PDA

View Full Version : The Line for Cooperstown


Fuzzy Bear
02-26-2002, 07:17 PM
I was amazed at the passion in the thread on Steve Garvey. Was he overrated or underrated; everyone had an opinion. The discussion inevitably drifted to "Is he a HOFer?" (Garvey's persona appears such that even his bigger fans seem to deny wanting to enshrine him.

The question of whether Garvey (or anyone else on the ballot) is a "Hall-of-Famer" is not easy to answer. That's because we have two Hall-of-Fames.

First, there's the True Believer's Hall-of-Fame. This Hall will only enshrine players at the top of both peak and career value; superstars with long careers. Koufax and Dean would have trouble cracking this circle; Tinker, Evers, and Chance would have to pay admission to get in. Only the Ruths, Gehrigs, Aarons, Mayses, Mathewsons, Spahns, etc. make it in.

In Cooperstown, NY, however, is the REAL Hall-of-Fame. This Hall-of-Fame's standards vary. You usually qualify as a position player if you are the best player in the league at your position for a period of years, unless there was a jam-up of talent concentrated at your position (e.g. Mays and Mantle in the same era, Aaron and Clemente, etc.) However, this is the high standard; there are a number of players who were "stars" but not "superstars" who are in the HOF.

When I evaluate whether or not a player should go into Cooperstown, I take a look at players not in the Hall who qualify. Where does my guy stand, relative to these players? Who has done what my guy has done and is NOT in the Hall-of-Fame?

Steve Garvey IS qualified for the Hall-of-Fame!!!! Why? Easy; he played 10 seasons. That's what QUALIFIES you. Not everyone who is qualified gets the job; presumably the best person does. If I want to see if, say, Al Oliver, should be in the HOF, two things I would consider is (a) how many players with similar careers are NOT in the HOF, and (b) how does he stack up against other qualified players who are not in the HOF.

It is clear that Steve Garvey and Al Oliver are Hall-of-Fame caliber players IF WE GO BY WHOM THE HALL-OF-FAME HAS ALREADY ENSHRINED.

However, where are they in line, vis a vis the other outsiders who are qualified?

I certainly think that the Cooperstown line begins with Ron Santo and Gary Carter. No one who has had the careers they have had at their positions is not in the Hall-of-Fame.

The line begins to split between peak and career value. For peak value, I would rate Tony Oliva and Al Rosen at the top. They had short careers, but incredible peaks. Don Mattingly is on line here.

For career value, I think that the line forks off to Tommy John, Jim Kaat, and Bert Blyleven. The line forms behind them.

I'm not saying who should be in or out (except for Santo and Carter). Do any of you agree with this line? Who stands behind these guys, and in what order?

sweaver
02-26-2002, 07:46 PM
You raise good points, Fuzzy, and I would put Gary Carter at the head of that line, myself.

I think Hall voting has gotten more stringent recently. Part of the same idea is the clamps put on the Veteran's Committee in recent years. 30 years ago, Oliver and Garvey get in within 3 years of eligibility.

Baudib
02-26-2002, 09:45 PM
Really, I don't think that's true. There are two Hall of Fames; one by the writers and one by the Veterans Committee (this doesn't include the committees to elect Negro Leaguers or pre-1900s players, almost all of those guys are as qualified as Aaron or Bench or Musial.)

The writers' selection are almost all truly outstanding, dominant players. Tony Perez and Kirby Puckett are among the worst players ever elected by the writers.

Almost all of the questionable/weak selections were made by the VC, and most of the worst of those came in the 1970s.

KCBOOMER
02-27-2002, 10:42 AM
I'm with Baudib. There's the BBWA HoF and the VC's HoF. The BBWA rewards the dominant players and usually will get around to guys who have racked up big career numbers (like Sutton). If you match the BBWA to the BI (eliminating players that aren't eligible for voting yet) you will see that the BBWA is more exclusive.

