No longer eligible HOF players

[Vegas Halo Fan]

6 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Abbott was missing fingers, and we were in awe of what he did without them. Verlander has all his fingers, and we're jealous of what he does with them.

Kate Upton has no business being mentioned in a HOF thread.

[Blarg]

16 hours ago, Lou said:

It was cool when Aybar did it to Verlander though, right?

Aybar bunted in the 8th inning with no outs. 

 

[Tank]

16 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Mainly here I was just trying to get Tank all hot and bothered.

Wasnt it tanks bday pretty recently? We should pitch in and get him a game used verlander ball... theres a chance verlander is dirty, and doesnt wash his hands...

february, but it's never too late to give me presents.

[Tank]

17 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Verlander has all his fingers, and we're jealous of what he does with them.

[Lou]

5 hours ago, Blarg said:

Aybar bunted in the 8th inning with no outs. 

 

Same difference

[ten ocho recon scout]

18 hours ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

Kate Upton has no business being mentioned in a HOF thread.

Id much rather watch her highlights than micky mantle's. Much less some of the relief pitchers that have gotten in.

 

[floplag]

On 5/15/2020 at 2:42 PM, Lou said:

That's the point of this thread - players that are debatable. Guys that are sure things are already in.

Yes, im aware of that, did i not give the answer you wanted somehow as i thought thats exactly what i addressed?

[Vegas Halo Fan]

9 hours ago, Tank said:

See my post above. That is a different kind of HOF.

[2112]

On 5/16/2020 at 1:39 PM, Lou said:

It was cool when Aybar did it to Verlander though, right?

Yeah Aybar shouldn't get in the hall either.  

[ten ocho recon scout]

On 5/17/2020 at 6:40 PM, Vegas Halo Fan said:

See my post above. That is a different kind of HOF.

Booberstown

[happybat4]

44 minutes ago, RBM said:

I don't think any of these guys should be in the HOF. The baseball HOF has always had stricter standards than the NFL or basketball. Those standards have softened over time but I would like to see this trend stop.

In the 1960's the BBWAA selected six players to the HOF. Six players in 10 years - Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Bob Feller, Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella and Joe Medwick. In the 1970's they elected 13 players, all the truly great players of the era - Mays, Mantle, Koufax, Banks, Spahn, etc.

Fast forward to the 2010's and the BBWAA elected 24 players versus 19 players selected in the 60's and 70's combined. 

There is also a lot more teams and players now. Baseball is also more international now. What percentage of players were HOF in the 60s compared to today would probably be a better judge. I personally think Lofton, Grich and Whitaker are better than a lot of players already in. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

4 hours ago, RBM said:

True. I looked at that. There were 20 teams in 1962, 24 teams in 1969 and 30 by 1998. However, the math doesn't work when you see there were only 6 players in the 60's and 24 players in the 2010's.

I think the defining difference is that you used to need to be a truly elite player to be selected by the BBWAA and now they are including really good players with long careers. And now the veterans committee is selecting guys they shouldn't - Ted Simmons, Harold Baines, Lee Smith, Alan Trammel to name a recent few. The veterans committee used to predominantly to select executives, managers and umpires. There is no doubt the selection process has changed over time.

This is kind of my take.

I dont really have a problem with including more guys... but, it changes the standard. Thats the problem.

If they kept it super exclusive, there would be no arguments. Once "really good, not legend" guys started getting in, it brought on the "why not this guy then?" arguments. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

I'm a "small hall" guy but it's tough to keep out guys who are better than guys already in. It's also based off an arbitrary standard, so there isn't really anything to go off of beyond the guys currently in.

[Lou]

Harold Baines 

If I didn't really care about the HOF before, that sealed the deal.

[happybat4]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

Harold Baines 

If I didn't really care about the HOF before, that sealed the deal.

I don't agree with Baines, but there is players worse than him in the HOF. 

[m0nkey]

I don't know if he'll ever get in by vote, but I think Andruw Jones is worthy of at least serious conversation.  He was basically done as a useful player by the time he was 30, but from about 98-06, he was solid at the plate and elite with the glove.

