PDA

View Full Version : Players not in the HOF that SHOULD be in.


WhiteSoxFan84
01-04-2005, 01:13 PM
Now that Ryno and Boggs are in the Baseball Hall of Fame, I was wondering, who is most deserving to be in the Hall that isn't in so far? I decided to go a different route and bring in names that should be in, but because of bans, suspensions, etc., are not in. I will list a few names and add an "Other" option. This is where you guys can throw in the names I missed. I know my options are pretty narrow, but I drew blanks as soon as I started thinking about names.

1917
01-04-2005, 01:16 PM
Roger Maris...I don't care what his lifetime avg was, he was a 2 time MVP who broke the record STEROID FREE that was held for 37 years....and he had to live with that stupid * next to it

Frater Perdurabo
01-04-2005, 01:24 PM
Would a moderator be willing to amend this poll to allow for multiple option voting? Seems to me that several on the list are worthy; I think many feel the same way. :cool:

WhiteSoxFan84
01-04-2005, 01:36 PM
Would a moderator be willing to amend this poll to allow for multiple option voting? Seems to me that several on the list are worthy; I think many feel the same way. :cool:
If you guys can, do it, I truly drew blanks like I mentioned. I would certainly include Roger Maris and whomever else you guys want.

duke of dorwood
01-04-2005, 01:58 PM
All of the above-but you must include Bruce Sutter-had a revolutionary pitch-still making players millions today.

duke of dorwood
01-04-2005, 01:58 PM
MY 4000 th Post

Baby Fisk
01-04-2005, 02:17 PM
He may not have 4000 posts, but Goose Gossage should be in.

SoxFan76
01-04-2005, 02:34 PM
Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose

Mohoney
01-04-2005, 02:40 PM
Tommy John, Jack Morris, and Jim Kaat, too.

Foulke29
01-04-2005, 02:50 PM
It is ridiculous that Blyleven is not in. I don't believe that Shoeless Joe or Pete Rose deserve to go - moreso Pete Rose though - mainly because he knew what the rules were and the consequences of getting caught - and he got caught.

I think that Gossage should be in. Jim Kaat should be in. Sutter - in - but only because he developed the Split Fingered Fastball. His stats were not good enough for a long enough time - however, in his prime he received consideration for MVP five times.

Those who do not deserve to be in are:

Santo
Rice
Murphy
Morris
Allen
Trammell
Whitaker
Yes, I did say Trammell. He had a really good numbers, but one thing occurred to me. He wasn't a Wizard with the glove like Ozzie Smith was, and he didn't get 3000 hits. Now, he did put up some good power numbers in his day, but the guy played 20 years but couldn't get 3000 hits. I'd be more inclined to give him consideration the numbers that he averaged at 162 GPS were better.

If you were to figure the average per season (in a 162 game season) that he had, he only averaged 167 hits per year, 14 HR per year and 75 RBI are not that HoF impressive. Finally, his OPS is .767. Short of being the best defensive shortstop to play the game, an OPS that low just is not Hall material.

thepaulbowski
01-04-2005, 03:18 PM
If Barry Bonds is scheduled to make it to the HOF, then Pete Rose & Shoeless Joe should be in.

Foulke29
01-04-2005, 03:25 PM
If Barry Bonds is scheduled to make it to the HOF, then Pete Rose & Shoeless Joe should be in.
I'll agree with that statement if he receives a lifetime ban from baseball for his steroid use.

Hokiesox
01-04-2005, 03:55 PM
Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose
Ditto, that was my sentiment.

JRIG
01-04-2005, 04:13 PM
Bert Blyleven
>
>
>
>
>
>
then Alan Trammell and Ron Santo, probably.

AZChiSoxFan
01-04-2005, 04:14 PM
It is ridiculous that Blyleven is not in. I don't believe that Shoeless Joe or Pete Rose deserve to go - moreso Pete Rose though - mainly because he knew what the rules were and the consequences of getting caught - and he got caught.

I think that Gossage should be in. Jim Kaat should be in. Sutter - in - but only because he developed the Split Fingered Fastball. His stats were not good enough for a long enough time - however, in his prime he received consideration for MVP five times.

Those who do not deserve to be in are:

Santo
Rice
Murphy
Morris
Allen
Trammell
Whitaker
Yes, I did say Trammell. He had a really good numbers, but one thing occurred to me. He wasn't a Wizard with the glove like Ozzie Smith was, and he didn't get 3000 hits. Now, he did put up some good power numbers in his day, but the guy played 20 years but couldn't get 3000 hits. I'd be more inclined to give him consideration the numbers that he averaged at 162 GPS were better.

