View Poll Results: Who Would You Elect

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • Jeff Bagwell

    21 51.22%
  • Craig Biggio

    25 60.98%
  • Barry Bonds

    21 51.22%
  • Roger Clemens

    19 46.34%
  • Edgar Martinez

    6 14.63%
  • Mark McGwire

    12 29.27%
  • Jack Morris

    6 14.63%
  • Dale Murphy

    10 24.39%
  • Mike Piazza

    25 60.98%
  • Tim Raines

    15 36.59%
  • Curt Schilling

    14 34.15%
  • Sammy Sosa

    5 12.20%
  • Alan Trammell

    8 19.51%
  • David Wells

    4 9.76%
  • Bernie Williams

    3 7.32%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 66
  1. #41
    Dev11's Avatar
    Dev11 is offline Commissioner of Statistics, DBR Podcast
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Aren't some of Bonds' record breaking home run balls on display in the Hall already? It would seem that we have already honored some of his tainted achievements by placing artifacts from them in the Hall. If his statistical achievements still appear in the record books, I don't get why he would not be in the Hall.

    I would love to see the Director of the Hall come out with a statement indicating that it would be up to the Hall, and not up to the player, to determine what information would be part of a player's HOF plaque and display. It would not just be about their golden moments, but also their notable failures... if appropriate. The message there would be, "if you induct one of these suspected PED abusers, we will make sure his display makes note of his tainted history."

    As you can tell, I think the Hall needs to address the careers of players like Bonds and Clemens. There is little question that they are the best batter/pitcher of the past 25 or so years. Their play had a huge influence on a couple decades of baseball success for their teams. Omitting them from the Hall, like they did not exist, makes no sense to me. I don't want to see the taints on their careers glossed over, it should be a significant part of their Hall plaques. To me, it does matter that Bonds and Clemens were clearly on their way to HOF careers before they supposedly began taking PEDs. *

    By the way, when Bud Selig is inevitably put into the Hall, his plaque should also make reference to him presiding over a dark era of baseball history where he and the other stewards of the game turned a blind eye to ridiculous abuse of PEDs.

    --Jason "*- if Barry Bonds had died in a place crash in 1998, he would have been elected to the Hall with 90%+ the very next year" Evans
    I like this idea. The 'users' mean too much to a generation of fans to just exclude them.

    Double ditto on Selig. Sadly, I think that all his plaque will mention is how he was the genius behind the wild card, he expanded the league by 4 franchises, and oversaw the greatest attendance years in league history. There won't be any mention of strikes or PEDs.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by accfanfrom1970 View Post
    Murray had more than just being a switch hitter going for him with the HOF voters - although he was one of the best switch hitters ever. He is in the 3,000 hit club (3255) and one of only 4 players I think to be both in the 3,000 hit club and 500 home run club (Mays, Aaron, Murray, Palmerio). McGriff had 2490 hits. Murray also had a few more home runs, a few more points on the B.A., but a lot more RBIs - 1917 to 1550. Murray was also a ROY and had several gold gloves, and 8 All Star appearances to 5 for McGriff.

    The fact that Murray was a first ballot HOF'er with 85% of the vote and McGriff hasn't gotten close, I think shows they weren't nearly the same player, statisically or in the eyes of the voters.
    Clearly in the eyes of the voters Murray was a better candidate. I am just lamenting that there is such a focus on numbers rather than the player himself.

    Murray played 21 years and, per 162 games, averaged 27 hrs/yr, 103 rbis/yr, .287 ba/yr, and a 129 ops+/yr.
    McGriff played 19 years and, per 162 games, averaged 32 hrs/yr, 102 rbis/yr, .284 ba/yr, and a 134 ops+/yr.

    Add to that the fact that the strike shortened 2 of McGriffs prime seasons, when he was one of the most feared hitters in baseball, and I don't see much difference between his numbers and Murrays. Murray just managed to be more of a compiler than McGriff at the end of his career, while McGriff walked away from the game with 493 hrs rather than trying to hang on and get 7 more hrs to hit the "magic number" of 500.

