignore their greatness. Sandy Koufax is the best example. Kirby Puckett and Pedro Martinez are other examples. This category is "perceived" and the most subjective of the groups. Sometimes it works in a players favor: Hack Wilson. Sometimes it does not: Roger Maris. And finally #3. Those in because of the dominance in all areas of the game for a long period of time. The hit you over the head, "duh" Hall of Famers...Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Brett, etc.

Kaat’s induction is obviously the first path listed above. The list of 20th Century Pitchers not in the Hall with 280+ wins is very short. (Clemens and John are the only two). When he retired Kaat was top 15 or 20 all-time in strikeouts and nearly every pitcher with his total got inducted.

Is he the best HOFer? No. Is he a borderline candidate? Absolutely. But there are plenty of borderline candidates that cross the border. Kaat had to wait a looooong time just like a lot of others.

He committed 8 errors in one of those Gold Glove seasons -- 6 in another.

Though I saw Kaat pitch, it was only at the end of his career, so I can’t attest to his fielding prowess other than to say it was legendary. Great fielders often have to make harder plays and it’s not unusual to see an increased error total.

For the record, it was accepted Kaat was the greatest fielding pitcher in history for a long time until Maddux came along. Maddux was an incredible fielder and was easily the greatest I had ever seen….until Greinke showed up. I am convinced, in his prime, Greinke could have handled shortstop.

[Skipscards]

He got 11 of 12 votes last time too. It's a joke but I'm not sure he ever gets in.

He’ll get there. There’s just been a logjam.

[Robles Fan]

If Kaat got in then I'm like half expecting someone like Tommy John to get in too eventually.

[Skipscards]

If Kaat got in then I'm like half expecting someone like Tommy John to get in too eventually.

https://media.giphy.com/media/LB4r67Dk0bhOU/giphy.gif

[ScooterMcRibs]

Fernando is too young for the "Golden Days Era" but he needs to be in the hall eventually. Tommy Lasorda did him dirty, but his stats from 1980 - 1988 should have been enough on their own. He's two players in one, the first half of his career as Koufax-like and the second half as a journeyman. The first half should be enough to get in the hall, nevermind Fernando mania and the cultural influence.

[awz50]

Fernando is too young for the "Golden Days Era" but he needs to be in the hall eventually. Tommy Lasorda did him dirty, but his stats from 1980 - 1988 should have been enough on their own. He's two players in one, the first half of his career as Koufax-like and the second half as a journeyman. The first half should be enough to get in the hall, nevermind Fernando mania and the cultural influence.

Fernando is not a hall of famer...

I see him as a Timmy L and Johan Santana. Amazing burst of success with a big burnout

[oplum29]

did 3 Twins make it?

[awz50]

did 3 Twins make it?

I will go with yes

[Skipscards]

did 3 Twins make it?

I will go with yes

Just 2. Oliva and Kaat. Minoso, O’Neil, Fowler, and Hodges didn’t play for the Twinkies. :)!

[awz50]

Just 2. Oliva and Kaat. Minoso, O’Neil, Fowler, and Hodges didn’t play for the Twinkies. :)!

Don't let me drink and post

I think for some reason I thought minoso played 1 year for them

[nickp91]

Buck O’Neil made the Ken Burns Baseball documentary go from great to legendary

[SaveMeTheGum]

Dick Allen was a bit before my time. What he just a raging a-hole or something? I feel like his best was far better than even guys I'm partial to like Jim Rice. Is it just because he bounced around a bit? I just don't get that one.

[88horsepower]

Dick Allen was a bit before my time. What he just a raging a-hole or something? I feel like his best was far better than even guys I'm partial to like Jim Rice. Is it just because he bounced around a bit? I just don't get that one.

Allen had a very difficult relationship with the media, which has certainly impacted his HOF chances (unfairly, I might add).

[Retired hobbist]

Allen had a very difficult relationship with the media, which has certainly impacted his HOF chances (unfairly, I might add).

He also had problems with some fans who pelted his house with garbage, his cantankerous relationship with the media fed into his the fans verbal abuse and the pelting of his home with garbage.

It was different times but in his era Black athletes tended to be viewed as presumed guilty in fights with White teammates and many times would be cut after a scuffle.

I always thought he was the perfect Veterans candidate and with the relative weak entrants to the hall it's overdue for him to enter the hall considering he had a better peak than a Baines(who didn't).

Could somebody explain was O'neil elected as a player or contributer ?

If he was as a player than he should have been elected as a contributer as he may have taken a spot from a more worthy player. O'neil wasn't more than a journeyman player and it's not fair to other candidates.

[awz50]

He also had problems with some fans who pelted his house with garbage, his cantankerous relationship with the media fed into his the fans verbal abuse and the pelting of his home with garbage.

It was different times but in his era Black athletes tended to be viewed as presumed guilty in fights with White teammates and many times would be cut after a scuffle.

I always thought he was the perfect Veterans candidate and with the relative weak entrants to the hall it's overdue for him to enter the hall considering he had a better peak than a Baines(who didn't).

Could somebody explain was O'neil elected as a player or contributer

If he was as a player than he should have been elected as a contributer as he may have taken a spot from a more worthy player. O'neil wasn't more than a journeyman player and it's not fair to other candidates.

Yeahhh playing in Philly during the 60s, probably not the safest or friendliest for a black ball player

O'neil did so much for the game and was a longtime baseball man. He was popular with fans, players and the media

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

He also had problems with some fans who pelted his house with garbage, his cantankerous relationship with the media fed into his the fans verbal abuse and the pelting of his home with garbage.

It was different times but in his era Black athletes tended to be viewed as presumed guilty in fights with White teammates and many times would be cut after a scuffle.

I always thought he was the perfect Veterans candidate and with the relative weak entrants to the hall it's overdue for him to enter the hall considering he had a better peak than a Baines(who didn't).

Could somebody explain was O'neil elected as a player or contributer

If he was as a player than he should have been elected as a contributer as he may have taken a spot from a more worthy player. O'neil wasn't more than a journeyman player and it's not fair to other candidates.

I think he was just elected, ya know? Luckily he was more than deserving of the honor. No one lost a spot in the Hall because of him.

[Skipscards]

He also had problems with some fans who pelted his house with garbage, his cantankerous relationship with the media fed into his the fans verbal abuse and the pelting of his home with garbage.

It was different times but in his era Black athletes tended to be viewed as presumed guilty in fights with White teammates and many times would be cut after a scuffle.

I always thought he was the perfect Veterans candidate and with the relative weak entrants to the hall it's overdue for him to enter the hall considering he had a better peak than a Baines(who didn't).

Could somebody explain was O'neil elected as a player or contributer ?

If he was as a player than he should have been elected as a contributer as he may have taken a spot from a more worthy player. O'neil wasn't more than a journeyman player and it's not fair to other candidates.

Just to add…

Allen’s media relationship definitely affected his time on the BBWAA ballot. But he also didn’t accumulate big career totals. So, he’d have to get in via the peak path which is the most subjective. He is a typical borderline candidate. In fact, his HOF Monitor Score is 99 (likely HOFers start at 100).

While I agree the perception of a black athlete during his time was certainly more difficult, it didn’t prevent him from winning the MVP in ‘72. Also, even today, athletes are expected to be seen and not heard. When they are adversarial or outspoken it often leads to a bad rep.

