Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 85
  1. #1

    Baseball Hall of Fame discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by rasputin View Post
    I wish this were true. Unless I've been asleep, Bert Blyleven has not been elected to the HOF. I think he is the single most deserving person eligible who has not been elected.
    The reason Blyleven hasn't made it isn't because he didn't win enough, but because he had a lot of losses.

    I think the most deserving person who hasn't made it is Dale Murphy. He was a dominant player for a number of years.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    I think the most deserving person who hasn't made it is Dale Murphy. He was a dominant player for a number of years.
    Murphy problem is that he was really only great for about 5 years. His performance from 82-87 was great but he fell off so sharply after 87 that he never put up the career numbers to make HOF voters sit up and take notice.

    If he had 2 or 3 more years of 33+ HRs instead of mid-20s and 100+ RBIS instead of 80s then I think he would be there. He finished with 398 homers. It seems crazy but I actually think 2 more homeruns, which would put a "4" in front of his homerun total, would make a difference for him. He also only had 2 seasons where he batted .300. His career average is just .265 and he had several seasons where he was sub-.250 in the late 80s -- not good.

    Unless the vet committee falls in love with him, he is not going to make it. His HOF vote totals fall between about 10% and 25% each year, not even close to the percentage he needs to get there.

    --Jason "who is more deserving Dale Murphy or Andre Dawson -- Goose Gossage or Bert Blyleven?" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  3. #3
    Though I loved Murph as a player I've never thought he was HOF-worthy. However, I don't see a huge difference between him and Jim Rice. If Rice is HOF-worthy perhaps Murph deserves another look.

  4. #4

    HOF

    I think Murphy, like a lot of players that peaked in the 1980s, has been hurt by the explosion of power that occurred in the steroid era from about 1994-2005.

    Power numbers that looked great in the 1970s and 1980s, look puny compared to what we've recent seen -- whether boosted by 'roids, small ballparks, a lively ball or body armor (all have been suggested as reasons for the power explosion).

    I don't remember the exact number (and I'm too lazy to look it up), but its something like in the 30 seasons before 1994, there were like two 50 home run seasons in baseball ... in the 10 years since, there have been like 20-plus.

    Dale Murphy led the league in home runs in 1984 and 1985 -- with 36 and 37 homers. He hit 40 homers once (finishing with 44 in 1987). He never slugged better than .547 and his top OPS was .933. Those were great numbers in his era, but would hardly impress the HOF voters today.

    Of course, a few voters do understand this, but quite a few obviously don't -- witness Ryne Sandberg, who barely scraped in in his second year of eligibility. His numbers, which looked so great in the context of his time, were overshadowed by the steroid-inflated numbers of the next generation.

    I think Don Mattingly has also suffered in this regard -- although like Murphy, he was only a great player for a short time. If he (or Murphy) had had normal declines, I think they would have made it. As it stands, I doubt either is elected -- even by the veteran's committee.

    Right now, I'd argue for Blyleven (287 wins, a career 3.31 ERA and while he had 250 losses, he also played for a lot of bad teams -- his career winning pct. is significantly higher than his team's ... he was a remarkably durable and effective pitcher for a long, long time) or Dawson (much like Murphy and Mattingly his power numbers have been eclipsed in the steroid era, but he had a significantly longer period of excellence than either).

    And just a brief plug for Jack Morris -- 256 wins (the most in the 1980s) and 184 losses ... a great postseason pitcher -- he was the dominant pitcher in both the 1984 and 1991 World Series (he waa the MVP of the series)

    Just for the record: Gossage got in the HOF two years ago, so he's no longer part of the discussion.

  5. #5
    Morris should get in just based on Game 7 of the 1991 WS. His career numbers aren't that great, but they're good, and IMO that masterful performance puts him over the top.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Matches View Post
    Though I loved Murph as a player I've never thought he was HOF-worthy. However, I don't see a huge difference between him and Jim Rice. If Rice is HOF-worthy perhaps Murph deserves another look.
    Rice was better longer that Dale. Murphy was only a stud/feared hitter for 6 seasons (82-87). Rice was a serious MVP candidate in 1975 and 1986-- that's a span of a dozen years (and he was a strong MVP candidate/winner in most of those 12 years).