    Was Murray a better player than McGriff? Maybe, although, to me, they look very similar. Neither ever had a hint of PED use. My point is that, with a slightly deeper analysis than "he hit this benchmark and he didn't hit that benchmark" the fact that they had such disparate voting totals on their first ballot is surprising
    My Quick Smells Like French Toast.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    This morning on ESPN, Tim Kurkjian said there is a large number of HOF voters who think that because Dimagio didn't get in on the first ballot, there is some obligation for voters to not give first ballot votes to anyone they consider inferior to Joe.

    This is perhaps the most absurd logic I have ever heard.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but voters are instructed to vote for players they feel deserve to be in the HOF. How can a voter think Biggio does not deserve to be in the HOF this year but think he will deserve to be there next year? Is there going to be some fundamental shift in how these voters view Biggio 12 months from now versus how they view him now? What could possibly change in that time?

    It is just silly. The folks who vote for the baseball Hall are arbitrary and petty. Many of them are not qualified for the job.

    -Jason "by the way, the biggest snub of all is Marvin Miller -- he should probably have his own freaking wing in the Hall!" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  4. #44
    Dev11's Avatar
    Dev11 is offline Commissioner of Statistics, DBR Podcast
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    This morning on ESPN, Tim Kurkjian said there is a large number of HOF voters who think that because Dimagio didn't get in on the first ballot, there is some obligation for voters to not give first ballot votes to anyone they consider inferior to Joe.

    This is perhaps the most absurd logic I have ever heard.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but voters are instructed to vote for players they feel deserve to be in the HOF. How can a voter think Biggio does not deserve to be in the HOF this year but think he will deserve to be there next year? Is there going to be some fundamental shift in how these voters view Biggio 12 months from now versus how they view him now? What could possibly change in that time?

    It is just silly. The folks who vote for the baseball Hall are arbitrary and petty. Many of them are not qualified for the job.

    -Jason "by the way, the biggest snub of all is Marvin Miller -- he should probably have his own freaking wing in the Hall!" Evans
    Was DiMaggio elected during the years when they were still playing catch-up with the old players? As I recall, the first class went in during the mid-30s, so there's 50 years of baseball history that had to be caught up.

    I agree, it is ridiculous that one guy is or is a 'first-ballot' guy. Once they're in, nobody cares. They're all Hall of Famers.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by Dev11 View Post
    Was DiMaggio elected during the years when they were still playing catch-up with the old players? As I recall, the first class went in during the mid-30s, so there's 50 years of baseball history that had to be caught up.

    I agree, it is ridiculous that one guy is or is a 'first-ballot' guy. Once they're in, nobody cares. They're all Hall of Famers.
    DiMaggio was elected in 1955. I checked a list of HOF'ers elected before then, and it included
    Chief Bender
    Roger Bresnahan
    Jimmy (not Eddie) Collins
    Candy Cummings ("inventor" of the curveball)
    Hugh Duffy

    I stopped at this point of the alphabet. The point being that the notion that the HOF is only for the Willie Mays-type of player had already come and gone.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    This morning on ESPN, Tim Kurkjian said there is a large number of HOF voters who think that because Dimagio didn't get in on the first ballot, there is some obligation for voters to not give first ballot votes to anyone they consider inferior to Joe.

    This is perhaps the most absurd logic I have ever heard.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but voters are instructed to vote for players they feel deserve to be in the HOF. How can a voter think Biggio does not deserve to be in the HOF this year but think he will deserve to be there next year? Is there going to be some fundamental shift in how these voters view Biggio 12 months from now versus how they view him now? What could possibly change in that time?

    It is just silly. The folks who vote for the baseball Hall are arbitrary and petty. Many of them are not qualified for the job.