On balance, I expect Allen will eventually make it and I think it will be well deserved.

As for Buck, his induction took nothing away from anyone. But I am sure the merit of his induction was due to his contributions to the history of the game. Co-Founder of the Negro League Museum, Manager of the Monarchs, His lifetime work to ensure the Negro Leagues were never forgotten, his work as the de facto Negro League expert on the Veteran’s Committee for 2 decades, etc.

[mfw13]

Dick Allen was a bit before my time. What he just a raging a-hole or something? I feel like his best was far better than even guys I'm partial to like Jim Rice. Is it just because he bounced around a bit? I just don't get that one.

He had a very short career and therefore never accumulated great counting numbers. His last good season was at age 32, and he was out of baseball by age 35, which is why he ended up with only 351 home runs.

Also was below average defensively (-16.3 career dWAR) and played on non-contending teams, so only played in one postseason series, at age 34 for the 1976 Phillies.

His career is somewhat similar to Dale Murphy's.....

[Skipscards]

He had a very short career and therefore never accumulated great counting numbers. His last good season was at age 32, and he was out of baseball by age 35, which is why he ended up with only 351 home runs.

Also was below average defensively (-16.3 career dWAR) and played on non-contending teams, so only played in one postseason series, at age 34 for the 1976 Phillies.

His career is somewhat similar to Dale Murphy's.....

Murphy was much better defensively than Allen and had the extra MVP. The player most similar to Allen is Ryan Braun. And their careers are near clones of one another.

[mfw13]

The player most similar to Allen is Ryan Braun. And their careers are near clones of one another.

And Ryan Braun sure as heck isn't an HOFer (even ignoring his PED use.....).

[Skipscards]

And Ryan Braun sure as heck isn't an HOFer (even ignoring his PED use.....).

If we take Braun’s stats at face value, he’d also be squarely on the border. But his PED suspension puts him on an obvious side of that line. Plus, his performance clearly diminished post-PEDs.

But even extending past Braun on Allen’s comparables, the only HOF in his 10 most similar is Larry Doby and Doby gets a lot of credit as a pioneer.

But there are guys that certainly have come up before in HOF debates…George Foster, Fred Lynn, Reggie Smith. And these guys definitely feel similar to Allen. Other guys on the list include Lance Berkman, Ellis Burks, Brian Giles, Tim Salmon, Jermain Dye… all great players and all-timers with their respective franchises, but none that have really come up in any HOF debate.

So, there’s Allen’s conundrum.

To me, it’s not that he’s not worthy. I have no problem seeing him in Cooperstown one day. But there are a lot of better players I’d induct first. And I’m sure that was the thinking yesterday. Like it or not, the Committee felt Oliva, Kaat, Minoso, and Hodges were either better than Allen or had waited long enough.

[mfw13]

If we take Braun’s stats at face value, he’d also be squarely on the border. But his PED suspension puts him on an obvious side of that line. Plus, his performance clearly diminished post-PEDs.

But even extending past Braun on Allen’s comparables, the only HOF in his 10 most similar is Larry Doby and Doby gets a lot of credit as a pioneer.

But there are guys that certainly have come up before in HOF debates…George Foster, Fred Lynn, Reggie Smith. And these guys definitely feel similar to Allen. Other guys on the list include Lance Berkman, Ellis Burks, Brian Giles, Tim Salmon, Jermain Dye… all great players and all-timers with their respective franchises, but none that have really come up in any HOF debate.

So, there’s Allen’s conundrum.

To me, it’s not that he’s not worthy. I have no problem seeing him in Cooperstown one day. But there are a lot of better players I’d induct first. And I’m sure that was the thinking yesterday. Like it or not, the Committee felt Oliva, Kaat, Minoso, and Hodges were either better than Allen or had waited long enough.

Well, I'm a "small Hall" guy who thinks that only all-time greats should be inducted.

Which means that I'm swimming against the current right now, since the trend lately has been to induct anybody and everybody.

My attitude is that if I can make a plausible argument as to why a player SHOULDN'T be in the Hall of Fame, then they're not an all-time great.

[ewokpelts]

He also had problems with some fans who pelted his house with garbage, his cantankerous relationship with the media fed into his the fans verbal abuse and the pelting of his home with garbage.

It was different times but in his era Black athletes tended to be viewed as presumed guilty in fights with White teammates and many times would be cut after a scuffle.

I always thought he was the perfect Veterans candidate and with the relative weak entrants to the hall it's overdue for him to enter the hall considering he had a better peak than a Baines(who didn't).

Could somebody explain was O'neil elected as a player or contributer ?

If he was as a player than he should have been elected as a contributer as he may have taken a spot from a more worthy player. O'neil wasn't more than a journeyman player and it's not fair to other candidates. his total
Body of work, including as a coach and exec/acout

[MoreToppsPlease]

Well, I'm a "small Hall" guy who thinks that only all-time greats should be inducted.

Which means that I'm swimming against the current right now, since the trend lately has been to induct anybody and everybody.

My attitude is that if I can make a plausible argument as to why a player SHOULDN'T be in the Hall of Fame, then they're not an all-time great.

Just not the ‘roiders :coffee:

[Skipscards]

True.

[Skipscards]

Well, I'm a "small Hall" guy who thinks that only all-time greats should be inducted.

Which means that I'm swimming against the current right now, since the trend lately has been to induct anybody and everybody.

My attitude is that if I can make a plausible argument as to why a player SHOULDN'T be in the Hall of Fame, then they're not an all-time great.

Yeah, I know you are. And your attitude certainly has merit. I used to be too, but I’ve become a big Hall guy. Of course, I don’t have a vote so I just try to observe and understand what’s happened, and predict what’s going to happen.

The Hall started with your notion. Mostly because there wasn’t a Hall and when you start building one, you begin with the top of the list. But the Hall stopped being for the Ruths, Cobbs, Mantles, Mayses, and Aarons when Frisch got a hold of the Veterans Committee.

Also, the Hall is still full of All-Time Greats. The Hall represents barely 1% of all players. That’s pretty small.

[Handsome Wes]

My attitude is that if I can make a plausible argument as to why a player SHOULDN'T be in the Hall of Fame, then they're not an all-time great.

The problem is you can literally do that with anyone.

Babe Ruth? Nah, he played in a segregated league. You can’t trust those stats.
Ty Cobb? Racist who may have bet on baseball.
Willie Mays? Mickey Mantle? No way, those guys were once banned for life from baseball. Can’t have those unsavory characters in the Hall.
Jackie Robinson? Ha! According to baseball-reference, the two players most similar to him are George Grantham and Daniel Murphy. How is that Hall Worthy?

[Silent George]

Yeah, I know you are. And your attitude certainly has merit. I used to be too, but I’ve become a big Hall guy. Of course, I don’t have a vote so I just try to observe and understand what’s happened, and predict what’s going to happen.

The Hall started with your notion. Mostly because there wasn’t a Hall and when you start building one, you begin with the top of the list. But the Hall stopped being for the Ruths, Cobbs, Mantles, Mayses, and Aarons when Frisch got a hold of the Veterans Committee.

Also, the Hall is still full of All-Time Greats. The Hall represents barely 1% of all players. That’s pretty small.

I mean the voters did the original 5, then very slowly moved on to Cy Young and Hornsby (I believe, from memory) not electing many at all.

