Potential SS's for the Hall of Fame

I am assuming you are a fellow Cubs fan....

Just because someone played for the Cubs and was/is an above average player does not make them worthy of the HOF.

I loved watching Dunston play growing up. The combo of Dunston/Sandberg/Grace was one of my favorites! Yet Dunston is not a HOFer.

 

I am a die hard Cubs fan. I've been following them since the early 70's.
Dunston was good but I know he's not HOF material. Not near consistent enough. I just thought that if I mentioned him, Tom would have to concede that Derrek Lee wasn't that bad of a suggestion after all. :thumbs:

 

:laugh: Nah, can't concede that. Now if you mention Jody Davis, then maybe I will concede :laugh: Actually, come to think of it, if Jody Davis had had a career like he had an '84 NLCS, I would argue for him being in the hall. Didn't he slug something like .800 for the series?

I can still hear Harry Caray singing:
Jody, Jody Davis......

Wait til I roll out my Ron Santo for HOF argument. :thumbs:

 

Now if having perhaps the greatest arm ever for a SS, then Dunston would be a lock. That guy had a cannon!

Good ole Jody Davis, he did have a great playoff that year!

 

Steve Garvey had a pretty good NLCS that year as I recall. :saint:

 

Detroit Tigers In 1984.

Ok, a couple of points here.


Here's something that just gets me red-faced. People will introduce things like OPS or WHIP or some of the other things we have here and argue the HOF thing.

If it's based solely on numbers, why even have a vote?

If you're OPS is above x, you're in. If not, you're out.

The problem is that statistics can be manipulated and with a new formula anything can be twisted.

What makes a guy a Hall of Famer? I'm referring to an every day player (like the shortstops in this post).

1) Hit for power
2) Hit for average
3) Speed/baserunning
4) Fielding
5) Intangibles

Yet when it comes to shortstops with a few exceptions - like Cal and A-Rod - nobody thinks of hitting for power as a shortstop thing. Shortstops are for fielding and getting to balls nobody else can. Ozzie Smith excelled more at fielding, speed, an intangibles than he did at the other two. That's why his first left-handed HR was so memorable, nobody expected it because he wasn't a power hitter from either side anyway - but esp. the left.

You must understand, though, my standards are higher than most folks probably. I don't think Sandy Koufax belongs. Sure, he had four SUPER years - but look at his career stats and tell me he's HoF material without knowing the name. If stats does it, Mickey Lolich has stats that rival and in many cases surpass those of Don Drysdale - but Don's in due to being friends with voters from his broadcasting days and Mickey's on the outside looking in.

And Nolan Ryan might have struck out over 5,000 batters - but he's barely above .500 as a career pitcher. Obviously the guys he didn't strike out must have scored some runs against him. He not only won 300 games, he nearly lost that many.

With that out of the way, let's consider the guys.

I don't think Dave Concepcion is really worth considering. I think he was good in his day, but he wasn't great or an all-time great. Alan Trammell, whom I really liked, was inconsistent as has been noted by other posters.

Shawon Dunston? Decent but not even close. Tony Fernandez gets undone because Toronto folded when he got hurt in 1987 and his error helped cost the Tribe the 1997 World Series - after he'd been the one who gave them the lead!!

Of all those guys, I was most impressed with Barry Larkin. He is going to be hurt by the fact he missed so many games. But think of the Reds in the 1990s and who do you think of? Barry Larkin.

1990 World Series? Ok, you probably think of Billy Hatcher first, but Larkin contributed.

He was the 1995 MVP; it wasn't his fault the Reds ran into the buzz-saw known as the Atlanta Braves. Three gold gloves, hit for average, good fielder, and was still a leader on the 1999 Reds who lost a playoff game for the wildcard to the Mets. So from 1990 through 1995 and on into 1999, it was Barry.

So of all those guys, I'd put him first.

And btw - I'm not a Reds fan, I'm a Braves fan first and the Rangers (because I now live in Dallas) second.

In fact, I was at that marathon last night. It was three games in one.

bill

 

Without a doubt Nolan Ryan deserves it!

 

Yep! Just not as a shortstop! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Maestroh, welcome to the discussion. However, I worry as a Braves fan if you'll be able to actually talk about baseball. :laugh: Just kidding friend. That's part of a running joke. Andy hates all things Minnesota, and I don't care for the Braves even though I rooted for them as a kid if they weren't playing the Reds or Cubs and still watch them from time to time as an interested fan. Truth be told, I don't know that we get that many Braves fans around the board.

I won't rehash the arguments made for and against Davey, et.al. I'd encourage you to look at the numbers of any candidate without bias and evaluate their merits.