    -Jason "by the way, the biggest snub of all is Marvin Miller -- he should probably have his own freaking wing in the Hall!" Evans
    I mentioned this whole thing earlier. The voters seem to think more of themselves than any of us. They genuinely do look at someone and see whether they deserve to be a 1st ballot HOFer and vote like that. Not whether they deserve to be in. Then you also have players like Morris who gain momentum like something changed with their ballot. It is amazing to see these guys eventually get in like you saw with Andre Dawson. Dawson went from 45.3% to 77.9% from 2002 to 2010. To me, that makes no sense. What are they trying to do? Tell Dawson he isn't a 1st ballot nor 8th ballot but a 9th ballot HOFer. And my biggest concern is that this threatens some players who deserve to be in from getting the shaft if the voters wait too long or if new voters didn't grow up watching them. I was too young to remember Dawson much, so as a voter, I can just vote off numbers which doesn't do some justice. I haven't studied the other HOF as much but it seems that players usually get in first ballot and if you don't get in, your chances seem to be much lower going forward but I'll have to look into that.

    And next year, you might see more snubs b/c you should have some sure fire 1st ballot HOFers but then again, who knows.

    As far as Maddux/Glavine which I alluded to earlier. I wasn't getting into the numbers. My main point was that both are HOFers. I don't think anyone is going to argue against that. So let them enter together with Bobby Cox. Heck, let Smoltz join a year early. The voters don't think like this, but as a fan, it would be cool to see all 4 go in together.

  7. #47
    Dev11's Avatar
    Dev11 is offline Commissioner of Statistics, DBR Podcast
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Quote Originally Posted by sporthenry View Post
    As far as Maddux/Glavine which I alluded to earlier. I wasn't getting into the numbers. My main point was that both are HOFers. I don't think anyone is going to argue against that. So let them enter together with Bobby Cox. Heck, let Smoltz join a year early. The voters don't think like this, but as a fan, it would be cool to see all 4 go in together.
    It would certainly make it simple for Braves fans who want to trek up to see those inductions. The cruel thing would be for each of those guys and Chipper to enter in different years, necessitating all those separate summer trips.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by sporthenry View Post
    Then you also have players like Morris who gain momentum like something changed with their ballot.
    I tend to think of this unfortunate feature of the system as stemming from the same old school vs. new school battleground that gives us the idiocy of some voters making a distinction between "first ballot" and otherwise. [If MLB wanted them to think along those lines, they'd instruct them accordingly]

    For every informed voter like Rob Neyer and Tim Kurkjian out there, there's still an egocentric like Rick Reilly looking for attention and controversy, and a couple of embittered local paper beat writers and columnists who, longing for an era of sports journalism long since dead, and cursing bloggers and Bill James for ruining the game every step of the way, continue to vote the same way their bosses taught them to when they were coming up, bellowing with whiskey breath through cigar smoke in between lamenting the Dodgers leaving Brooklyn and comparing every player to their best friend The Mick: they go with their "gut feelings" and the "eye test" and waffle year over year about whether or not their instincts told them "That guy's a Hall of Famer" the first time they saw the sun glisten off his spikes as he stood (majestically, no doubt) in the outfield at the old Veterans Stadium. By treating the Hall of Fame balloting process as some sort of dramatic metastory, and reserving the right to "change their minds" after ten years, they can add one more chapter to the story of a ballplayer's career and their own portfolio. And, conveniently, in the process they bestow upon themselves a feeling of power over these athletes they both desperately worship and loathe at the same time.

    The theoretical point of being on the ballot for 15 years is, I suppose, to allow time for people to become more educated on a player, and refine their opinions after consideration. I just don't think it's working that way, other than in the sense that it allows time for public outcry and campaigns, and enough time for other writers to cajole the neanderthals into voting the right way by mocking their arguments in public. I guess, as someone who spent the better part of a decade proselytizing about why Bert Blyleven was getting the shaft in Hall of Fame voting for a week or so every January, only to see the system work as I just described, I can't complain too much. If it works for Morris, too, though, I'll consider it an injustice.

    I actually think it would be a worthwhile modification to the system to (a) first shrink the voting pool by using an algorithm that takes away the vote of anyone outside a certain variance from the "average" ballot, and then (b) once you've a reliable pool of non-jokers and grudgeholders, just make it a one chance system. Force everybody to do their homework and have their debates now, once and for all for any given player, and then vote their true feelings the first and only time they vote on that player. That would probably require a longer period between retirement and ballot, I think, but that would be OK.