And then BAM George Sisler, whose long and unimpressive decline left his career nowhere near the standard bearers that were in at the time. But he had a hell of a peak, and I think it started from the voters that the doors needed to be opened a little wider. Sisler is someone who would be relatively hotly debated if he retired today, like a Helton or a Mauer. (But we naturally think of as a clear hall of famer)

[Silent George]

Were you rooting against him?

I’m not against Dahlen making the hall.

I honestly think most of his case is modern eyes looking at WAR and determining those early baseball people just didn’t realize he was good.

Which wasn’t true. People knew Dahlen was good. Not spectacular, but he was a good fielding SS who hung around forever. You don’t do that if people think you suck.

His lack of hall entry is that everyone thought he was a jerk. And they thought this because he was a tremendous jerk. Got himself thrown out of games on purpose if he had somewhere else he wanted to be. Imagine someone on your team doing this today.

He was a divorced wife beater at a time when levels of abuse were tolerated, so his levels….to be public and to lead to divorce….well.

His nickname was “Bad” Bill Dahlen for a reason. Or, rather, constant reasons. And I am very happy his name isn’t next to Buck and Minnie’s this time around. Dahlen is long dead. Don’t much care if he gets a turn in 10 years (though I bet I can count 50 early baseball guys who deserve it more) but it seems fitting to not have to celebrate him at the same time of some of baseball’s true good guys.

[rats60]

I’m not against Dahlen making the hall.

I honestly think most of his case is modern eyes looking at WAR and determining those early baseball people just didn’t realize he was good.

Which wasn’t true. People knew Dahlen was good. Not spectacular, but he was a good fielding SS who hung around forever. You don’t do that if people think you suck.

His lack of hall entry is that everyone thought he was a jerk. And they thought this because he was a tremendous jerk. Got himself thrown out of games on purpose if he had somewhere else he wanted to be. Imagine someone on your team doing this today.

He was a divorced wife beater at a time when levels of abuse were tolerated, so his levels….to be public and to lead to divorce….well.

His nickname was “Bad” Bill Dahlen for a reason. Or, rather, constant reasons. And I am very happy his name isn’t next to Buck and Minnie’s this time around. Dahlen is long dead. Don’t much care if he gets a turn in 10 years (though I bet I can count 50 early baseball guys who deserve it more) but it seems fitting to not have to celebrate him at the same time of some of baseball’s true good guys.

One of the worst things about WAR is it is very simplistic in its formula and can be wildly inaccurate. I wouldn't trust its evaluation of Dahlen. His dWAR is a big part of his case and it is based only on raw assist and putout numbers. It completely ignores that most of his teams had very low strikeout rates. Fewer strikeouts mean more balls in play and more chances which result in higher raw numbers. We really know nothing about his defensive level other than his reputation was not of a top defensive SS. On the other hand Pie Traynor was considered as good as Brooks Robinson but WAR treats him poorly do now I hear people say he wasn't a HOFer when he was the best 3b of the first 100 years. Dahlen only received votes twice. That low level of support should tell us that those who saw him are better at evaluating him than WAR.

[rats60]

I think he was just elected, ya know? Luckily he was more than deserving of the honor. No one lost a spot in the Hall because of him.

Lefty O'Doul lost his spot. .349/.413/.532 OPS+143. He was a key in starting professional baseball in Japan. It is an embarrassment that O'Neil made it in on his contributions, but Lefty didn't and Lefty had a short but worthy HOF playing career.

[Skipscards]

I mean the voters did the original 5, then very slowly moved on to Cy Young and Hornsby (I believe, from memory) not electing many at all.

And then BAM George Sisler, whose long and unimpressive decline left his career nowhere near the standard bearers that were in at the time. But he had a hell of a peak, and I think it started from the voters that the doors needed to be opened a little wider. Sisler is someone who would be relatively hotly debated if he retired today, like a Helton or a Mauer. (But we naturally think of as a clear hall of famer)

Initially, they wanted/planned to induct 15 players, but the process (no more than 10 votes and 75% needed) is designed not to have a flood of candidates enter the Hall all at once. The Hall didn't "very slowly move on to Cy Young and Hornsby". Cy Young, in particular, only missed the initial vote because the voting process was new and he was placed on both the BBWAA ballot and the Veterans Committee ballot. Many on the BBWAA simply assumed he'd be inducted by the Vets Committee and vice versa. Also, the Veterans Committee were only supposed to vote for 5 players but several got confused and voted for 10 leading to Vet Committee ballots being counted as 1/2 instead of a full vote. So, no one got anywhere close to 75%.

As for Sisler, he was widely considered the greatest 1st baseman outside of Lou Gehrig with a different skill set. He was an excellent defender and really fast. (He still holds the Orioles all-time Stolen Base and triples records). And had he played today, two things are certain...1. no one hitting .340 over 15 years is ever going to be hotly debated and 2. There is no doubt he would have been able to stick around to get 3,000 hits.

[Skipscards]

Lefty O'Doul lost his spot. .349/.413/.532 OPS+143. He was a key in starting professional baseball in Japan. It is an embarrassment that O'Neil made it in on his contributions, but Lefty didn't and Lefty had a short but worthy HOF playing career.

Embarrassment is a bit harsh. I think O'Neil's contributions are certainly worthy. Lefty's contributions certainly merit inclusion and what he did for Japan is undeniable. But that's Japan and he's already in the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame. He was definitely a much better player than O'Neil.

[rats60]

Murphy was much better defensively than Allen and had the extra MVP. The player most similar to Allen is Ryan Braun. And their careers are near clones of one another.

Dick Allen had an OPS+156. Ryan Braun 134. There is no comparison of the two. Oliva 131 Hodges 120 Minoso 130 Murphy 121. Allen was the best player on the ballot and no one else was even close. To elect 4 players and not Allen just shows that the Veterans Committee is about popularity and not on field performance. Allen's career was short, but Oliva, Hodges and Minoso didn't have HoF numbers either.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Lefty O'Doul lost his spot. .349/.413/.532 OPS+143. He was a key in starting professional baseball in Japan. It is an embarrassment that O'Neil made it in on his contributions, but Lefty didn't and Lefty had a short but worthy HOF playing career.

Saying Buck took Lefty O’Doul’s “spot” is what’s embarrassing. O’Doul may get in one day, but I think the Hall will be able to tell the story of baseball just fine without him… just like they have been for the last 87 years. I don’t think the voters were twisting and turning and saying “Do we put Buck or Left in?”.

[Skipscards]

Dick Allen had an OPS+156. Ryan Braun 134. There is no comparison of the two. Oliva 131 Hodges 120 Minoso 130 Murphy 121. Allen was the best player on the ballot and no one else was even close. To elect 4 players and not Allen just shows that the Veterans Committee is about popularity and not on field performance. Allen's career was short, but Oliva, Hodges and Minoso didn't have HoF numbers either.

I disagree. First, OPS pluses of 156 and 134 are both outstanding. Regardless of context, you are splitting hairs when comparing 156 to 134. They both ended up with an OPS around .900. Allen's OPS+ is higher because the other players in the league were around .580, while players in Braun's time were around .660. .900 OPS is impressive regardless.

But that's just one stat and using just a singular stat as the entire basis for comparison (even an awesome stat like OPS+) doesn't tell the entire story...

