If you restarted the Hall of Fame...

On Jul 1, 3:13 pm, t....TakeThisOut@toast.net wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:52:34 -0500, Lance Freezeland
>
> <freezelandlaw.nos....TakeThisOut@consolidated.net> wrote:
> >Pool of possible candidates off the top of my head:
>
> >First base -- Gehrig, Foxx, Murray, McCovey, Anson, Stargell
>
> Gotta add Bill Terry...hit .401 in 1930 and had a career BA of .341.

A) Batting average is style points.
B) The league (including pitchers) hit .303 in 1930. Don't
get me wrong -- good year. But we're talking inner circle
HOF first-basemen. It would be Frank Thomas' 9th best year
with the bat as a for instance. (And yes, Thomas played
first in every single one of them. Not particularly well,
but ...)

I'd think Bagwell and Thmas are the obvious guys missing
from Lance's list.

Dale Stephenson has Terry with the 27th best 5 year peak
for first-basemen. And 19 of those guys had more value
off peak as well. He could hit, but it's a hitter's position.
Will Clark was a better player than Bill Terry.
 >> Stay informed about: If you restarted the Hall of Fame... 

On Jun 30, 10:36 am, Sam Hutcheson <s... DeleteThis @bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Colin William wrote:
> > ...who would be the first five players you'd induct in the first class? Joe
> > Posnanski poses the question in his latest blog, and I think it's a good
> > one:
>
> >http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/06/28/first-class/
>
> Five seems like an arbitary number. I realize it's the "first class",
> but if we're tearing it down and starting from scratch, can't we elect
> a first "team?" No? I must play by the stated rules even if I don't
> like them? Fine. But I'm not limiting my ballot to positional
> considerations, then.
>
> Ty Cobb
> Babe Ruth
> Jackie Robinson
>
> Robinson changed the game by simply being there.

And is a legitimately great player. He'll rank with most anybody
in value from age 28 on.

Or to put it another way, good as he was it's very possible we
never saw the best of Robinson. (

> Cobb and Ruth
> changed the game by the force of their talents. Both of those guys
> came into a league defined by a singular style of play and left a
> league completely redefined by *their* style of play.

Don't see this with Cobb. I'd say Cobb essentially perfected
the dead ball offensive game and adapted well to the lively ball.
>
> Walter Johnson
>
> I am of the opinion that Walter Johnson is the best pitcher to ever
> throw a baseball. Lefty Grove and Greg Maddux compete but I'm just
> not quite ready to over-write the Big Train's place in history just
> yet.

The big advantage he has over Grove -- even adjusting for context --
is in workload. Throw in his hitting and it adds up to a clear edge.

Only possible issue is the strength of league. He started out
in a very weak league. Never mind the issue of race, the AL and
NL didn't have all of the best white players. You don't have to
look any further than Gavvy Cravath to see this.

League got progressively stronger, and by the mid-20s great
teams like Jack Dunn's Baltimore could no longer retain
their best players. Even so, Grove lost at least two years
of his major league career (he went 108-35 for the Orioles
in a 5 year run. And in a time when not many pitchers
were striking out many, he set an IL record for Ks that
still stands. In fact, nobody's come within 100 of it.
Pitchers with that kind of stuff have never spent enough
time in the minors to win 108 games, but the team he played
for could probably have finished 5th in the AL)
 >> Stay informed about: If you restarted the Hall of Fame... 

On Jun 28, 9:58 pm, "Colin William" <colintwill... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...who would be the first five players you'd induct in the first class? Joe
> Posnanski poses the question in his latest blog, and I think it's a good
> one:
>
> http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/06/28/first-class/
>
> I must admit to being sold on his argument re: Jackie Robinson. So I'd
> probably go with:
> Jackie Robinson - for the reasons in the article

I'm not sold. Robinson's only part of the equation after all. Great,
and destroyer of oh so many myths. But without Rickey and without
Landis' death, Robinson doesn't get the chance.

In terms of impact on the game, I think Cap Anson's in the same
class. Not so much for the color line -- he was influential here
in no small part because he was speaking for the majority -- but
rather because he more than anybody else kept baseball in the big
cities when it was in danger of being driven out of them.

