HOF: It's a travesty....

Off the top of my head, there is no one who has been excluded that "makes the HOF a joke" or is a travesty. There are a few borderline guys that I think should be in: Santo, Blyleven, Dawson. But then again, I tend to be more strict in my standards for the Hall. A "travesty" would be keeping out a guy like a R. Henderson, or a George Brett, or a Jim Palmer.

 

I agree that the trio of Santo, Blyleven, and Dawson all merit being in the Hall of Fame. And I would add another 8-10 or so, as well. I likewise did not use the word "travesty", just as you also did not.

Were the question strictly "on-field" performance, I would have to add this would be a travesty, as long as "Charlie Hustle" is excluded. But that is not the case, here - the issue is "baseball" and baseball's rules were clearly violated, in his case. I have no particular problem seeing him in the Hall of Fame, for his "on-field" performance; I also have absolutely no problem with his being permanently barred from 'Pro Baseball', in any capacity, either.

Does Jeff Kemp merit HOF status? Will Jim Thome?

Ed

 

Ron Santo might be the closest thing to a travesty, then Blyleven. I think Dawson is a lock for next year. Everyone (and then some) who voted for Rice this year, should definitely vote for Dawson next year. Dawson was better than Rice, hands down.

I think it's a travesty that anyone thinks R. Maris being excluded is a travesty.

 

Roger Maris was a good player for 12 years. Roger Maris had one great year as a slugger with the Yankees, and even then only hit .269. while 'slugging' at .620, and had 0 SBs. (By contrast Mickey Mantle hit .317, 'slugging' at .687, and even swiped 12 bases on "bum wheels", that year.) Roger Maris was pretty good defensive player. Roger Maris got a 'tough break' with cancer.

Sorry, but none of the above argues for the fact that Roger Maris not being in the in the HOF makes the HOF a joke.

The HOF may or may not be a joke, but that is not because of the absence of Roger Maris.

And I would argue that his inclusion would (or at least should) make at least another two dozen players virtual locks, there. And Ron Santo, for one, should be a unanimous choice of the Veterans Committee, if Maris is there, IMO.

For a couple or three of quick comparisons, Maris had 75 or more RBI 4 times in his career; Santo did it 12. Maris never had a BA of .285 in his career; Santo beat Maris' best season 8 times, including four times batting .300 or more. Maris hit more than 25 HR in one year a total of 5 times with three at 30 or more; Santo hit 25 or more in 8 consecutive years, with four of those, also consecutively at 30 or more.

Maris? Nice Player, granted! (Even nicer person, FTR.) But 12 yrs., 275 HR (>1 out of 5 were in one year); 851 RBI (>1 of 6, in the one year); and .260 career BA, does not a HOF career make, IMO, either. Take away the magic 61 figure, even dividing it over a couple more years, and this question doesn't even arise.

Ed

 

Agree, Ed. Letting Maris in would be akin to when they put Hack Wilson into the Hall, because of his one record-breaking year of 190 RBI. There's no way Wilson should be in the Hall. Of course, that was during the period when the Veteran's Committee was letting all kinds of undeserving players in the Hall. Bill James talks about this in his book about all the shady politics that went into guys like Wilson making it.

 

H. Wilson: 12 yr., 1348 G; 4760 AB; 884 R; 1461 H; 244 HR; 1063 RBI; 674 BB; 713 SO; .307 BA (7 times over .295, with 5 times over .300); .395 OBP; .545 SLG.; all in the 'dead-ball' era.

Ro. Maris: 12 yr., 1463 G; 5101 AB; 826 R; 1325 H; 275 HR; 851 RBI; 652 BB; 733 SO; .260 BA (0 times over .285, & obviously 0 over .300); .345 OBP; .476 SLG; all in the 'live-ball' era.

Why wouldn't Hack Wilson merit HOF, with those figures? BTW, He had over 100 RBI a total of six times.

He played CF, where his #s at slugging are exceeded by only Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and Joe DiMaggio, not exactly any 'shabby' crowd, IMO (He had more RBI than 7 HOF CFs and more HR than did 10.), his BA is above that of both Mays and Mantle, and his one glaring stat is the number of RBI vs. Runs scored, which tells me he sat and 'died' out on the bases enough to have claimed "squatter's rights". It certainly appears he did not have as much punch after him, in the lineup, as did some others, much like Duke Snider, among CFs.

Mantle, Mays, and Joe D. all scored from 140-170 times more than the number of runs they drove across; Wilson scored ~180 fewer, and Snider's 'deficit' was ~75.

I won't argue about HOF politics, etc. or that there are not players there whom I do not believe merit it. But Hack Wilson is not one of the undeserving ones, IMO.

And there is simply no comparison of Maris with Wilson, IMO.