    By being an impact player (on good Red Sox teams that were almost always above .500) for such a long period of time, Rice was able to etch himself on the memory of sportswriters more than Murphy.

    Also worth noting that even though their career HR and RBI stats are fairly similar, Rice's career batting average of .298 dwarfs Murphy's rather pedestrian .265.

    -Jason "the fact that Rice sorta struggled to get into the HOF makes Murphy's failure to get there make sense" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis

    Rice/Murphy etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Rice was better longer that Dale. Murphy was only a stud/feared hitter for 6 seasons (82-87). Rice was a serious MVP candidate in 1975 and 1986-- that's a span of a dozen years (and he was a strong MVP candidate/winner in most of those 12 years).

    By being an impact player (on good Red Sox teams that were almost always above .500) for such a long period of time, Rice was able to etch himself on the memory of sportswriters more than Murphy.

    Also worth noting that even though their career HR and RBI stats are fairly similar, Rice's career batting average of .298 dwarfs Murphy's rather pedestrian .265.

    -Jason "the fact that Rice sorta struggled to get into the HOF makes Murphy's failure to get there make sense" Evans
    Well, in my view, Rice doesn't belong either, but I'm in the minority. He was a feared hitter, yes. He was not a good outfielder. He was not a particularly good baserunner. He hit into tons of double plays. And he was a me-first player.

    I wouldn't vote for Murphy either, but I do think he's more deserving than Rice, because he was a good outfielder, a good baserunner, and a team player.

    And, yes, Blyleven had lots of losses, but as has been mentioned above, he played for a lot of bad teams. His curve ball was the best I ever saw.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Quote Originally Posted by rasputin View Post
    Well, in my view, Rice doesn't belong either, but I'm in the minority. He was a feared hitter, yes. He was not a good outfielder. He was not a particularly good baserunner. He hit into tons of double plays. And he was a me-first player.

    I wouldn't vote for Murphy either, but I do think he's more deserving than Rice, because he was a good outfielder, a good baserunner, and a team player.

    And, yes, Blyleven had lots of losses, but as has been mentioned above, he played for a lot of bad teams. His curve ball was the best I ever saw.
    Besides (unless you're Joe Morgan), win/loss record is one of the more meaningless stats for pitchers. I stll think he's borderline HOF material, but I would hope that the number in the L column wouldn't be the only reason he's left out.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    I have pruned the HOF conversation from the Braves thread and moved it to its own thread.

    -Jason "I am a HOF mod " Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    I've always thought of the HOF in different terms. I think it should be reserved for the true all-time greats. It's the Holy Grail of individual achievement, and I just have never thought it should admit the good or even the nearly-great, but rather just the guys who when you mention their names, you instantly say to yourself "all-time great." I'm thinking, among current players, of guys like Jeter, A-Rod, Randy Johnson, Griffey, Rivera, probably Smoltz and Glavine, and not too many others. To me, Jim Rice would be a borderline admittee, but he'd probably get in. Dale Murphy? Very good player, in fact an excellent player for a number of years. All-time great? Not in my book.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    I've always thought of the HOF in different terms. I think it should be reserved for the true all-time greats. It's the Holy Grail of individual achievement, and I just have never thought it should admit the good or even the nearly-great, but rather just the guys who when you mention their names, you instantly say to yourself "all-time great."
    This thread just got interesting. A few disjointed thoughts:

    I've long wondered what a HOF should be, philosophically. Right now it looks a little bit like a first-class retirement resort or secret club, with a limited number of invitations. Somewhat exclusive, but the doors are always open if you're great enough. But purists might take it further and consider it a modern-day version of an ancient pantheon, where Gods or saints are celebrated. Zeus? Thomas Aquinas? Talk about all-time greats.

    If you were to construct a Hall of Fame for a relatively young sport, what would it be like? To some extent, commerce plays into this. An expanding HOF means more attractions and more attendance; a year with no inductees means no new media attention and no new revenue. You can also rethink the HOF as less of a membership club and more of a celebration of the sport, where moments are memorialized rather than individuals. In this light, a Baseball Hall of Fame wouldn't necessarily be focused on the major leagues.