One interesting thing about Anson that shows what a shambles
the record keeping was in when he was voted in. At the time
it was believed he had over 4,000 hits -- a rather significant
difference from his actual totals.


> Babe Ruth - probably the game's biggest star, probably its best hitter
> Walter Johnson - adjusting for era Pedro has been better, but the Big Train
> has more than twice as many innings under his belt.
> Honus Wagner - I wanted someone in the middle infield, and it was between
> Wagner or Hornsby. Wagner played the tougher position and had a longer
> productive career, so I gave him the nod.

This one ain't close. Wagner dominates his position like nobody else.

I honestly don't understand how somebody can have Hornsby/Wagner
decision. Not least because you've got a mediocre second-baseman
versus a good shortstop.

Most people don't get the sheer breadth of Wagner's offensive talents.
In addition to the 8 batting titles, 4 OBP titles and 7 SLG titles
(6 OPS+ titles), and 5 SB titles, he has an endless success of
podium appearances. (14 times in the top 10 in OPS+, 10 times in
the top 10 in SB, 15 times in SLG)

And he did this in an game that he was probably less than
perfectly suited for. In addition to everything else, he
was strong. Didn't matter in the game he played in, but
if he'd played with a lively ball there's no reason to
doubt he'd have hit plenty of home runs.

> Josh Gibson - seems to be the consensus best hitter in the Negro Leagues,
> and at catcher too. Some might argue we don't know because we don't have the
> stats; I decide not to penalize him for that, and give him the benefit of
> the doubt.

I don't. I've seen too much myth making from players we do have
the stats for.

> I feel wrong leaving out guys like Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Williams and Musial,
> but then I'd have a debut class entirely composed of outfielders.

Well that's why a class of five feels silly to me. I'm more interested
in where you draw the line after a re-opening rather than trying to
pick from the 40 or so no brainers.
 >> Stay informed about: If you restarted the Hall of Fame... 

Ron Johnson wrote:
>>Josh Gibson - seems to be the consensus best hitter in the Negro Leagues,
>>and at catcher too. Some might argue we don't know because we don't have the
>>stats; I decide not to penalize him for that, and give him the benefit of
>>the doubt.
>
> I don't. I've seen too much myth making from players we do have
> the stats for.

So what do you re: Negro Leaguers, then? It's not their fault we don't
have detailed records, but do you declare them ineligible?

Colin
 >> Stay informed about: If you restarted the Hall of Fame... 

On Jul 2, 4:00 pm, Colin William <colintwill... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> >>Josh Gibson - seems to be the consensus best hitter in the Negro Leagues,
> >>and at catcher too. Some might argue we don't know because we don't have the
> >>stats; I decide not to penalize him for that, and give him the benefit of
> >>the doubt.
>
> > I don't. I've seen too much myth making from players we do have
> > the stats for.
>
> So what do you re: Negro Leaguers, then? It's not their fault we don't
> have detailed records, but do you declare them ineligible?

Ineligible for what? Consideration for greatness? Hardly.

I'm confident that Gibson was a high average hitter
with excellent power. And from that his only probable
competitor for best hitting catcher (by rate -- and
Cochrane for instance wouldn't get any kind of edge
for workload) is Mike Piazza.

Piazza's an awfully tough target (worked more games
in his prime than most of the great catchers and had
comfortably better rate stats), and saying that there's
no certainty that Gibson's bat wasn't as valuable as
Piazza's isn't what I'd call an insult.

Of course Piazza has a very tangible weakness. Always
threw badly. What about Gibson though? No way of knowing.

I mean it's probable he was more effective against
the running game than Piazza, but that's simply
because Piazza is about as bad as you can be and
still have a long career. Gibson could have been
bad against the running game and still worth playing
at catcher (I know he had a good rep, but I know you
can't trust anecdotal evidence about catcher's defense)

Gibson belongs in any discussion about great
catchers, since I think he's a reasonable comp
to any of the great catchers using the most
pessimistic assumptions. But it's a long way
from "in the discussion" to the no doubt,
utterly dominates the position that's needed
to make him one of the top 5 players of all time.

Based on the available record I'd say he's
somewhere between Buzz Arlett and Jimmy
Foxx as an offensive player. If Arlett seems a
low end projection, look at his minor league
numbers and tell me what seems out of place with
Gibson's known record (~2800 PAs)
 >> Stay informed about: If you restarted the Hall of Fame... 