    FWIW, I'm firmly in the camp that has limited outrage toward the players of the steroid era and says just vote them in and put an imaginary asterisk next to them when you talk about their possibly tainted accomplishments if you need to, for a number of reasons. Among them the very muddy understanding of how many guys were using and in what capacity; the very limited quantification of what specific performance enhancement was gained (and denial of the ridiculous amount of work it takes to make them have their desired effect on muscle-building); the impossibility of separating the significant number of simultaneous developments in the majors that independently and significantly increased homerun hitting and the prominence of the power game during the same era; the historical (very open) use of amphetamines and other drugs in the game that had a not trivial performance enhancing effect and our complete lack of discussion of those as a basis for comparison; and the fact that (a) the league, (b) the media, and (c) most importantly, the fans, sent approximately zero strong signals to players imposing a norm of "that's wrong and cheating and we'll villify you someday" regarding steroids until well after the fact. Chastise them now, express our disapproval of lying to Congress, put a mention of their involvement in the scandal on the description of their career at Cooperstown. That's all good with me. But pretending they never played the game, never thrilled us with their abilities, this doesn't make sense to me. It seems like projection of our own guilt in complicity. Are we so afraid of having the conversation with our sons about the 1990's in baseball that we have to whitewash it out of existence and treat the "punishment" of all these players as the end of the matter? Teachable moment, in my mind.

    Anyhoo, that said my ballot would have included Bagwell, Biggio and Raines as in, although I understand reservations on the part of others, and Bonds, Clemens and Piazza as no brainers. I personally find Bonds and Clemens (especially Clemens) to be detestable humans on most every front, but they're also the best pitcher and hitter of the postwar era, far and away. And Piazza, undistinguished as he may be as a defensive catcher, is without argument the best hitting catcher in the history of the game, with a career OPS+ of 143, and it's difficult with that offensive record not to say he's clearly one of the 5 best catchers of all time. How's that not a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame?

  9. #49
    Dev11's Avatar
    Dev11 is offline Commissioner of Statistics, DBR Podcast
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    I tend to think of this unfortunate feature of the system as stemming from the same old school vs. new school battleground that gives us the idiocy of some voters making a distinction between "first ballot" and otherwise. [If MLB wanted them to think along those lines, they'd instruct them accordingly]

    For every informed voter like Rob Neyer and Tim Kurkjian out there, there's still an egocentric like Rick Reilly looking for attention and controversy, and a couple of embittered local paper beat writers and columnists who, longing for an era of sports journalism long since dead, and cursing bloggers and Bill James for ruining the game every step of the way, continue to vote the same way their bosses taught them to when they were coming up, bellowing with whiskey breath through cigar smoke in between lamenting the Dodgers leaving Brooklyn and comparing every player to their best friend The Mick: they go with their "gut feelings" and the "eye test" and waffle year over year about whether or not their instincts told them "That guy's a Hall of Famer" the first time they saw the sun glisten off his spikes as he stood (majestically, no doubt) in the outfield at the old Veterans Stadium. By treating the Hall of Fame balloting process as some sort of dramatic metastory, and reserving the right to "change their minds" after ten years, they can add one more chapter to the story of a ballplayer's career and their own portfolio. And, conveniently, in the process they bestow upon themselves a feeling of power over these athletes they both desperately worship and loathe at the same time.

    The theoretical point of being on the ballot for 15 years is, I suppose, to allow time for people to become more educated on a player, and refine their opinions after consideration. I just don't think it's working that way, other than in the sense that it allows time for public outcry and campaigns, and enough time for other writers to cajole the neanderthals into voting the right way by mocking their arguments in public. I guess, as someone who spent the better part of a decade proselytizing about why Bert Blyleven was getting the shaft in Hall of Fame voting for a week or so every January, only to see the system work as I just described, I can't complain too much. If it works for Morris, too, though, I'll consider it an injustice.

    I actually think it would be a worthwhile modification to the system to (a) first shrink the voting pool by using an algorithm that takes away the vote of anyone outside a certain variance from the "average" ballot, and then (b) once you've a reliable pool of non-jokers and grudgeholders, just make it a one chance system. Force everybody to do their homework and have their debates now, once and for all for any given player, and then vote their true feelings the first and only time they vote on that player. That would probably require a longer period between retirement and ballot, I think, but that would be OK.