HRs: Allen 351, Braun - 352
RBIs: 1119, 1154
Hits: 1848, 1963
Runs: 1099, 1080
Avg: .292, .296
OBP: .378, .358
SLG: .534, .532
ROYs: 1, 1
MVPs: 1, 1
All-Star Games: 7, 6
Seasons receiving at least one MVP vote: 7, 7

That's strikingly similar.

As for Oliva, Hodges, and Minoso, obviously they did have HOF numbers since they are now Hall of Famers. But I agree, the Veterans Committee is often about popularity and Allen just barely missed. The 75% rule is a harsh mistress.

[rats60]

I disagree. First, OPS pluses of 156 and 134 are both outstanding. Regardless of context, you are splitting hairs when comparing 156 to 134. They both ended up with an OPS around .900. Allen's OPS+ is higher because the other players in the league were around .580, while players in Braun's time were around .660. .900 OPS is impressive regardless.

But that's just one stat and using just a singular stat as the entire basis for comparison (even an awesome stat like OPS+) doesn't tell the entire story...

HRs: Allen 351, Braun - 352
RBIs: 1119, 1154
Hits: 1848, 1963
Runs: 1099, 1080
Avg: .292, .296
OBP: .378, .358
SLG: .534, .532
ROYs: 1, 1
MVPs: 1, 1
All-Star Games: 7, 6
Seasons receiving at least one MVP vote: 7, 7

That's strikingly similar.

As for Oliva, Hodges, and Minoso, obviously they did have HOF numbers since they are now Hall of Famers. But I agree, the Veterans Committee is often about popularity and Allen just barely missed. The 75% rule is a harsh mistress.

WAR7
Allen 45.9
Braun 38.6
Murphy 41.2
Minoso 39.7
Oliva 38.6
Hodges 33.7

Dick Allen was an elite player at his peak. None of these other guys were. OPS+ 156 is nothing like OPS+ 134. Allen's OPS+ is top 20 all time, right ahead of Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Joe DiMaggio at 155. Allen just didn't have longevity.

Braun at 134 is 100ish tied with Prince Fielder, Travis Hafner, John Kruk and Boog Powell.

[jrosales]

If they're going to induct Buck, then they need to create a new category called "Contributors", "Ambassadors", or something like that.

There is no way to justify his induction as a player.

And inducting him as a player on the basis of 'being a nice guy who kept the Negro Leagues alive" isn't enough.

If they create a 'Contributor' category for him, then great. I will have no issue with his induction. But inducting him in the 'Player' category is not the way to go.

[JRX]

The problem is you can literally do that with anyone.

Babe Ruth? Nah, he played in a segregated league. You can’t trust those stats.
Ty Cobb? Racist who may have bet on baseball.
Willie Mays? Mickey Mantle? No way, those guys were once banned for life from baseball. Can’t have those unsavory characters in the Hall.
Jackie Robinson? Ha! According to baseball-reference, the two players most similar to him are George Grantham and Daniel Murphy. How is that Hall Worthy?

The key is a legitimate argument, not an overnight sports talk show caller argument.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

If they're going to induct Buck, then they need to create a new category called "Contributors", "Ambassadors", or something like that.

There is no way to justify his induction as a player.

And inducting him as a player on the basis of 'being a nice guy who kept the Negro Leagues alive" isn't enough.

If they create a 'Contributor' category for him, then great. I will have no issue with his induction. But inducting him in the 'Player' category is not the way to go.

I completely agree with you that they need a “Contributor to the Game” category. I think the NFL has that.

Until that day though, it’s better to have Buck any way possible than not. I guess that’s where we disagree. There’s so many mediocre players already in the Hall, that it doesn’t really bother me all that much. While I believe in a “small hall”, the Hall itself clearly doesn’t. So at that point, whatever, I’m not going to stress over it, or draw a line at Buck.

[mfw13]

The key is a legitimate argument, not an overnight sports talk show caller argument.

Exactly....I'm talking arguments based on statistical analysis and comparison to other players, not talk-show nonsense.

I can make a valid argument as to why guys like Mike Mussina, Craig Biggio, Trevor Hoffman, and Harold Baines shouldn't be in the HOF.

Nobody can make a valid argument as to why Willie Mays and Greg Maddux don't belong in the HOF.

[JRX]

Exactly....I'm talking arguments based on statistical analysis and comparison to other players, not talk-show nonsense.

I can make a valid argument as to why guys like Mike Mussina, Craig Biggio, Trevor Hoffman, and Harold Baines shouldn't be in the HOF.

Nobody can make a valid argument as to why Willie Mays and Greg Maddux don't belong in the HOF.

I'm 100% with you there. I'm more of a small hall guy. Its kind of like "will I tell anyone I saw Biggio play", no, no I won't. Build the wing of very good and put those guys there. Lets be honest, both mlb and the hall want more guys in there so they can do more events etc. The hall is a business.

[Skipscards]

If they're going to induct Buck, then they need to create a new category called "Contributors", "Ambassadors", or something like that.

There is no way to justify his induction as a player.

And inducting him as a player on the basis of 'being a nice guy who kept the Negro Leagues alive" isn't enough.

If they create a 'Contributor' category for him, then great. I will have no issue with his induction. But inducting him in the 'Player' category is not the way to go.

Like Marvin Miller, I would expect Buck is in under "Pioneer/Executive".

[Skipscards]

WAR7
Allen 45.9
Braun 38.6
Murphy 41.2
Minoso 39.7
Oliva 38.6
Hodges 33.7

Dick Allen was an elite player at his peak. None of these other guys were. OPS+ 156 is nothing like OPS+ 134. Allen's OPS+ is top 20 all time, right ahead of Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Joe DiMaggio at 155. Allen just didn't have longevity.

Braun at 134 is 100ish tied with Prince Fielder, Travis Hafner, John Kruk and Boog Powell.

You are being highly selective, and a little myopic. 134 is also the same as Kaline and Medwick; better than Jackie, Averill, Gwynn, Carew, and Clemente. To suggest 134 isn't great, well, that's just incorrect. Being 134th in baseball history in anything puts you in the top 1/2 of a percent of all-time. That's great by any measure.

But being great in a singular statistic also doesn't necessarily make one worthy of inclusion in the Hall of Fame.

[jrosales]

Like Marvin Miller, I would expect Buck is in under "Pioneer/Executive".

He's in as a player. Which most likely makes him the least-deserving player, based on stats.

[mfw13]

Just not the ‘roiders :coffee:

If MLB did not want steroid users in the Hall of Fame, then they should have done more to stop it. But MLB was desperate for the media attention sluggers provided (especially the race between McGwire & Sosa to break Maris' record in 1998), so it decided to look the other way.

The fact that Bud Selig, the Commissioner during the steroid era, is in the HOF, tells you all you need to know.

So for me, steroid use, in and of itself, is not a reason to keep a player out of the Hall of Fame. The question in my mind is whether or not they would have nevertheless been an HOFer without the impact provided by steroids.

For three players, the answer is clearly yes....Bonds, Clemens, and ARod.

For everyone else, the answer is no. Sosa, McGwire, Palmiero, etc. would all have fallen short of HOF standards without the power boost they got from steroids. So they don't belong in the HOF.

That's how I feel....

[Skipscards]

He's in as a player. Which most likely makes him the least-deserving player, based on stats.