In article <d64477b2-e991-4a44-9522-2c5b71c29dd7
@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, johnson.DeleteThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca says...
> On Jun 28, 9:58 pm, "Colin William" <colintwill....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > ...who would be the first five players you'd induct in the first class? Joe
> > Posnanski poses the question in his latest blog, and I think it's a good
> > one:
> >
> > http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/06/28/first-class/

> Well that's why a class of five feels silly to me. I'm more interested
> in where you draw the line after a re-opening rather than trying to
> pick from the 40 or so no brainers.

Right in front of Bert Blylevin, just 'cause.

--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
 >> Stay informed about: If you restarted the Hall of Fame... 

On Jul 2, 8:56 pm, Dale Hicks <dgh1....DeleteThis@southernbell.com> wrote:
> In article <d64477b2-e991-4a44-9522-2c5b71c29dd7
> @e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, john....DeleteThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca says...
>
> > On Jun 28, 9:58 pm, "Colin William" <colintwill....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > ...who would be the first five players you'd induct in the first class? Joe
> > > Posnanski poses the question in his latest blog, and I think it's a good
> > > one:
>
> > >http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/06/28/first-class/
> > Well that's why a class of five feels silly to me. I'm more interested
> > in where you draw the line after a re-opening rather than trying to
> > pick from the 40 or so no brainers.
>
> Right in front of Bert Blylevin, just 'cause.

You are pleased to jest, but I'm fine with that kind of a definition.

Problem being that it would be very bad business in Cooperstown
if you're not inducting anybody on a regular basis.
 >> Stay informed about: If you restarted the Hall of Fame... 

On Jul 3, 11:34 am, "Colin William" <colintwill....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Are there any comparable HoF 2B from that time?

Not a great comp, but you've got Bobby Doerr -- a veterans
committee pick. (I think you have to credit Ted Williams for
this selection)

You've also got Joe Gordon. Better than Doerr. Not in.

Red Schoendienst. But nobody thinks he was qualified on
his playing career alone.

Nellie Fox. Veteran Committee. Good player for a long time.

Fox and Schoendienst suggests that at least for the Veterans
Committee career length matters a lot.

Then there's the whole cronyism issue. And the lack of understanding
about park illusion (in the case of Gordon/Doerr)
 >> Stay informed about: If you restarted the Hall of Fame... 

On Jul 3, 1:26 pm, "Colin William" <colintwill....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Ron Johnson" <john....RemoveThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote
>
> > Fox and Schoendienst suggests that at least for the Veterans
> > Committee career length matters a lot.
>
> > Then there's the whole cronyism issue. And the lack of understanding
> > about park illusion (in the case of Gordon/Doerr)
>
> Doerr seems like the nearest comp to what JR's career length likely would
> have been; I wonder how close he came on balloting prior to going in on the
> VC?

Peaked at 22%

Gordon did a little better, peaking at 29%

> One would presume the higher career SB and BA of Robinson over Doerr
> would have made him a more appealing candidate.

I'm pretty sure that Robinson's SBs aren't near enough to
attract any attention by the voters.

And Doerr was much better at driving in runs -- something we
know voters care about. (Yet another thing he can thank
Williams for. His career high came batting in the middle of
the lineup on a team that had a .382 OBP -- including pitchers)


In the end, The HOF monitor is 98 for Robinson and 95.5 for Doerr.
Meaning both just needed some bulk filler to become good HOF
candidates. (Both are roughly one good year short of being
excellent candidates according to the monitor)
> Looks like robinson did
> better over his short career in MVP balloting, including a win, while Doerr
> had more AS game selections.
 >> Stay informed about: If you restarted the Hall of Fame... 

"Ron Johnson" <johnson.DeleteThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote ...
>> And he did most of that playing
>> second base. A second baseman who hits like that is a star in any era,
>> not
>> "falling into oblivion"
>
> Not sure I agree here. Bobby Grich is the obvious example.
> Yeah Robinson is better but it's sure not a stretch to
> compare him to Robinson. And it's not like Grich was close
> to being inducted.

