HOF quality times 2 project

[jalbright]

Finally, the two guys who I won't vote for in either half of the balloting:

Hodges, Gil I don’t buy into him as a combined candidate, so there’s simply no way I can support him on either side. His managing record (sub .500 career mark, only one WS title and pennant) isn’t what makes the HOF, but is better if you look at the teams he took over and the progress they made. My opinion is that had he lived, he might well have proven himself worthy solely as a manager—but he didn’t, and I don’t get into that kind of “what could have been” stuff

Pearce, Dickey I’m dropping him, as I don’t see enough beyond his play to merit induction.

[JR Hart]

Please explain why being a player/manager is an issue. One plays/ one manages. They are still carrying out 2 functions

[JR Hart]

Are you really saying that, in your opinion, Hugh Jennings, Joe Gordon, Lou Brodeau, Joe Torre, and John McGraw rate the hall as players, but Gil Hodges does not?

[leecemark]

--McGraw didn't play enough to make the Hall strictly as a player for me. The rest I do think belong as players and I do not believe Hodges is deserving as a player (or a manager). Torre is the only one of the above group I see having a strong case as both a player and a manager.

[Matthew C.]

I get that argument. But this project is about individuals who 1) deserve it solely for their play and 2) served in a nonplaying role(s) and distinguished themselves in that role or roles sufficiently to deserve induction for that, without any credit for their playing exploits. That's the issue I have with Schoendienst or Alou. If we were talking about whether those two gentlemen deserve induction for the body of work in the sport, there's no doubt in my mind they both have a viable argument. Unfortunately, I'm separating the two, and asking which guys deserve induction in each of the two parts. IMHO, neither man makes a viable argument at that level. If somebody wants to submit the argument for either one solely as a player (which in their case is the weaker part of their case at the level I'm looking for), I'll look at it again.

I wasn't talking about electing Red for this election, I was throwing his name out as a candidate, since the names Andy Cooper, Jim Creighton, and Miller Huggins had been thrown around (or listed, I should say) and those guys certainly have zero case whatsoever in at least one of the two categories. I though we were still in the throwing names around stage. Hence Dusty Baker and everything.

[jalbright]

Please explain why being a player/manager is an issue. One plays/ one manages. They are still carrying out 2 functions

For me personally, it isn't. I'm not sure how others will deal with the one person performing dual roles at the same time.

[jalbright]

I wasn't talking about electing Red for this election, I was throwing his name out as a candidate, since the names Andy Cooper, Jim Creighton, and Miller Huggins had been thrown around (or listed, I should say) and those guys certainly have zero case whatsoever in at least one of the two categories. I though we were still in the throwing names around stage. Hence Dusty Baker and everything.

With a poll ballot, I can't take too large a number of candidates. I'm willing to drop Huggins and Creighton. Cooper is in the Hall as a player, no matter what I think about that, and that means somebody thought he was worthy. Cooper did have some success managing in the Negro Leagues, which makes me reluctant to eliminate him.

[jjpm74]

Pearce, Dickey I’m dropping him, as I don’t see enough beyond his play to merit induction.

Didn't Pearce help define how to field his primary position for future generations? I'd think that would merit some strong consideration for him as a pioneer of the game. His peak years came at a time when professional baseball was still in its infancy, so I don't see him making it on the merits of his play without that extra credit that which may or may not be warranted.

[jjpm74]

There is one other person I think deserves to be added to this list:

Joe Cronin

As a player, he easily makes it. As a manager, be had over 1200 wins, 2 pennants, and a .540 W-L% which makes him better than several of the other managerial candidates already on this list.

[jalbright]

Are you really saying that, in your opinion, Hugh Jennings, Joe Gordon, Lou Brodeau, Joe Torre, and John McGraw rate the hall as players, but Gil Hodges does not?

Yep. The only one who doesn't have more WAA and WAR in both peak and career marks is Jennings, and Jennings absolutely dominates Hodges in peak performance. I'd rather have the defensive contributions of the middle infielders in that group to any 1B, including Hodges, and I don't think McGraw or Torre concede much if anything in defensive value to Hodges because they played more demanding defensive spots.

[jalbright]

Cronin is a worthy addition.