Not saying it's gospel, but Baseball-Reference has him listed as Pioneer/Executive:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/oneilbu01.shtml

[Skipscards]

If MLB did not want steroid users in the Hall of Fame, then they should have done more to stop it. But MLB was desperate for the media attention sluggers provided (especially the race between McGwire & Sosa to break Maris' record in 1998), so it decided to look the other way.

The fact that Bud Selig, the Commissioner during the steroid era, is in the HOF, tells you all you need to know.

So for me, steroid use, in and of itself, is not a reason to keep a player out of the Hall of Fame. The question in my mind is whether or not they would have nevertheless been an HOFer without the impact provided by steroids.

For three players, the answer is clearly yes....Bonds, Clemens, and ARod.

For everyone else, the answer is no. Sosa, McGwire, Palmiero, etc. would all have fallen short of HOF standards without the power boost they got from steroids. So they don't belong in the HOF.

That's how I feel....

I think it is very likely McGwire would have hit 500 HRs without PEDs. But we'll never know. I also think Palmiero and Sheffield have the most plausible stories. But again, we'll never know. So, while I am fine keeping all of them out, I know eventually they will all go in. The trouble is, since we'll never really know which benefited to what extent, there really is no reason to just induct 3 guys. It's either all or none.

But I completely agree about the Interim-Commissioner-For-Life-Emeritus. He shouldn't be anywhere near the Hall of Fame.

[jrosales]

Not saying it's gospel, but Baseball-Reference has him listed as Pioneer/Executive:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/oneilbu01.shtml

And now the HOF has him listed as an executive:

https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/oneil-buck

Better than being inducted as a player, but I still think they should create a 'contributor' category and have him be the first enshrinee.

[Skipscards]

And now the HOF has him listed as an executive:

https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/oneil-buck

Better than being inducted as a player, but I still think they should create a 'contributor' category and have him be the first enshrinee.

Well, some of the pioneers/executive inductees were "contributors"; starting with Abner Doubleday and Alexander Cartwright. Marvin Miller is in because he dismantled the reserve clause that kept players indentured to their teams forever. Henry Chadwick is in for contributions including creating the box score and the first official rule book.

[jrosales]

Well, some of the pioneers/executive inductees were "contributors"; starting with Abner Doubleday and Alexander Cartwright. Marvin Miller is in because he dismantled the reserve clause that kept players indentured to their teams forever. Henry Chadwick is in for contributions including creating the box score and the first official rule book.

This was my first thought too, but I'm inclined to think that the HOF would refuse to retroactively change anything.

[rats60]

If MLB did not want steroid users in the Hall of Fame, then they should have done more to stop it. But MLB was desperate for the media attention sluggers provided (especially the race between McGwire & Sosa to break Maris' record in 1998), so it decided to look the other way.

The fact that Bud Selig, the Commissioner during the steroid era, is in the HOF, tells you all you need to know.

So for me, steroid use, in and of itself, is not a reason to keep a player out of the Hall of Fame. The question in my mind is whether or not they would have nevertheless been an HOFer without the impact provided by steroids.

For three players, the answer is clearly yes....Bonds, Clemens, and ARod.

For everyone else, the answer is no. Sosa, McGwire, Palmiero, etc. would all have fallen short of HOF standards without the power boost they got from steroids. So they don't belong in the HOF.

That's how I feel....

I don't think any of them would have been good enough, otherwise they wouldn't have doped. ARod and Bonds took steroids most of their careers. When Bonds and Clemens fall of the ballot, they are done. Players that they cheated out of awards, larger contracts, etc. are never going to vote for them for HoF.

MLB did everything they could to get them out of the game. The owners asked for testing in the 1994-1995 contract negotiations. The players union refused. Only through collective bargaining could anything be done and it took almost another decade for the players to agreed to testing and punishments.

[mfw13]

I don't think any of them would have been good enough, otherwise they wouldn't have doped.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Bonds & ARod both would have had 600+ home runs even without help from steroids.

Clemens won five Cy Young before the years he was accused of using.

[Tomi]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Bonds & ARod both would have had 600+ home runs even without help from steroids.

Clemens won five Cy Young before the years he was accused of using.

Bonds had 292 homers by 30. No way he has a natural decline and hits 600.

[mfw13]

Bonds had 292 homers by 30. No way he has a natural decline and hits 600.

So you don't think he would've averaged 30 homers a year between ages 30-40?

Just for some perspective, Nelson Cruz has hit almost 400 homers since he turned 30.

David Ortiz hit 350+ homers after age 30.

Hank Aaron hit 400+ home runs after age 30.

Even if you cap Bonds at 35 homers a year after he supposedly started using (estimated to be 1998, when he got jealous of Sosa/McGwire), he ends up with 677 homers. Cap him at 30 HR a year, and he ends up with 632 homers.

[MoreToppsPlease]

So you don't think he would've averaged 30 homers a year between ages 30-40?

Just for some perspective, Nelson Cruz has hit almost 400 homers since he turned 30.

David Ortiz hit 350+ homers after age 30.

Hank Aaron hit 400+ home runs after age 30.

Even if you cap Bonds at 35 homers a year after he supposedly started using (estimated to be 1998, when he got jealous of Sosa/McGwire), he ends up with 677 homers. Cap him at 30 HR a year, and he ends up with 632 homers.

Cruz and Ortiz are poor analogies as both are busted PED users. Even worse, they were/are DHs.

Before Bonds was 30, he only hit more than 30 HRs four times. He was never going to average 30 HRs a year after 30 without PEDs.

Aaron was pretty much the definition of consistency with regard to his annual HR totals since he was 23 years old…which is the exact opposite of Bonds.

[awz50]

How did we get into talking about bonds in this thread

[Skipscards]

How did we get into talking about bonds in this thread

Yeah, puzzling. This is about the Veterans Committee. We can talk about Bonds here next year. :cry:

Though, mfw did make me chuckle when he used Ortiz and Cruz as examples.

Back on topic, I’m still amazed they managed to induct 4 players on one ballot. Pretty awesome.

Also of note, I like how Topps thought ahead and included Kaat in 2021 Heritage High Number. Great timing and there’s even a dual auto of Kaat and Blyleven. :)!

[WizardofOz1982]

Agree with the first sentence in red, but have to disagree with the rest of the paragraph.

Kaat was arguably the top AL pitcher in ‘66, but had the misfortune of going up against the greatest final season ever with Koufax for the Cy. Kaat did not even credit for 2nd place because at the time writers would only cast their vote for 1st place….not to mention that only one award was given for both leagues.

Otherwise, Kaat had far more positive category “black ink” scores than just his ‘66 win and CG totals.

Shutouts, Starts, IP, BB/9, FIP, K/BB

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kaatji01.shtml

Most seem okay with Kaat’s election, but no one is suggesting he’s an inner circle HOFer. But, he does pave the way for Tommy John, Luis Tiant, and maybe a couple others from this era.

Missed a couple though I wasn't really looking at peripherals instead looking at key stats that most voters consider. Even so his Black Ink score over a 25 year career is 16. The average Hall of Famer is 40.

The highest he ever finished in WAR for a season was 3rd in 1967.

He was 4th in 1966. Koufax lapped the field almost with 9.1 fWAR. Perry and Bunning were 2nd and 3rd with 7.3 and 6.8 respectively. Kaat likely was the best pitcher in the AL that year (What on earth happened to AL pitching in 1966? 15 of the top 20 guys were in the NL that season) but there were about 7 or 8 NL guys right there with him.