    FWIW, I'm firmly in the camp that has limited outrage toward the players of the steroid era and says just vote them in and put an imaginary asterisk next to them when you talk about their possibly tainted accomplishments if you need to, for a number of reasons. Among them the very muddy understanding of how many guys were using and in what capacity; the very limited quantification of what specific performance enhancement was gained (and denial of the ridiculous amount of work it takes to make them have their desired effect on muscle-building); the impossibility of separating the significant number of simultaneous developments in the majors that independently and significantly increased homerun hitting and the prominence of the power game during the same era; the historical (very open) use of amphetamines and other drugs in the game that had a not trivial performance enhancing effect and our complete lack of discussion of those as a basis for comparison; and the fact that (a) the league, (b) the media, and (c) most importantly, the fans, sent approximately zero strong signals to players imposing a norm of "that's wrong and cheating and we'll villify you someday" regarding steroids until well after the fact. Chastise them now, express our disapproval of lying to Congress, put a mention of their involvement in the scandal on the description of their career at Cooperstown. That's all good with me. But pretending they never played the game, never thrilled us with their abilities, this doesn't make sense to me. It seems like projection of our own guilt in complicity. Are we so afraid of having the conversation with our sons about the 1990's in baseball that we have to whitewash it out of existence and treat the "punishment" of all these players as the end of the matter? Teachable moment, in my mind.

    Anyhoo, that said my ballot would have included Bagwell, Biggio and Raines as in, although I understand reservations on the part of others, and Bonds, Clemens and Piazza as no brainers. I personally find Bonds and Clemens (especially Clemens) to be detestable humans on most every front, but they're also the best pitcher and hitter of the postwar era, far and away. And Piazza, undistinguished as he may be as a defensive catcher, is without argument the best hitting catcher in the history of the game, with a career OPS+ of 143, and it's difficult with that offensive record not to say he's clearly one of the 5 best catchers of all time. How's that not a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame?
    I agree with everything here. Does Rick Reilly really have a Hall of Fame vote? I wouldn't even quality him as a 'sportswriter' anymore, and I'm not sure how many years it's been since he was one.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    (a) the league, (b) the media, and (c) most importantly, the fans, sent approximately zero strong signals to players imposing a norm of "that's wrong and cheating and we'll villify you someday" regarding steroids until well after the fact.
    I was about to rehash my point about sportswriters being the worst offenders in this whole mess, but I guess you covered that in group (b).

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    And Piazza, undistinguished as he may be as a defensive catcher, is without argument the best hitting catcher in the history of the game, with a career OPS+ of 143, and it's difficult with that offensive record not to say he's clearly one of the 5 best catchers of all time. How's that not a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame?
    I agree with most of what you said, although I don't agree with the notion that Bonds or Clemens should be in. One minor quibble about Piazza: he is not the best hitting catcher in the history of the game. Josh Gibson is.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by rasputin View Post
    I agree with most of what you said, although I don't agree with the notion that Bonds or Clemens should be in. One minor quibble about Piazza: he is not the best hitting catcher in the history of the game. Josh Gibson is.
    Fine, replace "the game" with "the Majors." It would be an interesting argument between the two, however. One would have to consider at least two factors in that comparison, both of which probably favor Piazza, though the raw numbers would argue for Gibson (at least in terms of triple slash). The first would be to come up with some guess as to how Gibson would have fared against the superior pitching he'd have faced in an integrated (or, in Piazza's case, global) league, much the way some debate whether and how much to discount Babe Ruth's numbers based on the fact there were plenty of guys in the Negro Leagues who would have improved upon some of the white pitchers he faced, had he played in a different time. The other would be to account for the fact that Piazza had about four times as many plate appearances. Gibson played for at least a dozen seasons, but the number of games in those seasons would have equalled only about four full MLB seasons. So the pure counting stats just don't stack up. There's no skew based on age there, or a particular indicator that he wouldn't have compiled hits, HR's and such similar to Piazza's totals had he played in 2,000 games, since he played from a young age through and beyond a prime. But there may be a skew one way or the other (and my gut tells me it would inflate his numbers, but I haven't given it much deep thought) from the fact he had less than a hundred at-bats in multiple seasons.