[westsidegrounds]

The case for Creighton, as I see it:

He was the #1 player of his day

He was a pioneer in establishing the concept that "baseball player" could be a profession

Now, his day was a long time ago, and it may be difficult to project oneself mentally into his time frame, and to assess his admittedly brief career in context. But he's at least a worthy candidate.

[westsidegrounds]

I'd like to suggest that Al Lopez be considered. Obviously a HOF level manager, he was also a very good defensive catcher for a long time.

[JR Hart]

In miy mind there is only 4

Clarke
Chance
Anson
Cronin

none of the other's stack up as both. Torre and McGraw fall short as players.

[jalbright]

I've added the poll for players, culling out a few names. If you want to write somebody in, you may, but you have to put the name in a post in the thread after this one. The poll will be active for two weeks, then I'll do another thread for those getting 60% or more to see if they're worthy for their contributions outside of their play on the field.

[jalbright]

The case for Creighton, as I see it:

He was the #1 player of his day

He was a pioneer in establishing the concept that "baseball player" could be a profession

Now, his day was a long time ago, and it may be difficult to project oneself mentally into his time frame, and to assess his admittedly brief career in context. But he's at least a worthy candidate.

The problem with him in this project is his pioneering aspect is all about what he did as a player--and his play is removed from the equation in the second part of this project. I'd put Creighton in as a pioneer, based on his introduction of pitching as a vital part of the game. But he doesn't make both prongs of this project, IMHO, especially when we divorce his play from the contributor equation. Heck, the guy died tragically young, during his playing days--he had no chance to amass anything beyond his playing days.

[jalbright]

Bumping this thread again to let folks know I've posted the poll covering whether the candidates are worthy of the Hall considering only their play with this thread. The poll is open for two weeks from yesterday, and, after it's done, those receiving at least 60% of the vote (assuming we get at least 8 votes) will be part of another poll to see if their contributions outside of their play also warrant induction. Your participation is invited.

[Matthew C.]

I meant to click on Jose Mendez on the poll - oops.

[jalbright]

I meant to click on Jose Mendez on the poll - oops.

I'll add one to Mendez' total.

[jalbright]

Bumping this thread to remind people to vote in the attached poll I opened Sunday.

[DoubleX]

Bob Lemon makes the list. Like for Felipe Alou, if you want to make the case for Schoendienst as a player, I'm listening. If not, he's out.

I'm coming to this late, but I think Red Schoendienst should most definitely have been in this poll. You personally may believe Schoendienst's playing career doesn't measure up, but the fact is he's in the Hall of Fame as a player which means, rightly or wrongly, there are people out there who feel/felt strongly that Schoendienst had a Hall of Fame playing career, and thus he should be included in this project.

I'm not saying I'd vote for Schoendiest, but to exclude him based on your opinion despite the actuality that he's in the very institution that serves as the backdrop for this project, just doesn't add up.

[jalbright]

1) I asked the individual naming Schoendienst if he cared to make the case for him as a player. Neither he nor anyone chose to do so.

2) I did allow for differences of opinion by allowing a write-in candidate.

3) In order for a candidate to make it in this project, they have to get at least 60% of the vote in both halves of the projects. Schoendienst has never been elected in any shadow hall project here at Fever. In fact, the best I can find he did in 20 elections in one of our most big-hall oriented projects, the Progressive Project, is one time over 40% at 44.4%.

4) The fact the VC chose Schoendienst in 1989 doesn't mean as much to me as it seems to to you. I mean, after all, the VC has had quite a few harebrained ideas. I'm more concerned with how the people here at Fever will vote in this project.

5) The project has started. I'm not going to restart it, regardless of your personal sentiments about the exclusion of Schoendienst. If you want to run your own project and include him, be my guest.

6) You may choose to participate within the bounds I have set, and you are welcome to do so. If you choose to sit it out, that too is your right.

[jalbright]

Just inside of one week left in the first (player) poll in this project.

[jjpm74]

I meant to click on Jose Mendez on the poll - oops.

Did you also miss Mickey Cochrane, or do you feel he is not a HOFer if he doesn't go on to his career as a manager after he retired?

[jalbright]

As I type this, only a little over a day to participate in this poll.