I don't think at any point in 1966 or 1967 that he would be one of the top five guys you'd pick to pitch a single must win game for your team.

He's certainly not the most undeserving Hall of Fame pitcher but he was basically league average or a little better for 20 of his 25 years. His ERA- for his career is 7% better than league average. That's underwhelming for a Hall of Famer.

I'm not a strict "Small Hall" guy but I don't think Tommy John (other than maybe in the Pioneer category), Tiant, or comparable guys should be in.

[bblair_2002]

I'm jazzed that my little village of 2,500 will now be known as the "Birthplace of 2022 Baseball Hall of Famer Bud Fowler".

[rats60]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Bonds & ARod both would have had 600+ home runs even without help from steroids.

Clemens won five Cy Young before the years he was accused of using.

Your dates for when these guys started using are way later than evidence shows. Clemens won at least 4 Cy Youngs after he started doping. Even giving Clemens the benefit of doubt, which I don't, his numbers are similar to Schilling's at that point in his career. Fewer wins and strikeouts with a worse postseason record, but better ERA and more awards. They both have their off field issues. At best he is a borderline case. Neither Bonds nor ARod had 10 clean seasons. Without 10 years service they are not eligible for the HOF. Without steroids, neither hits 400 HRs.

[JRX]

They should have one room for the top 50 or 100 players and keep it fixed. If someone new comes along, then someone else gets moved into the next room.

[Silent George]

I'm jazzed that my little village of 2,500 will now be known as the "Birthplace of 2022 Baseball Hall of Famer Bud Fowler".

awesome!

[Noles939913]

Exactly....I'm talking arguments based on statistical analysis and comparison to other players, not talk-show nonsense.

I can make a valid argument as to why guys like Mike Mussina, Craig Biggio, Trevor Hoffman, and Harold Baines shouldn't be in the HOF.

Nobody can make a valid argument as to why Willie Mays and Greg Maddux don't belong in the HOF.

Here’s a post I made in another thread about Biggio with Skipscards reply below it:

“I find it weird Biggio is now all of a sudden getting the same hate as Baines. He had over 3,000 hits with 4 Gold Gloves and 5 Silver Sluggers plus he stole a decent amount of bags too. And while he came up just short of 300 HRs he did hit a ton of doubles. Of course he was going to get in easily.”

“Agreed. Makes no sense. Possibly the only player in baseball history who actually played catcher, 2B, and CF and played them well. He’s about as slam dunk a HOFer as you’ll see.”

[mfw13]

Here’s a post I made in another thread about Biggio with Skipscards reply below it:

“I find it weird Biggio is now all of a sudden getting the same hate as Baines. He had over 3,000 hits with 4 Gold Gloves and 5 Silver Sluggers plus he stole a decent amount of bags too. And while he came up just short of 300 HRs he did hit a ton of doubles. Of course he was going to get in easily.”

“Agreed. Makes no sense. Possibly the only player in baseball history who actually played catcher, 2B, and CF and played them well. He’s about as slam dunk a HOFer as you’ll see.”

My argument against Biggio has/had four elements:

1) He was never great (no top-3 MVP finishes, only two top-5 MVP finishes, only two top-5 WAR seasons, in 21 seasons)

2) Career OPS+ of only 112. Benefitted hugely from playing in a hitters park.

3) He kept on playing for his age 41 season (-2.1 WAR, after a 0.4 WAR season at age 40) even after he lost his effectiveness, specifically to get to 3000 hits, and hurt his team to do so.

4) His .281 career batting average was very low for someone who got as many hits as he did. A huge amount of his offensive production was simply a factor of him hitting leadoff for the Astros and getting tons of AB's.

If he had finished with 2800-2900 hits, instead of 3060, would he still have gotten in?

[Noles939913]

My argument against Biggio has/had three elements:

1) He was never great (no top-3 MVP finishes, only two top-5 MVP finishes, only two top-5 WAR seasons, in 21 seasons)

2) He kept on playing for his age 41 season (-2.1 WAR, after a 0.4 WAR season at age 40) even after he lost his effectiveness specifically to get to 3000 hits

3) His .281 career batting average was very low for someone who got as many hits as he did. A huge amount of his offensive production was simply a factor of him hitting leadoff for the Astros and getting tons of AB's. A majority of the members of the 3000 hit club were also .300 hitters.

If he had finished with 2800-2900 hits, instead of 3060, would he still have gotten in?

Yes…..

[Silent George]

Here’s a post I made in another thread about Biggio with Skipscards reply below it:

“I find it weird Biggio is now all of a sudden getting the same hate as Baines. He had over 3,000 hits with 4 Gold Gloves and 5 Silver Sluggers plus he stole a decent amount of bags too. And while he came up just short of 300 HRs he did hit a ton of doubles. Of course he was going to get in easily.”

“Agreed. Makes no sense. Possibly the only player in baseball history who actually played catcher, 2B, and CF and played them well. He’s about as slam dunk a HOFer as you’ll see.”

what's funny is, as you start removing HOFers, naturally you can start arguing each and every one of them down to #1.

You take out 75 players, and sure, Biggio and Mussina suddenly don't compare as well to the rest of the Hall of Famers.

Well, eventually you're going to pare it down to where the Hall is Babe, and Mays, and Aaron, and Maddux, and suddenly, what's Maddux doing with those guys? I can make a case he doesn't belong! And soon we have the Hall of Just Babe Ruth statistically. And then someone brings up the color line...

[JRX]

what's funny is, as you start removing HOFers, naturally you can start arguing each and every one of them down to #1.

You take out 75 players, and sure, Biggio and Mussina suddenly don't compare as well to the rest of the Hall of Famers.

Well, eventually you're going to pare it down to where the Hall is Babe, and Mays, and Aaron, and Maddux, and suddenly, what's Maddux doing with those guys? I can make a case he doesn't belong! And soon we have the Hall of Just Babe Ruth statistically. And then someone brings up the color line...

Not at all. Is Biggio one of the greatest players ever, No. Was Maddux one of the greatest pitchers ever, Yes. See its actually kind of easy. Biggio also stopped being a catcher in 1991 except for 1 game in 2007.

[Skipscards]

My argument against Biggio has/had four elements:

1) He was never great (no top-3 MVP finishes, only two top-5 MVP finishes, only two top-5 WAR seasons, in 21 seasons)

2) Career OPS+ of only 112. Benefitted hugely from playing in a hitters park.

3) He kept on playing for his age 41 season (-2.1 WAR, after a 0.4 WAR season at age 40) even after he lost his effectiveness, specifically to get to 3000 hits, and hurt his team to do so.

4) His .281 career batting average was very low for someone who got as many hits as he did. A huge amount of his offensive production was simply a factor of him hitting leadoff for the Astros and getting tons of AB's.

If he had finished with 2800-2900 hits, instead of 3060, would he still have gotten in?
1) He was definitely great. Particularly when you factor the positions he played. Not too many 2nd Basemen win MVP awards.

2) OPS+ adjusts for park factors, so playing in a hitters park is irrelevant. Biggio's 112 OPS+ is 26th best in history among 2nd basemen. At the time of his retirement he was 21st right behind Ryne Sandberg. Not too shabby.

3) How did he hurt his team? His team wasn't going anywhere. What amazing young 2nd basemen was he holding back? After he retired, the Astros signed Kaz Matsui to play 2nd. The Astros had no one better than Biggio. And he helped his team because while they were struggling, fans still came to see their aging superstar get his milestone.