  13. #53

    Gibson

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    Fine, replace "the game" with "the Majors." It would be an interesting argument between the two, however. One would have to consider at least two factors in that comparison, both of which probably favor Piazza, though the raw numbers would argue for Gibson (at least in terms of triple slash). The first would be to come up with some guess as to how Gibson would have fared against the superior pitching he'd have faced in an integrated (or, in Piazza's case, global) league, much the way some debate whether and how much to discount Babe Ruth's numbers based on the fact there were plenty of guys in the Negro Leagues who would have improved upon some of the white pitchers he faced, had he played in a different time. The other would be to account for the fact that Piazza had about four times as many plate appearances. Gibson played for at least a dozen seasons, but the number of games in those seasons would have equalled only about four full MLB seasons. So the pure counting stats just don't stack up. There's no skew based on age there, or a particular indicator that he wouldn't have compiled hits, HR's and such similar to Piazza's totals had he played in 2,000 games, since he played from a young age through and beyond a prime. But there may be a skew one way or the other (and my gut tells me it would inflate his numbers, but I haven't given it much deep thought) from the fact he had less than a hundred at-bats in multiple seasons.
    Just a word about Josh Gibson and the number of games he played.

    Mal notes, Piazza had about four times as many plate appearances ... but that's a slippery claim. The fact is that there were far less Negro League "official" games in Gibson's era than the 162 a year that Piazza played. But Gibson played far more games overall because Negro League teams played hunfreds of exhibitions. Durig his prime, Satch Paige rarely pitched for the Monarchs -- the owner put him on the road with a bunch of scrubs and they would play exhibitions in the hick towns (they even carried their own temporary lights) while the Monarchs were playing official games during the season. Paige would show up to pitch for the big team in the all-star game or the world series, but he pitched very few "official" games. Gibson had a lot of that too. A season might be 20-50 official games ... but would include 200 exhibitions.

    That's why the claim that Gibson hit over 700 home runs is so bogus. He didn't get anything like that in "official" games ... but he probably did if you include all the exhibitions. (of course, they you start to argue about how many Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron hit if you add their exhibitions).

    I keep putting quote around "official" because there really isn't such thing. Even in the prime of the Negro Leagues, schedules would be made up as they went along. There would often be considerable debate about what was an offcial game. It's just a personal opinion but I wouldn't believe a single stat coming out of the Negro Leagues -- the owners often used to fiddle with the numbers to get the outcome they wanted.

    All that said, I would agree that Gibson was the greatest hitting catcher of all time. I believe the eye-witness testimony. I also believe that the Negro players in the 1920s and 1930s and 1940s were as good as the Negro players in the 1950s and 1960s ... and today. Jackie Robinson was a good, not great player in the Negro Leagues. He was great when he got his chance. I can't believe that Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente, Frank Robinson and the rest were so different than Papa Bell, Mule Suttles, Buck Leonard ... and Josh Gibson.

    But I believe that on faith ... I think you can go crazy trying to support that opinion with official stats.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    Just a word about Josh Gibson and the number of games he played.

    Mal notes, Piazza had about four times as many plate appearances ... but that's a slippery claim. The fact is that there were far less Negro League "official" games in Gibson's era than the 162 a year that Piazza played. But Gibson played far more games overall because Negro League teams played hunfreds of exhibitions. Durig his prime, Satch Paige rarely pitched for the Monarchs -- the owner put him on the road with a bunch of scrubs and they would play exhibitions in the hick towns (they even carried their own temporary lights) while the Monarchs were playing official games during the season. Paige would show up to pitch for the big team in the all-star game or the world series, but he pitched very few "official" games. Gibson had a lot of that too. A season might be 20-50 official games ... but would include 200 exhibitions.

    That's why the claim that Gibson hit over 700 home runs is so bogus. He didn't get anything like that in "official" games ... but he probably did if you include all the exhibitions. (of course, they you start to argue about how many Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron hit if you add their exhibitions).