Ed

PS. Coupla' other points of reference. Wilsons's OBP and SLG, exceed those of Kaline, Clemente, Al Simmons, Stargell, Yaz, 'Goose' Goslin, Reggie Jackson, Ott, Winfield, and F. Robinson to name 10 RF and LF in the HOF.

Nope, Hack Wilson fully deserves to be there!

 

Wilson's stats need to be discounted due to the extreme hitters era he played in. He also didn't play long enough, IMO. You can't compare him to guys like Kaline, Clemente and Yaz, all of whom played in pithcers eras and compiled great career numbers. If you're gonna put in Wilson for his few years of great seasons, then Maris deserves a second look.

 

Wilson 12 seasons, HOF stats listed. A few other HOF outfielders of the same era, include Earl Combs, Chick Hafey, Heinie Manush, Joe "Ducky" Medwick, Edd Roush, Lloyd Waner, Sam Rice, Ross Youngs, Mel Ott, Chick Klein, Kiki Cuyler, Harry Hooper, and 'Babe' Ruth.

Was Wilson any Babe Ruth? Of course not. Who was?

But his stats are comparable to, if not better, in one or more categories of BA, RBI, HR, OBP and SLG with all the above, outside the Bambino, all of whom were his peers, in every instance, I believe. Could one make an argument that a couple of the above do not really merit HOF status? Of course. That's not the point.

I just argue that a man who played 12 years with 6 years of over 100 RBI, is not exactly a flash in the pan. It seems you want to discount that 190 RBI, and reject his entire career, in the reverse manner that some want to include the 61, for Maris.

(And sorry, but Maris simply doesn't equal up with Hank, Richie Ashburn, 'Country' Slaughter, Roberto, Al Kaline, Willie Stargell, Yaz, Mickey, Willie Mays, Duke, Billy Williams, or Frank Robinson, in any category, overall, with the exception of SLG with Ashburn, Slaughter and equaling Clemente for that stat, for his peers, above, that are deservedly enshrined in the HOF.)

True, Hack Wilson only played 12 years. What is your "cut-off' point for years? 12? 14? 15? 23? His 12 is certainly comparable to those of Youngs (10), Hafey (13), Averill (13), Combs (12), Larry Doby (13), Kirby Puckett (12), and Lloyd Waner (14 'good' years out of 18, where for 4 he was almost a non-factor; Ditto for Manush at 14 of 17) Would you also "out" Combs, Youngs, Hafey, Doby, Puckett, Manush and Averill?

None of them reached some "magical, invisible unstated number for, say, 16 'good' years, either. Wilson had over 100 RBI for 6 of 7 years. (I would assume he was likely injured for much of the other, for he only had 61 in 395 appearances, with all his averages and stats way down, that year.). Combs, Youngs, Sam Rice, Roush, and Lloyd Waner never came close to knocking in 100,and Manush (2), Paul Waner (2) & Hafey (3) never came close to 6 seasons of 100 RBI. That's eight HOF players with a combined 7 years at 100 RBI, compared with Wilson who did it six times, at 109, 129, 120, 159, 190, and 123. Those simply aren't 'cheap' numbers, IMO. Had it been a one-time thing, where he never hit 100 again, with the 190, standing alone, I might tend to agree. But that simply "ain't what happened". He also hit 56 HR & 39 HR in two years, with the 56 figure standing as the NL record, for 68 years, until the ball was 'juiced' up (and perhaps along with both Mark and Sammy, maybe?) in 1998, when it 'fell'. making it stand far longer that did the AL record of Ruth.

Ed

 

"If?" Sure is a huge word in baseball, isn't it. How many more HR could Ted Williams have hit, if he had not missed nearly 5 seasons flying fighter planes fighting for our freedoms for our country in two wars?
How many HR could Josh Gibson have hit, if he been allowed to play in the NL or AL, and if he had not died at the early age of 35?
How many HR could Roy Campanella have hit, if he had been allowed to play in the NL or AL, from the start, and if he had not been paralyzed in an auto accident, a few years later?
How many more HR could Tony Coniglaro have hit if he had not suffered his devastating injury?
How many HR could Sadaharu Oh have hit, if he had not stayed in the Japanese Leagues?

Or how about pitchers? How many games could Herb Score have won, instead of 55, if, sadly, he had not had the line-drive smash him in the face, effectively wiping out his career?
How many games could Sandy Koufax have won, instead of 165, if he had had better control, at the start of his career, and if he had not been forced into early retirement at the age of 30 due to arthritis?
How many games could Gaylord Perry have won instead of 314, if he could have thrown a "spitball"? On second thought, disregard this last "if". :laugh: :laugh:

Coupla' points. This is incorrect regarding Babe Ruth, for Babe Ruth actually held the season record for 42 years from 1919-1961. Ruth actually set the record with 29 HR in 1919, breaking the single-season mark of one Ned Williamson of 27, which mark he'd held for 35 years. Ruth raised his own record to 54 in 1920, and again to 59 in 1921, and once again to 60 in 1927, so he held the single-season record for all the leagues, excepting the Negro Leagues, for 42 years. Maris held the single-season record for 37. Maris still holds the AL record, having now held it for 47 years, and counting.