 

I've been watching some old baseball highlights/clips and I don't know how the Braves only won one title during their run.  Winning must be hard

[ELEVEN]

On 5/16/2020 at 3:29 PM, Lou said:

I get that, but he shouldn't be treated any differently than other players because of it 

I'm sure he would agree 

I agree.

 

 

 

 

But fuck Lofton

[Stradling]

24 minutes ago, ELEVEN said:

But fuck Lofton

No

[Stradling]

Also gross. 

[m0nkey]

Stradling hates black people

[Duren, Duren]

I don't know how many of you have been to Cooperstown. It really can make a lifelong impression. When you walk past all the busts, lined up next to each other you can't help but see a common connection that transcends the different eras. You assume it is a collection of equals, all time greats. Of course, each person elected worked within the confines of their era, but these were the ones who were most memorable over the long haul.

Even when stats open up legitimate questions about who is in or should be, you realize that those selected were judged by the most respected baseball men of each era. Their judgments were based on in person observations factoring in subtle things not represented in stats.

Of course the selection process has inbuilt flaws, but that is a complex topic by itself. 

I think the process just has to be refined and clarified some more. Intangibles are hard to quantify, but they do deserve serious consideration in addition to stats. That seems to be one of the points of contention. 

I visited Cooperstown twice a few decades ago. The entire environment was like a trip back in time, and really created a mood transcending any specific era. Memory is a bit vague, but they had some nice card sets (TCMA) and other items for sale that fit the mood of the place. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

On 5/21/2020 at 9:41 AM, m0nkey said:

I've been watching some old baseball highlights/clips and I don't know how the Braves only won one title during their run.  Winning must be hard

As someone who followed the club closely during that period, I can answer at least part of that. For all of the credit that John Schuerholz got for building the core of the club that won 14 straight division titles, his philosophy was also largely to blame for the fact that they brought home only one World Series trophy during that time. The pitching that carried them was largely signed when Bobby Cox was GM. Schuerholz decided to bolster that young pitching by bringing in solid defenders, especially in the infield. At the corners, they added Sid Bream and Terry Pendleton. It was blind luck that Pendleton, whose career average at the time was around .230, led the NL in batting in 1991. Schuerholz was so obsessed with defense that the bench was almost entirely glove men - meaning that they had nobody to come in during the late innings to deliver a key hit. Later in his tenure, he was also guilty of trying to recapture the past, bringing back Pendleton, Alejandro Pena and Otis Nixon long after their productive years were behind them. It was no coincidence that Nixon made the final out trying to bunt for a hit in Game 6 of the 1992 World Series against Toronto. Nixon was literally the worst hitter in the majors at that point, and his biggest weapon - his speed - had declined to the point that his ineptitude at the plate was even more of a liability. The acquisition of closer Jeff Reardon - with whom the Blue Jays were very familiar, playing in the same division as the Red Sox - was also a major contributing factor in the loss in 1992. Toronto lit him up every time that he was brought in.

Basically, if the starting nine needed help off the bench, either from a pinch hitter for the pitcher or someone who hit better than one of the pure fielders, they were screwed because it wasn't there.

Edited June 1, 2020 by Vegas Halo Fan

[Dtwncbad]

I am not sure anyone can really make the case TODAY for Bobby Grich NOT being worthy of the HOF considering:

1). Where he sits all time among 2B in lots of categories

2).  Looking at newer measurements like lifetime WAR (not end all be all, but worthy of being part of the analysis)

3). The fact that he was irrefutably better than many others in the HOF

[Mark PT]

On 5/15/2020 at 7:17 AM, DMVol said:

Bobby Grich was a very good player....but not a HOF player....Edmonds probably has a little better case....he is borderline....Lofton and McGriff fit in the category also....

I agree. All these player on the list were very good but not quite HOF. Thurmond Munson might have been if he played longer (I think 10 years)

[ScruffytheJanitor]

On 5/19/2020 at 12:20 PM, happybat4 said:

There is also a lot more teams and players now. Baseball is also more international now. What percentage of players were HOF in the 60s compared to today would probably be a better judge. I personally think Lofton, Grich and Whitaker are better than a lot of players already in. 

Whitaker absolutely should be in. Grich should probably be in. Lofton probably shouldn't, but he wouldn't be the worst player to make it,