If you were to figure the average per season (in a 162 game season) that he had, he only averaged 167 hits per year, 14 HR per year and 75 RBI are not that HoF impressive. Finally, his OPS is .767. Short of being the best defensive shortstop to play the game, an OPS that low just is not Hall material.Sorry, but Bert "be home" Blyleven was not a Hall of Famer. His career W-L record was 287-250, which averages out to 13-11.4 per year over the course of his 22 year career. Basically, he was just over a .500 pitcher. His 250 career losses rank 10th all time. He only went to two all-star games, never won a Cy Young award, never lead the league in ERA, never lead the league in wins, only lead once in K's, and only won 20 games in a season one time. Bottom line: he was a decent pitcher for a long time. Cooperstown is a shrine to great players, not decent ones.

Totally agree with you though on Pete Rose.

Foulke29
01-04-2005, 04:36 PM
Sorry, but Bert "be home" Blyleven was not a Hall of Famer. His career W-L record was 287-250, which averages out to 13-11.4 per year over the course of his 22 year career. Basically, he was just over a .500 pitcher. His 250 career losses rank 10th all time. He only went to two all-star games, never won a Cy Young award, never lead the league in ERA, never lead the league in wins, only lead once in K's, and only won 20 games in a season one time. Bottom line: he was a decent pitcher for a long time. Cooperstown is a shrine to great players, not decent ones.

Totally agree with you though on Pete Rose.
Glad you put some thought into it, and your point is well received.

That said, keep in mind that Cy Young is #1 on the all time losses list. The losses for both Blyleven and Young reflect pitching for some pretty bad teams.

He may never have won a Cy Young, but he was in the top ten five times. His ERA was 3.0 or under from 1971 to 1977. He threw more than 230 Innings every year from 1971 to 1978 and topped 200 strikeouts 8 times. That's not to mention that 20 years in the Bigs is 'one of the milestones IMHO.

If you were to review his ERA in comparisson to the league average ERA, he was consistantly a half point better that the league average, and he's 5th on the all time strikeout leaders list.

He was not marginal. He was 13 wins away from 'the 300 milestone' and showed up nearly every day for work for 20 years. He's HoF.

samram
01-04-2005, 04:48 PM
Glad you put some thought into it, and your point is well received.

That said, keep in mind that Cy Young is #1 on the all time losses list. The losses for both Blyleven and Young reflect pitching for some pretty bad teams.

He may never have won a Cy Young, but he was in the top ten five times. His ERA was 3.0 or under from 1971 to 1977. He threw more than 230 Innings every year from 1971 to 1978 and topped 200 strikeouts 8 times. That's not to mention that 20 years in the Bigs is 'one of the milestones IMHO.

If you were to review his ERA in comparisson to the league average ERA, he was consistantly a half point better that the league average, and he's 5th on the all time strikeout leaders list.

He was not marginal. He was 13 wins away from 'the 300 milestone' and showed up nearly every day for work for 20 years. He's HoF.
Agreed, even if I hate listening to him on MLBtv when the Sox play the Twins. Kaat should also be in.

AZChiSoxFan
01-04-2005, 04:53 PM
Glad you put some thought into it, and your point is well received.

That said, keep in mind that Cy Young is #1 on the all time losses list. The losses for both Blyleven and Young reflect pitching for some pretty bad teams.

He may never have won a Cy Young, but he was in the top ten five times. His ERA was 3.0 or under from 1971 to 1977. He threw more than 230 Innings every year from 1971 to 1978 and topped 200 strikeouts 8 times. That's not to mention that 20 years in the Bigs is 'one of the milestones IMHO.

If you were to review his ERA in comparisson to the league average ERA, he was consistantly a half point better that the league average, and he's 5th on the all time strikeout leaders list.

He was not marginal. He was 13 wins away from 'the 300 milestone' and showed up nearly every day for work for 20 years. He's HoF.Thanks for being civil in making your points and not ripping me to shreads. That's one of the things that makes WSI such a great forum, IMO.

Good point on Cy Young and his number of losses. As stated previously, I wouldn't vote for BB, but at the same time, I do understand why some people believe he belongs in Cooperstown, if that makes any sense. Tim Kurkjian is just about the only baseball guy at ESPN that I respect and he voted for BB, so it gives me something to consider.