And Hack Wilson held the NL record for either 67 or 68 years, depending on how you classify Mark McGwire's 1997 season which was spent 2/3 with the AL A's and 1/3 with the NL Cards.

BTW, I agree with you on the plaque, provided you also give one to Williamson for his 35 years as the record holder overall and (38 NL), Ruth for 42 years, and Wilson for 67 or 68 for the NL.

 

Ed, out of his 12 seasons, Wilson only had about 6 or 7 full seasons. He played in a bloated offensive era where MLB admitted to juicing the ball - especially in the NL. The man didn't even get 1500 hits or 250 homers. Wilson should be out, just as Maris should be - 2 or 3 years of gaudy stats just doesn't cut it.

 

I agree as to "2 or 3 years of gaudy stats", but that is not the case, here.

However, if those "6 or 7 full seasons" plus 5 or 4 more 'partials' (I'll give anyone his first year with only 10 games) due to injuries, is appropriate for the exclusion of Hack Wilson, then it should also be reason for the exclusion of at least two dozen more from the HOF. Would you include Roy Campanella among the undeserving? I sure wouldn't, for I fully think Roy Campanella merits the HOF, even apart from his unfortunate auto accident, for he was also the "Johnny Bench" of defensive catchers, when Bench was still in diapers. Campy only managed to play in 130 games in 3 seasons. Wilson topped this figure 6 times.

BTW, I did not compare the stats with any other era, or positions, other than that of the outfield, and HOF outfielders. Nor did I compare those of Maris against those he didn't play alongside of, either. If you had bothered to acutally read post # 10, you would have noticed this.

Wilson matches up with his peers and deserves to be there, overall. Maris simply doesn't, and I happen to have been a fan of Roger Maris.

If Hack Wilson deserves to be "out," then so do at least a dozen I named in Post # 10. Somehow, I just cannot get it to register that only Ruth and Ott belong in the HOF from the outfield for a period of almost 20 years, where FTR, Wilson's BA and Slg exceed even those of Mel Ott, who also was in the NL.

FTR, I would assume if the ball was "juiced" when Wilson played, it was also "juiced' for Ott, Hafey, Klein, and 'Ducky'.

Ed

 

Didn't Campenella miss some years in the Negro leagues? Also, Campy was an all-around player - Wilson was not. They are apples and oranges.

FTR, I also think Hafey and Klein (esp. Hafey) are poor choices. And you can't compare a guy like Ott who amassed much better career numbers with guys like Wilson and Hafey. The ball was only juiced for a few seasons - the same few seasons that Wilson and Hafey had their only great years. Ott had great years before and after those few years. Also, Ott's OBP was stellar compared to these guys. There's a reason why Ott made the Hall in his first year, while these other guys had to get in the back door through the shady (at the time) Veterans Committee. Read James' book - he discusses these guys at length.

 

"Somebody's gotta win and somebody's gotta lose and I believe in letting the other guy lose." ~Pete Rose

No questions about his stats. Pete Rose was a great baseball player and what you got, every game, was 100% pure Charlie Hustle.

Rose's Lifetime Stats here

What Rose did was off the field and in no way artificially enhanced his on-field performance. Sometime before they become eligible, the HOF will have to decide what to do with all the steroid-driven performances of the past decade or so. If they enshrine JUST ONE with an asterisk then they would have to give Rose his rightful place in the Hall... with an asterisk*

 

I don't agree that betting on baseball is the same as steroid use, but what I do think is that the definition of the Hall of Fame needs to be revisited. I'm actually considering this myself because of the Nascar Hall of Fame that's being built in Charlotte. Mark it down. There will be men in the Nascar Hall of Fame, not necessarily the inaugural class, that are convicted felons and nobody will care. There will be men in the Hall who were known cheaters and nobody will care. There will be men in the Hall who's on-track tactics were sometimes reprehensible, but nobody will care. How many guys in the NFL Hall of Fame were bad guys and nobody cares? How many guys in the NFL Hall of Fame used steroids and/or drugs and nobody cares? But, just breathe a word about people like Pete Rose, Mark McGwire, Bobby Bonds, etc. being in the Hall, and everybody climbs up on Mount Pious to condemn them. There's a definite double-standard here, but I don't think there should be.

So, what's the point of a Hall of Fame? Is it a morality contest? Is it a popularity contest? Is it a museum? How you answer that question determines what we do with guys like Rose, Bonds, Clemens, etc.