    I keep putting quote around "official" because there really isn't such thing. Even in the prime of the Negro Leagues, schedules would be made up as they went along. There would often be considerable debate about what was an offcial game. It's just a personal opinion but I wouldn't believe a single stat coming out of the Negro Leagues -- the owners often used to fiddle with the numbers to get the outcome they wanted.

    All that said, I would agree that Gibson was the greatest hitting catcher of all time. I believe the eye-witness testimony. I also believe that the Negro players in the 1920s and 1930s and 1940s were as good as the Negro players in the 1950s and 1960s ... and today. Jackie Robinson was a good, not great player in the Negro Leagues. He was great when he got his chance. I can't believe that Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente, Frank Robinson and the rest were so different than Papa Bell, Mule Suttles, Buck Leonard ... and Josh Gibson.

    But I believe that on faith ... I think you can go crazy trying to support that opinion with official stats.
    OF, you said everything I was about to say, except I will add this: the argument that pre-integration players (of whatever color) didn't play against the best competition is counterbalanced by the fact that in those days, baseball got nearly all of the best athletes, and it didn't have to "compete" for them with football, basketball, etc.

    We also know that in Josh Gibson's day, he was one of the most feared hitters around, regardless of position.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    This morning on ESPN, Tim Kurkjian said there is a large number of HOF voters who think that because Dimagio didn't get in on the first ballot, there is some obligation for voters to not give first ballot votes to anyone they consider inferior to Joe.

    This is perhaps the most absurd logic I have ever heard.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but voters are instructed to vote for players they feel deserve to be in the HOF. How can a voter think Biggio does not deserve to be in the HOF this year but think he will deserve to be there next year? Is there going to be some fundamental shift in how these voters view Biggio 12 months from now versus how they view him now? What could possibly change in that time?

    It is just silly. The folks who vote for the baseball Hall are arbitrary and petty. Many of them are not qualified for the job.

    -Jason "by the way, the biggest snub of all is Marvin Miller -- he should probably have his own freaking wing in the Hall!" Evans
    Along these lines, one interesting question I have is whether any of the following players will be elected unanimously: Greg Maddux, Cal Ripken, Derek Jeter, Ken Griffey.

    To me, Maddux is the easiest case. How can anyone not vote for him? If he's not a Hall of Famer, then it shouldn't exist. However, no player has ever been elected unanimously, and some voters want to keep it that way. But when Maddux's vote comes up (or Jeter's or Griffey's), I'd like the voters who don't vote for that player to have to explain their reasoning.
    Singler is IRON

    I STILL GOT IT! -- Ryan Kelly, March 2, 2013

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. synellinden View Post
    Along these lines, one interesting question I have is whether any of the following players will be elected unanimously: Greg Maddux, Cal Ripken, Derek Jeter, Ken Griffey.

    To me, Maddux is the easiest case. How can anyone not vote for him? If he's not a Hall of Famer, then it shouldn't exist. However, no player has ever been elected unanimously, and some voters want to keep it that way. But when Maddux's vote comes up (or Jeter's or Griffey's), I'd like the voters who don't vote for that player to have to explain their reasoning.
    Ripken is already in the HOF with 98.53% of the vote his year. The highest percentage ever was for Tom Seaver. I don't think anyone will be elected unanimously unless the rules are changed. If Willie Mays wasn't unanimous, Greg Maddux sure isn't. Maddux, Jeter, and Griffey will all easily be elected in their first year of eligibility.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. synellinden View Post
    Along these lines, one interesting question I have is whether any of the following players will be elected unanimously: Greg Maddux, Cal Ripken, Derek Jeter, Ken Griffey.

    To me, Maddux is the easiest case. How can anyone not vote for him? If he's not a Hall of Famer, then it shouldn't exist. However, no player has ever been elected unanimously, and some voters want to keep it that way. But when Maddux's vote comes up (or Jeter's or Griffey's), I'd like the voters who don't vote for that player to have to explain their reasoning.
    None will be. The reasoning of those who don't vote for any of them will be that the greatest players in baseball history weren't unanimous, so these guys shouldn't be either.
    Demented and sad, but social, right?