TheBull19
01-04-2005, 06:49 PM
Other. I'd have to go with Blyleven, its a travesty he isn't in. If he hadn't played with crap teams most of his career he would've won 330+, and 287 wins isn't too shabby anyway. Ranked in the top 10 era 10 times. 60 career shutouts, 9th all time. By comparison Clemens has 46, Johnson 37 and Maddux 35. 60 ranks him 4th since the deadball era right behind Spahn, Seaver and Ryan, and ahead of Gibson, Carlton, Palmer, Drysdale, Marichal, Jenkins, etc. 5th in K's all-time

flo-B-flo
01-04-2005, 10:38 PM
Roger Maris...I don't care what his lifetime avg was, he was a 2 time MVP who broke the record STEROID FREE that was held for 37 years....and he had to live with that stupid * next to it For all sorts of other reasons I totally agree. My dad watched baseball like I do now in the 50's and he always said Maris was a great player. He said Mantle is the better athlete, but Maris the better ball player.

flo-B-flo
01-04-2005, 10:49 PM
Glad you put some thought into it, and your point is well received.

That said, keep in mind that Cy Young is #1 on the all time losses list. The losses for both Blyleven and Young reflect pitching for some pretty bad teams.

He may never have won a Cy Young, but he was in the top ten five times. His ERA was 3.0 or under from 1971 to 1977. He threw more than 230 Innings every year from 1971 to 1978 and topped 200 strikeouts 8 times. That's not to mention that 20 years in the Bigs is 'one of the milestones IMHO.

If you were to review his ERA in comparisson to the league average ERA, he was consistantly a half point better that the league average, and he's 5th on the all time strikeout leaders list.

He was not marginal. He was 13 wins away from 'the 300 milestone' and showed up nearly every day for work for 20 years. He's HoF. Nicely done. Blyleven was nasty.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-05-2005, 05:00 AM
It is ridiculous that Blyleven is not in. I don't believe that Shoeless Joe or Pete Rose deserve to go - moreso Pete Rose though - mainly because he knew what the rules were and the consequences of getting caught - and he got caught.
I disagree. I think both Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe should be in. The case for Rose is a lot harder than it is for Jackson. I did a research paper on the Black Sox Scandal and I found out that Jackson did not take any money nor did his stats drop off in the 1919 World Series. Technically, he didn't do what he was supposed to do, which was mess up on purpose, so he pretty much didn't throw the series away.

maurice
01-05-2005, 12:16 PM
Santo's not deserving, but if he's listed as an option, Minnie Minoso should be listed as well.

TornLabrum
01-05-2005, 12:21 PM
I disagree. I think both Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe should be in. The case for Rose is a lot harder than it is for Jackson. I did a research paper on the Black Sox Scandal and I found out that Jackson did not take any money nor did his stats drop off in the 1919 World Series. Technically, he didn't do what he was supposed to do, which was mess up on purpose, so he pretty much didn't throw the series away.Jackson didn't take the money, $5000 of it, but it was given to him. He tried to give it to Comiskey but couldn't get past Harry Grabiner.

I voted for "Other." Tommy John and Goose Gossage in particular for those being voted on by the BBWAA, and Minnie Minoso and Gil Hodges for those being voten on by the Veterans Committee.

TommyJohn
01-05-2005, 02:09 PM
Jackson didn't take the money, $5000 of it, but it was given to him. He tried to give it to Comiskey but couldn't get past Harry Grabiner.

I voted for "Other." Tommy John and Goose Gossage in particular for those being voted on by the BBWAA, and Minnie Minoso and Gil Hodges for those being voten on by the Veterans Committee.
My prediction for the Vet's Committee: No one.

Ol' No. 2
01-05-2005, 02:41 PM
I disagree. I think both Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe should be in. The case for Rose is a lot harder than it is for Jackson. I did a research paper on the Black Sox Scandal and I found out that Jackson did not take any money nor did his stats drop off in the 1919 World Series. Technically, he didn't do what he was supposed to do, which was mess up on purpose, so he pretty much didn't throw the series away.Nobody "gives" you the money in these situations. It was left for him and he kept it. Whether he tried to give it to Comiskey is perhaps more legend than fact. And while his overall stats in the 1919 WS were good, I think if you look at the situational hitting you get a different perspective. I don't recall the exact numbers, but IIRC he hit pretty poorly with RISP in close games. Of course, it's a small sample size, but you get the idea. Most of his hits were in games that were already over.

TornLabrum
01-05-2005, 03:22 PM
Nobody "gives" you the money in these situations. It was left for him and he kept it. Whether he tried to give it to Comiskey is perhaps more legend than fact. And while his overall stats in the 1919 WS were good, I think if you look at the situational hitting you get a different perspective. I don't recall the exact numbers, but IIRC he hit pretty poorly with RISP in close games. Of course, it's a small sample size, but you get the idea. Most of his hits were in games that were already over.
Of course Eddie Collins did far worse.