    More recently, the talk about re-evaluating the Pete Rose ban has gotten me thinking about the role of morality in a HOF. One can be denied entry into the HOF, but would an enshrined player ever get kicked out? It seems like it comes down to timing: don't be immoral while you're still a candidate, but anything goes once you're in. That feels hypocritical.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    And just a brief plug for Jack Morris -- 256 wins (the most in the 1980s) and 184 losses ... a great postseason pitcher -- he was the dominant pitcher in both the 1984 and 1991 World Series (he waa the MVP of the series)
    Oh absolutely! I can't understand how his name never comes up. I'd like to see Alan Trammel and Sweet Lou Whittaker get the nod, too, but Jack Morris was such a stud.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Partly Orlando, FL partly heard Sandpoint, ID
    I just don't see the argument for guys like Blyleven. He was very good for a long time. But its not the Hall of the Very Good. Its for the very best, and never, ever was Bert Blyleven the top pitcher of his day. I really hate the idea of reaching a milestone in number of victories, or home runs, or whatever ensures you of getting in. Because it can clearly be seen of late that different eras produced different numbers, so the only thing you really can compare to are your contemporaries. And if you aren't significantly better than the players around you, then you don't belong in the hall. Murphy is a more interesting case to me. Because for a 4 year stretch or so(I think it was 82-85 but I'd have to look it up to be sure) he was the best player in the game, bar none. The problem was, outside that 4 year stretch, he put up some pretty pedestrian numbers(which look considerably worse after the steroid age). Morris I'm not so sure of, but my hazy memory puts him kind of like Curt Schilling. A very good pitcher(akin to Blyleven but with the plus of having been the top pitcher in the league for a year or two), whose hopes of getting in rely almost entirely on a couple of strong postseason performances.
    I'm one of those who thinks the Hall should be more restrictive, not less. Even as a Red Sox fan, I thought Rice was a borderline candidate(though I have to make a small comment about the comparison with Murphy... the first half of Murphy's career when he played in center field, his numbers were actually pretty bad defensively... not that this stopped gold glove voters of course... and the team first/me first comparison is erm... well, just pretty much inherent bias), though I think I agree with him just getting in after years of being on the outside.

  14. #14

    HOF

    Bill James warns us against what he calls "the lowest common denomenator" argument in regards to the Hall of Fame.

    That means arguements that start, "If Player A is in the Hall, then Player B should be in too." That ends up setting the standard for admission as the level of the worst player in the Hall.

    There are some pretty not-so-great players in the Hall of Fame -- George "Highpockets" Kelly is my choice for the worst HOFer, but there are plenty of more.

    For Blyleven or Jack Morris, I can see where neither is a "great" and thus doesn't deserve admission. For my part, I would have to resort to the lowest common denominator to argue for Blyeven -- he certainly had a more significant career than Don Drysdale (just 209 wins and only a slightly better winning percentage, despite playing on consistently excellent Dodger teams; Drysdale's ERA is better due to his ballpark and era, but their ERA-plus is nearly identical) or Phil Niekro (who had a worse winning percentage and a higher ERA). For Morris, the comparison you might want to make is Jim "Catfish" Hunter -- his stats are significantly weaker than Morris in almost every category (Hunter, like Morris, was a great postseason pitcher).

    Jim Rice is another guy who is pretty much the lowest common denomenator. I do think he was slightly better than the other guys in this discussion:

    Jim Rice .298 382 HR 1457 RBI .854 OPS
    He played 16 seasons and had 12 when he was a superior batter (an OPS plus of 110 or better)

    Dale Murphy .265 398 1266 RBI .815 OPS
    He played 18 seasons (I was surprised it was more than Rice), but only had nine seasons where he was a superior batter

    Don Mattingly .307 222 HR 1099 RBI .830 OPS
    He played 14 seasons and had just eight seasons that he was a superior batter (but his five peak years were MUCH better than Rice and Murphy)

    Andre Dawson .279 438 HR 1591 RBI .806 OPS
    He played 21 seasons and had 13 seasons as a superior hitter.


    I think the four hitters were fairly close (and of the group, Mattingly was the only significantly superior defensive player; Rice was clearly the weakest defender). But when you compare the numbers, I think Rice has a very slight edge.

    Now, if he were an average, middle-of-the-road HOFer, that would be a powerful argument for Murphy, Mattingly and/or Dawson. But IMHO, Rice is close to being the lowest common denomenator in the Hall. Bringing in one of the other three wouldn't lower the floor much more, but it would lower it.