But he was still a star. Six-time all-star, three times starting. That's a
long way from oblivion.

> Without his historical significance I suspect that he'd have
> faced the same fate as Grich. Or Ron Santo. Underrated by most
> because he doesn't have a single, well-defined skill that
> makes his HOF case easy to promote.
> I think it's likely that he'd be with Grich and Santo on
> the list of best players on the outside -- comfortably
> better than players who did make it.

Absent the historical reason for his late start you migth be correct, though
i think Robinson's career .300+ BA would have gotten some attention. Of
course, absent that historical reason he'd have likely debuted earlier than
age 28, and racked up more numbers.

Except, now I recall that he debuted in 1947, which means he never would
have enjoyed much of an earlier debut as he'd have been off fighting in
WWII. The careers of Dimaggio and Williams suggest he'd have lost 1943-45,
when he'd have been 24-26 years old. So he might have gotten in his age
21-23 seasons and then and age 27 season in 1946. Figure a 13 year career.

Who might be comparables to Robinson when it comes to guys whose lost war
years might have bumped their stats superficially down to borderline status?
A quick scan of guys on the leaderboards gives a mixed bag. Enos Slaughter
has what might be the most comparable potential career batting line - .300
career BA, high OBP, mid-.400's slugging. And that was playing outfield,
though he managed to stick around 5 years past the age when Robinson
retired.

Pee Wee Reese was a less hitter at a stronger defensive position, but I
presume he wasn't elected to the HoF by the writers, given that he wasn't
inducted until 1984. Also at SS you have Lou Boudreau, but he also had a
managerial record. Are there any comparable HoF 2B from that time?

Colin
 >> Stay informed about: If you restarted the Hall of Fame... 

On Jul 3, 3:49 pm, "Colin William" <colintwill....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Ron Johnson" <john....TakeThisOut@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote
>
> > In the end, The HOF monitor is 98 for Robinson and 95.5 for Doerr.
> > Meaning both just needed some bulk filler to become good HOF
> > candidates. (Both are roughly one good year short of being
> > excellent candidates according to the monitor)
>
> Interesting points, thanks Ron. So, if Robinson had had, say, his 1941, 42,
> and 46 seasons, it seems he could have made a strong case by that standard?

Very likely. Though the voters are kind of strange when it comes
to second-basemen (and catchers). See Lou Whitaker for instance.

And the fact that Robinson moved around a lot probably
works against him There's a default assumption that a player
moves because he couldn't handle the position. With
Robinson though -- well he was excellent at any number
of positions. Allowing other players to play their
natural position.
 >> Stay informed about: If you restarted the Hall of Fame... 

"Ron Johnson" <johnson.DeleteThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote
> Fox and Schoendienst suggests that at least for the Veterans
> Committee career length matters a lot.
>
> Then there's the whole cronyism issue. And the lack of understanding
> about park illusion (in the case of Gordon/Doerr)

Doerr seems like the nearest comp to what JR's career length likely would
have been; I wonder how close he came on balloting prior to going in on the
VC? One would presume the higher career SB and BA of Robinson over Doerr
would have made him a more appealing candidate. Looks like robinson did
better over his short career in MVP balloting, including a win, while Doerr
had more AS game selections.

Hmmmm.

Colin
 >> Stay informed about: If you restarted the Hall of Fame... 

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 20:28:07 -0400, "Colin William"
<colintwilliam.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> gave us:
>"Lance Freezeland" <freezelandlaw.nospam.DeleteThis@consolidated.net> wrote

>> Pool of possible candidates off the top of my head:
>> First base -- Gehrig, Foxx, Murray, McCovey, Anson, Stargell

>Any particular reason you didn't include McGwire? I'd have figured he was
>comparable to, say, Mccovey. Just wondering, given that you're a Cards fan.

Just because I didn't want to have to rehash the predictable steroids
argument. Given that there was no way that McGwire was going to make
the Top Five of All-Time anyway, and given that, as the resident
Cardinals fan, I would have been assigned the role of McGwire's
advocate, I opted not to include him.

--
Lance

"In a world filled with hate, prejudice, and protest,
I find that I too am filled with hate, prejudice, and
protest." -- Bob Gibson


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
 >> Stay informed about: If you restarted the Hall of Fame...