Veterans Committee HOF ballot

[Guest Edgy DC]

Except it's not a good analogy. Any more than denying a linebacker admission to the Pro Football Hall of Fame because he had a comparable number of interceptions as a mediocre defensive back.

[MFS62]

Edgy DC wrote: Except it's not a good analogy. Any more than denying a linebacker admission to the Pro Football Hall of Fame because he had a comparable number of interceptions as a mediocre defensive back.

Yes, you know that and I know that.
But you should see the looks on their faces.

To paraphrase something once said about NY Net player Wendell Ladner:

Most Yankee fans don't know the meaning of the words "a Yankee who doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame".
Of course, they don't know the meanings of a lot of other words, either.

Later

[metirish]

Really if you have to argue for players to get in then they don't deserve it.

[MFS62]

metirish wrote: Really if you have to argue for players to get in then they don't deserve it.

That's one way to look at it, and I've read that many people use that as a "test".
Edgy and I are in agreement that he doesn't belong.
The discussion is about my methodology.

Later

[seawolf17]

="Mr. Zero"]Oliva didn't not hit home runs. hit like 220, and 32 one year. but he really played only 11 full seasons out of an 13-14 year career. not even 2000 hits.

Hell, Kevin McReynolds hit 211 home runs. Doesn't mean he's a HOFer. No on Oliva. (I know, I know, it's a terrible comparison. I'm just a big McReynolds fan, and this is the first and only time he'll ever be mentioned in a HoF discussion of any kind.)

I'd say yes on Dick Allen, but that brings up the issue of Jim Rice, who should be in already. No Rice, no Allen.

I guess Torre's in as a manager, although I don't like it. I'd say we're being overly sentimental and New York-biased on Hodges, but I guess he has a case. He was too far before my time for me to argue one way or the other. I guess you could make a Hodges-like case for Santo too; I don't know.

No Lyle without Gossage, no Munson ever. Everyone else on the list is a no for me.

[Guest Edgy DC]

metirish wrote: Really if you have to argue for players to get in then they don't deserve it.

I don't agree with that. There will always be borderline cases. There always has been. It's just that the borderline has moved.

[Theoldmole]

]Quote: Marty Marion -- The best shortshop of his era. So was Rey-O.

No, he wasn't. Ordonez played in a era of great shortstops...unfortunately, he wasn't even the best shortstop in New York.

Marion had 11 years as a starter, was never much of a hitter, was on the all-star team 8 of those 11 years, MVP once (1944 -- a war year). He wasn't the best shortstop of his era -- PeeWee Reese was. But he was probably the second best in the National League.

His similar batters list is kinda painful...

1. Rafael Ramirez (937)
2. Scott Fletcher (934)
3. Mike Bordick (924)
4. Leo Durocher (920) *
5. Billy Rogell (918)
6. Art Fletcher (915)
7. Tom Herr (914)
8. Billy Jurges (914)
9. Rick Burleson (914)
10. Johnny Logan (912)


The best of those is Johnny Logan, to whom he's least similar.

I would have thought on memory (and not even I am old enough to really remember him) that Marion was deserving of Hall of Fame consideration, but the numbers say otherwise.

Who were the other shortstops of that era? Let's take 1948 -- sufficiently postwar, not into the 50s yet.

National League:

Pee Wee Reese
Buddy Kerr
Marty Marion
Alvin Dark
Stan Rojek
Virgil Stallcup
Eddie Miller
Roy Smalley


You'd give Slats a solid second.

American League:

Eddie Joost
Cass Michaels
Vern Stephens
Lou Boudreau
Eddie Pellagrini
Johnny Lipon
Phil Rizzuto
Mark Christman

Now he's not even close. The Scooter, Vern Stephens and Lou Boudreau would all rank ahead of him. Eddie Joost would be pretty close to his equal.

If you go back to the early part of Marion's career, which is more work than I intend to do, you had shortstops like Luke Appling and Arky Vaughan, who were his betters.

[MFS62]

The borderline has become more mathematical recently. There are some magic numbers that, in the minds of many voters, players have to attain to warrant consideration. They seem to be moving away from the statement "Dominated his position in the era in which he played". There are some players on that list who I feel would be in the Hall if the voters paid heed to that statement. That doesn't mean that I would vote for them, but that they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Later

[Vic Sage]

Joe Torre - yes (only as both a player & manager)

Curt Flood * - borderline yes
*(special circumstances, importance to baseball)

Dick Allen - borderline yes
Tony Oliva - borderline yes

Gil Hodges - borderline no (player/manager)
Minnie Minoso - borderline no
Jim Kaat - borderline no

Roger Maris - no
Bobby Bonds - no
Thurman Munson - no
Ken Boyer - no
Don Newcombe - no
Rocky Colavito - no
Lefty O'Doul - no
Wes Ferrell - no
Al Oliver - no
Joe Gordon - no
Vada Pinson - no
Ron Santo - no
Luis Tiant - no
Mickey Lolich - no
Sparky Lyle - no
Cecil Travis - no
Marty Marion - no
Mickey Vernon - no
Maury Wills - no
Carl Mays - no

[Theoldmole]

Gil Hodges yes, Roger Maris yes, Minnie Minoso maybe,

[Frayed Knot]

NYers are likely to be disappointed as many of them fail to realize that getting Gil Hodges into the HoF is NOT a cause-celebe outside of this area.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

You gotta vote for Santo. His induction is long overdue. And Dick Allen was a lot better than he gets credit for. The Rice comparision is valid, they both should go in.

As for Minnie Minoso, remember that he didn't get to play until he was something like 28 because he was in the Negro Leagues. When he did come up, he was a stud. Not his fault he was kept out because of his race.

Marvin Miller deserves to be in. Torre should wait until he's done managing, his player stats alone don't cut it.

[Guest Edgy DC]

What's the case for Maris?

He was an excellent player who had a short run.

[stevejrogers]

Edgy DC wrote: What's the case for Maris? He was an excellent player who had a short run.

Chalk that up to either classic MFY (and New York) overhype
as well as a misguided belief that the FAME portion of Hall of Fame should be the determining factor above all others.

Like a guy saying Jose Canseco should be in over Craig Biggio! (Yes sadly THAT was a comparision made on a sports talk radio program)

Should be stated with that argument, what happens when flame is fleeting? Do you start doing straw polls of Copperstown visitors and start removing inshrinees if an overwhelming portion don't have a clue who they are?

The fact that people today know more about Randy Johnson, or even Lance Johnson than Walter Johnson means The Big Train's plaque gets taken out?

Basically the achievements of Maris gets trumped over his actual performance. Back-to-Back MVPs, the 61 homers, THE guy during that run of Yankee years, tremendous OFer, ect. Not really saying anything about Roger's carrer except that he was, at one point, a damn big star in the game.

I'm sure Maris will get more steam among media and fans as the years go on, especially as the steriod era players start getting elligable for the writers ballot. Goes hand-in-hand with the notion of resetting the Single Season HR record right back to his '61 in '61

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think you're overstating the fame argument. More likely they simply recognize what he briefly was and don't mind the lack of an extended legacy. I do.

[stevejrogers]

I've heard AN argument made for putting Don Larsen in the Hall based soley on his WS Perfecto! No clue if the author of said argument was a MFY fan, or even knew that Larsen had a pretty darn good record overall in the postseason (not that it mattered, but it would augment a Larsen "argument" if based soley on his postseason performances)

I see your point, I was trying to deconstruct it by saying you'd have alot of Bo Belinskys and Bo Jacksons in the Hall that 20-30 years later will be the equivilant of outdated pop-culture references.