4) I'll disagree. Plenty of players with a similar number of hits had a batting average close to Biggio including Winfield (.283), Beltre (.286), Murray (.287), Rickey (.279), and Lou Brock (.293).

And yes, he'd still have gotten in without 3,000 hits. Biggio finished with the 5th most Doubles of any player in history. Even if he hadn't played his final two seasons, he'd still have finished with 600+ doubles. Every clean player in history with 600+ doubles is in the Hall of Fame.

[Silent George]

Not at all. Is Biggio one of the greatest players ever, No. Was Maddux one of the greatest pitchers ever, Yes. See its actually kind of easy. Biggio also stopped being a catcher in 1991 except for 1 game in 2007.

it's all about perspective. It take very little perspective to say that Craig Biggio is one of the greatest baseball players ever.

There have been millions of kids that played little league.

A subset of them made it into highschool or college ball.

Hundreds of thousands have played in the minor leagues or other professional leagues

There have been 20,000 players that have made it to Major League Baseball

Of those, Biggio is #125 in WAR.

BAH! HUMBUG! WAR!

#162 in HR, #16 in Runs, #67 in steals, #25 in hits, #6 in doubles, hell #2 in HBP.

and none of this accounts for position adjustment at all.

Out of 20,000. The best 20,000. The Ones that made it.

People seem really upset Biggio forced Houston to play him so he got 3,000 hits instead of letting the 73-89 Astros replace him with some world beating rookie with a bunch of potential, like 35 year old Mark Loretta, or famed slugger Chris Burke.

We really are upset a player played out a career on their terms, and terms agreed upon with their employer, rather than quitting when WE think he should have quit. You want those accomplishments? then do it on MY timeline!

But sure, if you want the Alternate timeline where Biggio finished just short of 3,000 hits, but with a higher career average, greater WAR, etc. and ask me if he was a hall of famer: yes. still yes. clearly. One of the best players of all time. Yes. in almost 150 years of major league baseball he's roughly in the top 150 out of 20,000. That'll do.

[JRX]

it's all about perspective. It take very little perspective to say that Craig Biggio is one of the greatest baseball players ever.

There have been millions of kids that played little league.

A subset of them made it into highschool or college ball.

Hundreds of thousands have played in the minor leagues or other professional leagues

There have been 20,000 players that have made it to Major League Baseball

Of those, Biggio is #125 in WAR.

BAH! HUMBUG! WAR!

#162 in HR, #16 in Runs, #67 in steals, #25 in hits, #6 in doubles, hell #2 in HBP.

and none of this accounts for position adjustment at all.

Out of 20,000. The best 20,000. The Ones that made it.

People seem really upset Biggio forced Houston to play him so he got 3,000 hits instead of letting the 73-89 Astros replace him with some world beating rookie with a bunch of potential, like 35 year old Mark Loretta, or famed slugger Chris Burke.

We really are upset a player played out a career on their terms, and terms agreed upon with their employer, rather than quitting when WE think he should have quit. You want those accomplishments? then do it on MY timeline!

But sure, if you want the Alternate timeline where Biggio finished just short of 3,000 hits, but with a higher career average, greater WAR, etc. and ask me if he was a hall of famer: yes. still yes. clearly. One of the best players of all time. Yes. in almost 150 years of major league baseball he's roughly in the top 150 out of 20,000. That'll do.

I just don't view him as an all time great player. He only had 3 seasons that were more than 5 WAR. He was more of a compiler. From 2000 on he was a .266/.338/.428 hitter with an OPS+ of 95. I don't remember his better seasons because he still wasn't a standout compared to what else was going on in the league at that time. He is 6th all time in doubles, so there's that.

[Silent George]

I just don't view him as an all time great player. He only had 3 seasons that were more than 5 WAR. He was more of a compiler. From 2000 on he was a .266/.338/.428 hitter with an OPS+ of 95. I don't remember his better seasons because he still wasn't a standout compared to what else was going on in the league at that time. He is 6th all time in doubles, so there's that.

Let's pretend Biggio retired a year early, to appease those that think his bad year padded his stats to 3,000 hits and that's what made him a hall of famer...and do a quick comparison with an all time great, inner circle hall of fame infielder:

Career PAs through age 40 season
12602
11948

Career OPS+ through age 40 season
115
114

OPS+ Age 34-40 (to mirror the 2000 on, except no age 41 for even comparison))
101
98

XBH Through age 40
870
1,014

SB Through Age 40
358
410

WAR7
7.4, 6.7, 6.2, 6.1, 5.2, 4.7, 4.4 = 40.7
9.3, 6.5, 6.2, 4.9, 4.8, 4.7, 4.4 = 40.8

One all time great. One not.

[JRX]

I figured it was Jeter cause that's everyone's go to. Just ignore the fact that his avg is 30 points higher, over 400 more hits, more runs, more rbi, 7 more all star appearances, 8 top 10 mvp finishes, not to mention he also played a full season in the postseason and still hit .308/.374/.465 with 200 hits in 158 games, but we get it, he's ovahrated.

[Skipscards]

I figured it was Jeter cause that's everyone's go to. Just ignore the fact that his avg is 30 points higher, over 400 more hits, more runs, more rbi, 7 more all star appearances, 8 top 10 mvp finishes, not to mention he also played a full season in the postseason and still hit .308/.374/.465 with 200 hits in 158 games, but we get it, he's ovahrated.

George isn't saying Jeter is overrated. He's saying Biggio is underrated. If someone compares favorably to an all-time great, how are they not an all-time great?

[awz50]

I figured it was Jeter cause that's everyone's go to. Just ignore the fact that his avg is 30 points higher, over 400 more hits, more runs, more rbi, 7 more all star appearances, 8 top 10 mvp finishes, not to mention he also played a full season in the postseason and still hit .308/.374/.465 with 200 hits in 158 games, but we get it, he's ovahrated.

Yeah nobody is saying Jeter is overrated here

[Silent George]

George isn't saying Jeter is overrated. He's saying Biggio is underrated. If someone compares favorably to an all-time great, how are they not an all-time great?

Exactly. But I think the thought that I was attacking Jeter is telling. The difference between the two is more emotionally based than it is statistically based

Jeter has a lot more hits, and a higher batting average. And more PAs too. As far as OBP, Biggio largely closed the gap. Especially park and league adjusted. With Biggio's XBH their OPS+ was basically a match. Should tell you something.

Jeter has rings and playoff accolades, for sure. But to me, Jeter didn't need that to be an all time great, and if you stuck Biggio on the Yankees he'd have a bunch of rings also, but that's not the difference between him and an all time great. In other words, if you put Jeter on the Cubs and he won nothing that entire time - he'd still be an all time great.

All star appearances and MVP appearances - I mean the WAR is right there. Jeter earned an all star appearance in his last year. a 0.2 WAR year. (and he should have been an all star! he's a fan favorite! but it's not proof of his abilities year in and year out) Jeter isn't an all time great BECAUSE he got all star appearances. He was recognized as a great, whereas Biggio was more under the radar.

I think Jeter was the better player on the whole. I even think Jeter's defense takes too much criticism. He wasn't a good fielding SS, but he WAS a SS, and that's light years difference from being a not good fielding left fielder. The fact that you could stick Jeter at SS, and he still provided the the tremendous overall value that he did shows his, well, value.