I think it is much easier for a player to get elected by the BBWA today than ever before. In the Old Days you didn't have some yahoo bleating on ESPN for years about so-and-so being a sure fire H0Fer.

The new VC will continue to make the same mistakes as it always has. "I saw this guy play and he was an HoFer to me". The group should be eliminated or changed to a group of people who know what they are doing and then only for one final review to pick up the great players who were missed, if any.

I liked the Puckett choice. I think the writers recognized the numbers he would have put up without the eye problem. Perez was a very weak choice. But the ESPN boys pushed him over the top.

gyb13
02-27-2002, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by KCBOOMER
I liked the Puckett choice. I think the writers recognized the numbers he would have put up without the eye problem. Perez was a very weak choice. But the ESPN boys pushed him over the top.
Ah, but the HOF shouldn't reward potential for greatness, just greatness. That's an argument for his induction which would require others to be taken into consideration based on 'what could have been'.

KCBOOMER
02-27-2002, 12:15 PM
Well in that case let's knock out Dizzy Dean and Sandy Koufax. Those guys career win-loss numbers are Guidryish.

Puckett had an excellent career, was generally considered one of the best players in the league for years, and his traditional numbers (hits, BA, RBI's, etc) were excellent for the amount of time he played. Plus he played a pretty good centerfield. Puckett got in for what he did.

gyb13
02-27-2002, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by KCBOOMER
Puckett got in for what he did.
I liked the Puckett choice. I think the writers recognized the numbers he would have put up without the eye problem.
Which one is it then? I personally feel Puckett was a poor HOF selection.

SmedIndy
02-27-2002, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by KCBOOMER
Well in that case let's knock out Dizzy Dean and Sandy Koufax. Those guys career win-loss numbers are Guidryish.

Puckett had an excellent career, was generally considered one of the best players in the league for years, and his traditional numbers (hits, BA, RBI's, etc) were excellent for the amount of time he played. Plus he played a pretty good centerfield. Puckett got in for what he did.

I think we're asking for consistency out of a body that has been historically inconsistent.

sweaver
02-27-2002, 02:18 PM
Too true. The standards for induction are, by design, flexible. The Hall is whatever the BBWAA and the Vet Committee make it.

This is also why sites like XD's Netshrine and Lee's Baseball Immortals are created and visited. There are many people dissatisfied with the Hall.

KCBOOMER
02-27-2002, 03:40 PM
All these sites are merely communication devices we can use to express our opinions on players. Only the HoF is the HoF.

Besides, between the BBWA HoFers and the BI's (less the one's not yet eligible or completed their HoF voting) there isn't much difference. I would wager that if we put up the eight or so members of the BI who are not in the HoF an asked the members of this board to vote on them you would find that the membership would not elect more than two of them, if any.

And the BI gets to correct its mistakes. Could you imagine the uproar if the HoF voted out a living player, say Tony Perez, that it had voted in earlier. The BI doesn't wait five years after retirement in fact it doesn't wait for retirement to occur.

Fuzzy Bear
02-27-2002, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by sweaver


I think Hall voting has gotten more stringent recently. Part of the same idea is the clamps put on the Veteran's Committee in recent years. 30 years ago, Oliver and Garvey get in within 3 years of eligibility.

I agree with this observation. I agree so much that I believe that Bill James' HOF Monitor system, designed to predict who will and won't be elected, needs revision.

While I agree with most comments made about Veterans Committee selections, there are such glaring exception (Santo being the biggest injustice by the writers) that some mechanism is needed to right a wrong. With all due respect to NetShrine, the Hall of Fame is Baseball's Big Honor. Raising the bar after the fact (by eliminating the Veterans' Committee) is hurtful to individuals. Baseball is a sport; it should be fun. When the Hall of Fame can only hurt and insult Ron Santo, I believe that the Veterans Committee is a necessary evil.

SmedIndy
02-27-2002, 10:34 PM
Actually, I think the new vets committee will help Santo, because they can concentrate on guys like him, and not worry about one from column "A" or "B".