I would have to say that I think of lots of folks in the '90 Reds juggernaut. Eric Davis comes to mind. Jose Rijo's stellar pitching. The Nasty Boys. And Pete Rose, who assembled this team. So while Barry did have a great WS (and an even better run in '95), he didn't exactly carry the team on his back. That was a monster - a Little Red Machine that Marge blew up. But I digress..

It's not in our minds here (while who can really say what counts in the insane minds of the BBWA). See our thread on what makes a HOFer. The numbers are good for comparison. How else are you going to evaluate players, especially across eras? Popularity? The good ole boy network? That's what gets guys like Rick Ferrell in the HOF.

Yeah....A-Rod and Cal can't even do a backflip. Wimps :laugh:

I think that's a bit myopic, although your criteria are a good starting point. And it's hard to say "intangibles" because everyone defines these differently. Some believe Cal has forced #1 to be a consideration for SS. Maybe. We're in a definitely different era.

By the way, you need to look at my blog and my references to HOFers here. You may be glad that I advocate Dale Murphy for the HOF

Again, welcome to the discussion. Your contributions are appreciated. You get extra points if you can convince Andy the Metrodome is not Hades

 

Let's Talk Murphy

I read your post, and while I agree with some points and disagree with others, let's talk Dale Murphy.

Dale Murphy was my favorite player during the 1980s, not exactly center stage to be a Braves fan with the exception of the 13-game winning streak that started 1982. I think he was a phenomenal player, certainly one of the ten best of the 1980s.

Whether he is a HOF, however, is up for some debate. Now again, my standards are quite high. The Dale Murphy-Jim Rice argument is a common one, but I don't think it's fair on a number of counts. Andre Dawson gets thrown in as well.

I think Murphy is a borderline case, but looking at it he should be in. And I think he rates ahead of Jim Rice for a number of reasons.

1) Rice played on mostly good teams while Murphy played on mostly bad teams.

Murphy's team finished first once (1982); Rice's Red Sox finished first in 1975, 1986, and 1988. They also finished second in 1977 and 1978. Murphy's Braves finished either last or next to last TEN times (11 if you include the year he was traded in 1990).

2) Rice had better hitters behind him.

Let's compare. Rice had a HOFer at one juncture (Yaz) along with a decent every day player, Fred Lynn. Murphy had Bob Horner - who broke his wrist three years in a row and left Murphy without any protection from walks. Murph still led the NL in homers a few years in a row.

3) Rice spent a good chunk of his career as a DH.

Personally, I don't think a DH ought to be considered for the Hall unless he puts up Barry Bonds-like numbers. I really don't. It's like relief pitchers - you have to be TRULY phenomenal as a DH. Murphy never played one game as a DH. Rice was a DH because he wasn't as good a fielder as Lynn, Dwight Evans, or Yaz early on. Murphy began as a catcher and had to learn an entirely new position - and did it quite well.

4) Murphy was more feared in his league than Rice was in his.

Consider this: Murphy won TWICE as many MVPs, TWICE as many Silver Slugger Awards, five Gold Gloves to Rice's none. Rice did win more HR titles, 3-2, but Murphy did have NINE straight years in the top ten, including eight in the top four and seven in the top three.

 

We're off topic, but I'll allow just a smidge of leeway:

I don't penalize people for playing on good or bad teams. I think that's an unfortunate tendency. I think the fact that Murph played on some bad teams hurt him, so I don't believe in using a blade that cuts both ways. For their careers, a team of Jim Rices creats over half a run more per game than a team of Muphs. Just FWIW.

True. But I don't like making this a huge plank argument. If a team is not in a game, it doesn't matter who is in the lineup. For instance, lately, Barry Bonds has been getting a lot better pitches simply because the Giants have not been a threat at the time of the AB. Rice did not have as many IBBs as Murph. Then again, there are not as many in the AL post DH than the NL, too. But overall I won't quibble with this is a point, however circular and akin to argument # 1 it is

I don't share your anti-DH bias. Rice spent 3 times as much time in the OF as he did DH. While the numbers are inconsistent, he did have many years where he was well above league avg in the field. I agree with you that Murph had to learn a new position and that this is a good achievement. I still think it even more noteworthy that he played instructional league after winning an MVP.

This is hard to quantify and can be rather circular in nature. I will agree that Murph was one of the most feared in his day.

Murph's lack of presence in Cooperstown highlights what I call the Paris Hilton nature of the BBWA voters. Murph didn't hit 400 or 500 HR, thus he's not a HOFer. Baloney. For instance, I've heard it more than once since Glavine got win 300:

"He just punched his ticket to Cooperstown."
"With tonight's win, he becomes a Hall of Famer."
"Glavine seals his spot in Cooperstown."

It was in doubt before then? If you think that's just hyperbole, look at some folks who fall just short of the mythical lines. I won't repeat them here (too many to name). Some have asked about automatic numbers for the HOF? Heck, the BBWA has already artificially or passive-aggresively created them. And it's hurting the HOF.