Jeter. All time great. Inner circle hall of famer. Legend. Better than Craig Biggio.

But not so much better that we have a guy who was 1 vote away from anonymous for the hall, and another people are arguing isn't even deserving of the hall. They were actually pretty freaking close, statistically speaking.

I've never encountered anti-Biggio sentiment until this board. I had no idea it existed. I thought his place in history was well understood. It's too bad we can't see an alternate universe where he was a Yankee or Red Sox player - he'd have definitely gotten the Pedroia-like respect he deserved.

[JRX]

George isn't saying Jeter is overrated. He's saying Biggio is underrated. If someone compares favorably to an all-time great, how are they not an all-time great?

Because his career doesn't compare. 400 hits is not nothing, its 2+ seasons more over the same amount of time. 30 points on average is not nothing. There is literally nothing memorable about Biggio, he is hall of very good, same as Mussina and many other recent inductees.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

The Hall of Fame needs to be about more than stats, although those are very important too. “Importance to the game” should be a major factor. At least it is to me. Can you tell the story of baseball between 1990-2010 without Derek Jeter? No. But you can probably, and easily, get by without mentioning Biggio’s career (even though I’m totally fine with him being in the Hall).

[JRX]

Exactly. But I think the thought that I was attacking Jeter is telling. The difference between the two is more emotionally based than it is statistically based

Jeter has a lot more hits, and a higher batting average. And more PAs too. As far as OBP, Biggio largely closed the gap. Especially park and league adjusted. With Biggio's XBH their OPS+ was basically a match. Should tell you something.

Jeter has rings and playoff accolades, for sure. But to me, Jeter didn't need that to be an all time great, and if you stuck Biggio on the Yankees he'd have a bunch of rings also, but that's not the difference between him and an all time great. In other words, if you put Jeter on the Cubs and he won nothing that entire time - he'd still be an all time great.

All star appearances and MVP appearances - I mean the WAR is right there. Jeter earned an all star appearance in his last year. a 0.2 WAR year. (and he should have been an all star! he's a fan favorite! but it's not proof of his abilities year in and year out) Jeter isn't an all time great BECAUSE he got all star appearances. He was recognized as a great, whereas Biggio was more under the radar.

I think Jeter was the better player on the whole. I even think Jeter's defense takes too much criticism. He wasn't a good fielding SS, but he WAS a SS, and that's light years difference from being a not good fielding left fielder. The fact that you could stick Jeter at SS, and he still provided the the tremendous overall value that he did shows his, well, value.

Jeter. All time great. Inner circle hall of famer. Legend. Better than Craig Biggio.

But not so much better that we have a guy who was 1 vote away from anonymous for the hall, and another people are arguing isn't even deserving of the hall. They were actually pretty freaking close, statistically speaking.

I've never encountered anti-Biggio sentiment until this board. I had no idea it existed. I thought his place in history was well understood. It's too bad we can't see an alternate universe where he was a Yankee or Red Sox player - he'd have definitely gotten the Pedroia-like respect he deserved.

PEDroia gets no respect lol

[JRX]

Biggio is only in the hall because his last name started with the same letter as his teammate.

[Silent George]

Well we've slipped into the absurd. See all of you in the next topic.

[Skipscards]

The Hall of Fame needs to be about more than stats, although those are very important too. “Importance to the game” should be a major factor. At least it is to me. Can you tell the story of baseball between 1990-2010 without Derek Jeter? No. But you can probably, and easily, get by without mentioning Biggio’s career (even though I’m totally fine with him being in the Hall).

About the stats, I agree. About the part telling the story of baseball, I disagree. I can tell the story of baseball without either of them. But more to the point, Biggio's legacy is simple. Name the best 2nd baseman in the NL from 1992-2007. The answer is Craig Biggio. (Alomar in the AL). If we are inducting the best from each era, it stands to reason Biggio and Alomar would be the first guys in.

[JRX]

About the stats, I agree. About the part telling the story of baseball, I disagree. I can tell the story of baseball without either of them. But more to the point, Biggio's legacy is simple. Name the best 2nd baseman in the NL from 1992-2007. The answer is Craig Biggio. (Alomar in the AL). If we are inducting the best from each era, it stands to reason Biggio and Alomar would be the first guys in.Best hitting 2b, Jeff Kent.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Skipscards]

Best hitting 2b, Jeff Kent.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

That's very humorous. Aren't you the one who just said "400 hits is not nothing"? How about 600?

[JRX]

Biggio only has 9k pa as a 2b. A quarter of his career was played elsewhere.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[MoreToppsPlease]

The Hall of Fame needs to be about more than stats, although those are very important too. “Importance to the game” should be a major factor. At least it is to me. Can you tell the story of baseball between 1990-2010 without Derek Jeter? No. But you can probably, and easily, get by without mentioning Biggio’s career (even though I’m totally fine with him being in the Hall).

It’s called “contributions to the game”.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

About the stats, I agree. About the part telling the story of baseball, I disagree. I can tell the story of baseball without either of them. But more to the point, Biggio's legacy is simple. Name the best 2nd baseman in the NL from 1992-2007. The answer is Craig Biggio. (Alomar in the AL). If we are inducting the best from each era, it stands to reason Biggio and Alomar would be the first guys in.

Sure. I’m totally fine with Biggio in the Hall. Like I said though, for me “importance to the game” matters. It’s a metric I would use if I was a voter… but I’m not. So it’s all irrelevant. Haha

[JRX]

Player A: 1978 G, 9057 PA, .285/.372/.447, 1411 R, 2230H, 496 2B, 226 HR, 883 RBI, 325 SB

Player B: 2014 G, 8507 PA, .292/.357/.509, 1194 R, 2215 H, 508 2B, 351 HR, 1389 RBI, 84 SB

One is the best second baseman, the other was better.

[Retired hobbist]

what's funny is, as you start removing HOFers, naturally you can start arguing each and every one of them down to #1.

You take out 75 players, and sure, Biggio and Mussina suddenly don't compare as well to the rest of the Hall of Famers.

Well, eventually you're going to pare it down to where the Hall is Babe, and Mays, and Aaron, and Maddux, and suddenly, what's Maddux doing with those guys? I can make a case he doesn't belong! And soon we have the Hall of Just Babe Ruth statistically. And then someone brings up the color line...

Haven't the fans voted on who is an iconic hall of famer by the value of rookie cards of players like Biggio. Biggio rookies can be had for bus fare prices on Ebay, Griffey even in the junk wax era has some value even if ever collector that kept their cards from this era has a Griffey or 2.

[Skipscards]

Biggio only has 9k pa as a 2b. A quarter of his career was played elsewhere.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Exactly. There isn’t another player in history that handled Catcher, 2B, and CF as well as he did.

And for the record, Tieguanyin tea costs about $50 in China.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Haven't the fans voted on who is an iconic hall of famer by the value of rookie cards of players like Biggio. Biggio rookies can be had for bus fare prices on Ebay, Griffey even in the junk wax era has some value even if ever collector that kept their cards from this era has a Griffey or 2.

You’re forgetting a major rule: Baseball card good does not mean baseball good. And vice versa.

[Skipscards]

You’re forgetting a major rule: Baseball card good does not mean baseball good. And vice versa.

True. Particularly with players from the junk wax era. I can buy a Maddux rookie right now on ebay for $2.50.