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    The folks who vote for the baseball Hall are arbitrary and petty. Many of them are not qualified for the job.
    It did not surprise me at all that no living person got inducted. This was the year for baseball writers to make their anti-PED statement, which to them was more important than electing one or two clean players.

    Anyway, I think way too much attention is paid to the induction process for the Baseball Hall of Fame. I think two separate points can be helpful:

    1. Think of the Baseball Hall of Fame as analogous to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Inclusion is arbitrary and more than a little political. There's quite a bit of press about how various acts aren't considered because Jann Wenner, creator of Rolling Stone magazine and co-founder of the Hall, simply doesn't like them. The Hall of Fame process in baseball, while more structured and less unilateral, is still based on the whims of an extremely small subset of opinion that is far removed from public opinion.

    2. Baseball, more than other sports, is defined by its history, and the average fan is well-informed of the numbers and moments that help make up that history. As a result, I would argue that the Baseball Hall of Fame is less important to the preservation of the sport than other Halls of Fame. And while I've never been to Cooperstown, the building itself seems to be a dichotomy: part of it is a running chronicle of baseball history, including artifacts from enshrined, active, and unlikely-to-be-enshrined players. The rest of it exhibits the enshrined players.

    Others can say more about the Cooperstown experience itself. Is there anything there commemorating Pete Rose's record-breaking hit? Barry Bonds' HR ball? I wonder if visitors really feel an absence of certain players if their stuff is on display.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by brevity View Post
    Others can say more about the Cooperstown experience itself. Is there anything there commemorating Pete Rose's record-breaking hit? Barry Bonds' HR ball? I wonder if visitors really feel an absence of certain players if their stuff is on display.
    Yes to both. But those are both among baseball's most revered records. Many potential hall of famers don't have claim to anything similar. I don't know if there's anything from, for example, Roger Clemens' or Manny Ramirez' careers. I assume there's nothing from Rafael Palmeiro's career. So if guys like that aren't voted in, there will likely be an absence as a result. (At least to the extent that such excluded players' impact on the game is worthy of the HOF).
    Demented and sad, but social, right?

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by brevity View Post
    It did not surprise me at all that no living person got inducted. This was the year for baseball writers to make their anti-PED statement, which to them was more important than electing one or two clean players.

    Anyway, I think way too much attention is paid to the induction process for the Baseball Hall of Fame. I think two separate points can be helpful:

    1. Think of the Baseball Hall of Fame as analogous to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Inclusion is arbitrary and more than a little political. There's quite a bit of press about how various acts aren't considered because Jann Wenner, creator of Rolling Stone magazine and co-founder of the Hall, simply doesn't like them. The Hall of Fame process in baseball, while more structured and less unilateral, is still based on the whims of an extremely small subset of opinion that is far removed from public opinion.

    2. Baseball, more than other sports, is defined by its history, and the average fan is well-informed of the numbers and moments that help make up that history. As a result, I would argue that the Baseball Hall of Fame is less important to the preservation of the sport than other Halls of Fame. And while I've never been to Cooperstown, the building itself seems to be a dichotomy: part of it is a running chronicle of baseball history, including artifacts from enshrined, active, and unlikely-to-be-enshrined players. The rest of it exhibits the enshrined players.

    Others can say more about the Cooperstown experience itself. Is there anything there commemorating Pete Rose's record-breaking hit? Barry Bonds' HR ball? I wonder if visitors really feel an absence of certain players if their stuff is on display.
    I have made ten or so pilgrimages to Cooperstown. The actual HOF (where the plaques are) is a small fraction of the place; it's the HOF "and museum" and most of the place is museum. There are lots of artifacts there, which certainly include players who are not elected (including Pete Rose and Joe Jackson). The last time I was there (keep in mind that the museum is constantly evolving) there was an exhibit that touched on the steroid scandal and basically left it to the viewer to make his/her own judgments.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 59
    Last Post: 01-14-2011, 10:40 AM
  2. Baseball Hall of Fame
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 01-13-2010, 11:01 AM
  3. Clarkston Hines Added to College Football Hall of Fame Ballot
    By Devil in the Blue Dress in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-04-2009, 08:21 PM
  4. NFL Hall of Fame
    By rockymtn devil in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 11:25 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
  •