  15. #15
    Solely based on play, the most deserving player not in the HOF is Rose.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by brianl View Post
    Solely based on play, the most deserving player not in the HOF is Rose.
    No duuuh! But he is not eligible. This is a bit like saying the most deserving player not in the Hall right now is Bonds or ARod or Greg Maddux. They have no more claim to a spot in the Hall than Pete Rose does.

    As an aside, I think Rose will be reinstated in the next year or two. Public sentiment seems to be leaning his way and I suspect the commish will make it happen at some point.

    --Jason "I think Rose 100% deserves to be there - it is a crime he has been held out for so long" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    New Orleans
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    For my part, I would have to resort to the lowest common denominator to argue for Blyeven -- he certainly had a more significant career than Don Drysdale (just 209 wins and only a slightly better winning percentage, despite playing on consistently excellent Dodger teams
    I'd just point out that those Dodger teams were consistently excellent almost entirely because of their starting pitching. They could play a little defense, but for most of the years Drysdale played they were one of the weakest hitting teams to take the field in the last 50 years.

    That said, I'm in agreement that Blyleven belongs in. I keep arguing that the look test is important -- when you went to watch them play did you see some sort of truly exceptional capability? As mentioned above, Blyleven had the game's best curveball for years. Only Camilio Pascual -- finishing up as Blyleven started -- and probably Koufax, had Uncle Charlies that compared to his during what was the era of the big down-breaking curveball (roughly the '40s through the '70s). The pitch seems to have fallen out of favor a bit, presumably becuse it is difficult to locate.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    No duuuh! But he is not eligible. This is a bit like saying the most deserving player not in the Hall right now is Bonds or ARod or Greg Maddux. They have no more claim to a spot in the Hall than Pete Rose does.

    As an aside, I think Rose will be reinstated in the next year or two. Public sentiment seems to be leaning his way and I suspect the commish will make it happen at some point.

    --Jason "I think Rose 100% deserves to be there - it is a crime he has been held out for so long" Evans
    If so, then the question becomes: is there ANYTHING a great player could do, on or off the field, that would or should cause us to say "yes, he was undeniably a great player. But the fact that he did X means that he shouldn't be in the Hall anyway?"

    I don't want to hear "well, Ty Cobb was a racist and he's in" or other similar points. Guys like that are in, and they're not going to be tossed out. All we can do is move forward and determine what the appropriate standards are now. So if a guy with undeniable HOF credentials on the field in terms of stats, impact on the game, etc., turned out to be a child molester, a monstrous thief or fraud perpetrator of some sort, or an ax murderer, does he still get in anyway? I'm not saying Rose is an ax murderer, but my question is 'what does it take to disqualify and otherwise deserving player?'

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Quote Originally Posted by dkbaseball View Post
    Only Camilio Pascual -- finishing up as Blyleven started -- and probably Koufax, had Uncle Charlies that compared to his during what was the era of the big down-breaking curveball (roughly the '40s through the '70s). The pitch seems to have fallen out of favor a bit, presumably becuse it is difficult to locate.
    He's far from an HOFer, but when Barry Zito's Uncle Charlie is working it's something to see. When he was an A, it was terrific. Now that he's been a Giant for several years, it seems to have become only erratic.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    New Orleans
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim3k View Post
    He's far from an HOFer, but when Barry Zito's Uncle Charlie is working it's something to see. When he was an A, it was terrific. Now that he's been a Giant for several years, it seems to have become only erratic.
    Agreed. Zito's a bit of a throwback in having the UC as his money pitch. Or erstwhile money pitch. He's been very effective since the all-star break. I'm rooting for him. The guy's a real pro in his preparation, and has handled the adversity after getting a big contract with a lot of class.

    How many HOF'ers do the Giants have in their starting rotation right now? At least two, I'd think, assuming Lincecum's little body doesn't break down, and maybe more.

Similar Threads

  1. NFL Hall of Fame
    By rockymtn devil in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 11:25 AM
  2. TillyGalore's Hall of Fame Weekend
    By EarlJam in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-10-2008, 11:46 PM
  3. NC Sports Hall of Fame inducts Butters and Hart
    By Bluedawg in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-16-2008, 09:17 AM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-08-2008, 09:47 AM
  5. Hall of Fame debate
    By Olympic Fan in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 06-05-2007, 04:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •