How many players received 45% of the Writers' vote but never got in?

[Jackaroo Dave]

I don't buy it. It's not the Hall of Quantified Stats, nor is it the Hall of Logic and Reason. It's always been subjective and should continue to be so. If a player was incredibly dominant for almost a decade and then his career is disabled, I don't see a problem with his induction. And YES, every case should be judged individually. How is that a bad thing? Also, everyone has their pet players and my assertion that "Oliva Belongs" has as much merit as anything as long as the hall is (rightfully so) subjective.
. . . .
And OLIVA BELONGS!! I can't see how his inclusion would open the floodgates for 750 or 1000 more players. That's just silly.

The thing is, JR, that Tony was on the ballot for 15 years and did not come close. As this thread has shown, he pretty much carved a niche in the balloting for himself at the 45% level. Those voting on him saw him play, chose him as the rookie of the year and the MVP, and witnessed his other awards. So there's a heavy presumption of not-quite-enough if 75% in his favor can't be found in this group.

It's true that there's a subjective element in choosing hall of famers, even among mathematicians, who have to decide how much weight they give to each variable value. But in voicing your view publicly, you presumably expect to be read and your judgment assessed by public standards. It's not like a fart in the elevator, where you dispel some inner pressure and everyone politely pretends not to notice. It isn't as if there is no argument to be made for Oliva. Among the players I listed above as comparable, none had an 8-year run like Tony's; none had both ends of their careers truncated the way he had. And what you call subjectivity is also public: I'd say that none of those players were as exciting to watch, and that carries weight with some people.

And if you do feel entitled or obliged to retreat into sophomore relativism, can't you spare us the Parthian shots about the sabers? Hey, we're humans too.

[JR Hart]

The thing is, JR, that Tony was on the ballot for 15 years and did not come close. As this thread has shown, he pretty much carved a niche in the balloting for himself at the 45% level. Those voting on him saw him play, chose him as the rookie of the year and the MVP, and witnessed his other awards. So there's a heavy presumption of not-quite-enough if 75% in his favor can't be found in this group.

It's true that there's a subjective element in choosing hall of famers, even among mathematicians, who have to decide how much weight they give to each variable value. But in voicing your view publicly, you presumably expect to be read and your judgment assessed by public standards. It's not like a fart in the elevator, where you dispel some inner pressure and everyone politely pretends not to notice. It isn't as if there is no argument to be made for Oliva. Among the players I listed above as comparable, none had an 8-year run like Tony's; none had both ends of their careers truncated the way he had. And what you call subjectivity is also public: I'd say that none of those players were as exciting to watch, and that carries weight with some people.

And if you do feel entitled or obliged to retreat into sophomore relativism, can't you spare us the Parthian shots about the sabers? Hey, we're humans too.

I'm not sure what your point is here, except that you feel exposed, by someone who called the HOF for what it is, a popularity contest. In your first paragraph you say that "well he had his chance and didn't get in, so the powers that be were right." Which is silly, because players with way less of a BBWAA pct, eventually became HOFers. In your second paragraph, every sentence seems to contradict the previous one. I'm not sure what you are saying, but you are almost making a case for Oliva.

And if it's sophomore relativsm to say that HOF voting is subjective, or that there isn't a set statistical standard for the hall, or that emotionalism plays a role in voting, then so be it. It's simply the truth and that's what burns sabermetric people the most > that you can't control HOF voting with your mathematic formulas.

[Jackaroo Dave]

I'm not sure what your point is here, except that you feel exposed, by someone who called the HOF for what it is, a popularity contest. In your first paragraph you say that "well he had his chance and didn't get in, so the powers that be were right." Which is silly, because players with way less of a BBWAA pct, eventually became HOFers. In your second paragraph, every sentence seems to contradict the previous one. I'm sure what you are saying, but you are almost making a case for Oliva.

and if it's sophomore relativsm to say that HOF voting is subjective, or that there isn't a set statistical standard for the hall, or that emtionalism plays a role in vtoing, then so be it. It's simly the truth.

I'm saying that claims about a player's hall of fame worthiness or unworthiness are interesting when they are substantiated by evidence, numerical or not, including appeals to emotion--unlike claims that back off into, "It's a matter of opinion, and I'm entitled to mine." That's sophomore relativism.

In my first paragraph I say that the burden of demonstrating Tony's worthiness is prima facie a heavy one because it's been gone into thoroughly by those who knew him and liked what they saw, but found him wanting. In my second paragraph, I mention some kinds of evidence that could be brought to bear to help demonstrate that worthiness. You forgot to thank me for making your point for you, as in closing you repeat what I said about the omnipresence of subjectivity and emotionalism in HOF voting.

[jalbright]

I don't buy it. It's not the Hall of Quantified Stats, nor is it the Hall of Logic and Reason. It's always been subjective and should continue to be so. If a player was incredibly dominant for almost a decade and then his career is disabled, I don't see a problem with his induction. And YES, every case should be judged individually. How is that a bad thing? Also, everyone has their pet players and my assertion that "Oliva Belongs" has as much merit as anything as long as the hall is (rightfully so) subjective. When there is a statisical criteria for HOF induction, I will (besides throwing up) cease to be a fan. The sabers will have then won and there will no need for for a hot stove league or even a baseball forum. I will never apologize for having an emotional attachment to being a baseball fan. When being a fan means being a mathematician, that will be sad. Believe me, I've come a long way, in my look at modern stats, but baseball is still played by human beings.

And OLIVA BELONGS!! I can't see how his inclusion would open the floodgates for 750 or 1000 more players. That's just silly.

The discussion would be far more fruitful if you actually paid attention to what I wrote. I never even suggested that there should be a uniform method by which everyone should determine HOF worthiness.

I also never indicated subjectivity had no place in HOF selections. Everyone is judging the worthiness of candidates—and the process of judging implies a measure of subjectivity when there’s no consenus on clear standards. Even if you rely on statistics to do your judging, there’s subjectivity in what statistics are chosen and how they’re weighted.

One subjective decision I’ve made is that I don’t give Oliva any credit for the career he would have had if he had avoided tearing up his knee. My reasoning is that there’s too many cases of guys who would have become HOFers if they could have avoided injury. Heck, you could fill a whole wing of a Hall of Fame with pitchers who would be worthy if they hadn’t hurt their arms.

I also didn’t say inducting Oliva would mean that the Hall should take several hundred more candidates who are as good or better. The real number would probably be 20-40 players, but subjectively that’s too many for me. What I did say that if we judged each and every case individually, without reference to any meaningful standards or reference to other players who are in or out, we’d wind up in a situation where we’d be inducting guys who are inferior to hundreds of guys who are being excluded.

Can’t we agree that the Hall should be limited to the best players in the history of the game? If not, no discussion is possible since we’re not anywhere near being on the same page. But if we can agree on that basic point, doesn’t talking about “the best” imply that candidates should be compared to one another?

You also go to great lengths to attack the use of statistics. But unless we’re going to go with a severely smaller Hall than we’ve currently got, you’ve got to use some statistics, whether they the traditional triple crown ones, those that can be found in the original MacMillan Encyclopedias, or more modern metrics. If you don’t use any statistics, about all you have is awards, and I think it’s safe to say the consensus is that some other data in the form of statistics is needed to complete the picture.

Now if you believe Oliva belongs among the very best in the history of the game, you’re hardly alone. One can certainly make a plausible argument to that effect. I don’t happen to find it persuasive, but just about as many people do as don’t. I’ve explained my rationale and you’ve explained yours, and there’s no requirement we come to the same conclusion. But if your position is that you don’t believe Oliva belongs among the very best in the history of the game but belongs in the Hall despite that conclusion, your position is plainly destructive to the Hall and thus unacceptable.

[jalbright]

I'd say that since the Hall is about 230-240 players strong, if a guy is in the top 230-250, it's reasonable to claim he's met the Hall's standard.

I don't have an issue with this at all. I think the point I'd make is that there are a fair number of players who fit this definition. I wouldn't put Oliva at the top of the list, but I wouldn't mind at all if they took in 10-12 and he was one of them. If you took Oliva, Colavito, Bonds in the outfield, Nettles, Whitaker, Trammel and Mattingly in the infield, with Munson catching, assuming they were healthy, and an average pitching staff, they'd win 100-110 games a season 10 years in a row. These were exceptional players.

He was indeed quite special and we can all admit that his injury drastically affected his career.

The exact number you use is a subjective decision. One could bring the number back toward 200 if you chose to exclude those you regard as clear mistakes. But I think the size of the Hall is a good reference point.

[JR Hart]

The discussion would be far more fruitful if you actually paid attention to what I wrote. I never even suggested that there should be a uniform method by which everyone should determine HOF worthiness.

I also never indicated subjectivity had no place in HOF selections. Everyone is judging the worthiness of candidates—and the process of judging implies a measure of subjectivity when there’s no consenus on clear standards. Even if you rely on statistics to do your judging, there’s subjectivity in what statistics are chosen and how they’re weighted.

One subjective decision I’ve made is that I don’t give Oliva any credit for the career he would have had if he had avoided tearing up his knee. My reasoning is that there’s too many cases of guys who would have become HOFers if they could have avoided injury. Heck, you could fill a whole wing of a Hall of Fame with pitchers who would be worthy if they hadn’t hurt their arms.
I also didn’t say inducting Oliva would mean that the Hall should take several hundred more candidates who are as good or better. The real number would probably be 20-40 players, but subjectively that’s too many for me. What I did say that if we judged each and every case individually, without reference to any meaningful standards or reference to other players who are in or out, we’d wind up in a situation where we’d be inducting guys who are inferior to hundreds of guys who are being excluded.

Can’t we agree that the Hall should be limited to the best players in the history of the game? If not, no discussion is possible since we’re not anywhere near being on the same page. But if we can agree on that basic point, doesn’t talking about “the best” imply that candidates should be compared to one another?

You seem to say, in this and other posts that we can’t compare perspective HOFers to the “unworthy” members, but we must compare them to the icons of the hall. We can’t have it both ways. Chick Hafey is in. So are Ross Youngs and Chuck Klien. Either we compare, or we don’t. I’m a big hall guy and I feel that there are 20, 40, 50 players who should be in and aren’t. And IMO, that would enhance the hall, not diminish it.

ALSO, if Dizzy Dean, Sandy Koufax, and Kirby Puckett are in, a precedent is set for career shortened by injury. And these cases should be looked at on an individual basis. In my opinion Oliva did enough, Herb Score did not.

You also go to great lengths to attack the use of statistics. But unless we’re going to go with a severely smaller Hall than we’ve currently got, you’ve got to use some statistics, whether they the traditional triple crown ones, those that can be found in the original MacMillan Encyclopedias, or more modern metrics. If you don’t use any statistics, about all you have is awards, and I think it’s safe to say the consensus is that some other data in the form of statistics is needed to complete the picture.

This is my first post on this thread about Oliva. I used statistics, league rankings, and awards:

Tony Oliva should be in the HOF and it's ridiculous that he isn't. He had a devastating knee injury in 1972, and played 4 more seasons that soured his career stats. Before the injury, he was simply sensational.

From 1964-71 ("before the injury" ed) he was .313/.361/.507 OPS+ 141 8 straight all-star games , 2X MVP runnerup, 2 more top 6 finishes, ROY (should have been 64 MVP), GG, 3X batting leader, 5X hits leader, 4X doubles leader, 71 slugging leader, and 64 TB leader.

I grew up watching this guy on TV, he just ripped.

Now if you believe Oliva belongs among the very best in the history of the game, you’re hardly alone. One can certainly make a plausible argument to that effect. I don’t happen to find it persuasive, but just about as many people do as don’t. I’ve explained my rationale and you’ve explained yours, and there’s no requirement we come to the same conclusion. But if your position is that you don’t believe Oliva belongs among the very best in the history of the game but belongs in the Hall despite that conclusion, your position is plainly destructive to the Hall and thus unacceptable.

Of course I feel that the very best should only be in. The mistake that you make, is that if if I feel that more players are worthy than you do, then you feel that I devalue the hall. That’s not how I look at it. I feel that players like Oliva, Steve Garvey, Jack Morris, and Dale Murphy WERE among the best in baseball history and the hall is would be enhanced, not devalued by their induction.

[jalbright]

JR Hart said:

You seem to say, in this and other posts that we can’t compare perspective HOFers to the “unworthy” members, but we must compare them to the icons of the hall. We can’t have it both ways. Chick Hafey is in. So are Ross Youngs and Chuck Klien. Either we compare, or we don’t. I’m a big hall guy and I feel that there are 20, 40, 50 players who should be in and aren’t. And IMO, that would enhance the hall, not diminish it.

ALSO, if Dizzy Dean, Sandy Koufax, and Kirby Puckett are in, a precedent is set for career shortened by injury. And these cases should be looked at on an individual basis. In my opinion Oliva did enough, Herb Score did not.

This is quite different than saying we shouldn't compare at all. It is true that we've got to be careful comparing the Hall to its worst choices, because we'd load it up with similarly unworthy players. Clear mistakes should not be the basis for making further mistakes. Now, if we're talking about the guys that there's a close argument about, with some points on both sides, they're a real point of comparison because they help define where the line should be. Also, we shouldn't limit our comparisons to guys who are in the Hall, but also those who are not. If the bulk of the comparables aren't in the Hall, that's a heck of an argument that a guy does not belong. If the bulk of them are in, that's a heck of an argument the guy belongs. If you want another 50 or so guys in the Hall, I can see that Oliva probably would belong. I wouldn't go that far, but that's one of those subjective things I don't expect to see resolved any time soon.

I see from another thread you put Oliva in your top 10 outside the Hall to put in. I don't agree with the stance on Oliva, but if 75% of a large group of voters agreed with you rather than me, I'll accept the verdict and move on. At least you're talking about someone you regard as the best. One thing you're apparently not too familiar about in my writings on the Hall is I don't beef much about the guys the BBWAA voted in, even if I don't agree. It's the guys who got in by 75% of a small group in some guise of a committee who have made the most indefensible selections--and the ones I least want to see replicated, because those mistakes are much harder to present as representative of a consensus.

One last point: you complain that I express my opinion some of the picks you would make in an expanded hall devalue the Hall itself. That's true, but it's an outgrowth of our disagreement of how big the Hall itself should be. You obviously feel I'm too exclusionary, which again is a natural outgrowth of that disagreement. It's inherent in that fundamental clash of opinions, nothing more and nothing less. Neither of us are going to be free of such feelings about the other's choices so long as we differ on how large the Hall is.

[JR Hart]

One last point: you complain that I express my opinion some of the picks you would make in an expanded hall devalue the Hall itself. That's true, but it's an outgrowth of our disagreement of how big the Hall itself should be. You obviously feel I'm too exclusionary, which again is a natural outgrowth of that disagreement. It's inherent in that fundamental clash of opinions, nothing more and nothing less. Neither of us are going to be free of such feelings about the other's choices so long as we differ on how large the Hall is.

Obviously

And there is nothing wrong with having that disagreement. I'm not for putting in Mike Gallego or anything like that. But I think players who were obvious stars when they played like Oliva, Garvey, and Murphy were among the greatest players ever. Conversely, I can't see how players that nobody thought were hall worthy when they played are suddenly given hall consideration years after they played. I just don't buy the case of Gene Tenace, Bobby Grich, and Darell Evans. Nobody thought they were a HOFer when they played. If, in 1982, someone would have suggested Tenace was a HOFer, they would have been laughed off the planet. How can he rate now?

In Oliva's, case more than anything (again read my initial post on this thread), I feel that he did enough before his injury to be given special consideration.

[Freakshow]

In this recent fan poll, Oliva was named the 30th best candidate for the HOF.

In The Ultimate Quest for Candidates project, Oliva did not fare too well against other Hall candidates from the 1950's and 60's.

When we did the Hall of Fame Purgatory project three years ago, Oliva was not among the top 80 candidates for the HOF.

Yes, Oliva did get 47% support from the BBWAA voters one year, but that was on a very weak ballot, far and away his best support year. In his 15 years on the ballot his median support was 34.6%, less than half of what it takes to be elected.

Oliva was a classic hacker, putting a lot of balls in play. Hence, all the high totals in hits and doubles. But what about making offense, creating runs for his team? There he is very lacking, falling short of the dominance needed to make a short-career player like him a hall of famer. Despite batting in the heart of a good lineup he never led the league in RBI (only three years in the top 5); he led the league in runs once (2 other years in the top 5). He led in Runs Created once (2 other years in the top 5). When you adjust for park effects he looks even worse. He was never his league's best offensive player, only twice one of the top 5.

All of this was in an era when the AL was much the weaker of the two leagues. I believe that if Oliva switches leagues with Vada Pinson that it would be Vada with the batting titles and the drumbeat for HOF election.

Position players with most years of 6+ WAR who debuted 1958-69:

Rk                    Yrs From   To   Age
1           Ron Santo   6 1963 1968 23-28 H
2           Rod Carew   5 1973 1977 27-31 H
3          Joe Morgan   5 1972 1976 28-32 H
4        Johnny Bench   5 1969 1975 21-27 H
5           Pete Rose   4 1969 1976 28-35
6      Reggie Jackson   4 1969 1975 23-29 H
7          Dick Allen   4 1964 1972 22-30
8    Carl Yastrzemski   4 1963 1970 23-30 H
9      Billy Williams   4 1963 1972 25-34 H
10     Willie McCovey   4 1963 1970 25-32 H
11        Bobby Bonds   3 1969 1973 23-27
12          Sal Bando   3 1969 1973 25-29
13           Jim Wynn   3 1965 1974 23-32
14         Tony Oliva   3 1964 1970 25-31
15        Vada Pinson   3 1959 1963 20-24

I think Oliva is the last player on this list who I'd put in the Hall.

[jalbright]

But I think players who were obvious stars when they played like Oliva, Garvey, and Murphy were among the greatest players ever. Conversely, I can't see how players that nobody thought were hall worthy when they played are suddenly given hall consideration years after they played. I just don't buy the case of Gene Tenace, Bobby Grich, and Darell Evans. Nobody thought they were a HOFer when they played. If, in 1982, someone would have suggested Tenace was a HOFer, they would have been laughed off the planet. How can he rate now?

It's certainly legitimate to ask about how guys were regarded in their own time. That said, sometimes the people of the time missed something. Now I don't think highly of Tenace and Darrell Evans isn't a hot candidate for me, but I do have high regard for Grich. Also, all three were underrated in their day becasue few folks paid attention to the value of getting on base and thereby not using up the team's precious supply of outs. Sometimes, we have to allow new information to inform our judgments. OTOH, there's little doubt that some devotees of modern metrics go overboard.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There are two that have exhausted their BBWAA eligibility that I see from that source: Hodges and Oliva. There are four I see who are still on the BBWAA ballot: Raines, Lee Smith, Bagwell and Jack Morris.

I believe all of these guys except Oliva and Smith will get in someday, somehow. The sad think is that Olive was the greatest of that group, with the exception of Bagwell.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Hall of Fame is not kind to corner outfielders with short careers, probably because there are so many already in with long careers. If Tony got in, he'd be comparable to Chick Hafey and Ross Youngs.

If he got in, well, it would be about time that he caught a break. He didn't get going until he was 25 and turned into Sean Casey at 32, and it seemed like all the way along he was met with frustrations and disappointment, which he bore stoically. (See his SABR biography.) But for those eight years he was something.

Oliva is a clear peak-value HOF. He was clearly better than Hafey, who was an after-the-fact HOFer Hafey was not regarded as a superstar in his time, whereas Olive was so regarded for a time. Oliva was comparable to Youngs, but Youngs is a guy who, IMO, is unfairly maligned, due to his selection as a "Frankie Frisch" candidate. Youngs was regarded as a star while active, and was, arguably, the best position player for the Giants on four (4) consecutive pennant-winning teams. His career .668 OWP is acceptable for a HOF right fielder, and it would have been higher had it not been for Bright's Disease, which began to affect him in 1925. The Giants dropped off when he got sick, so Youngs was a player that helped the Giants win.

[JR Hart]

In this recent fan poll, Oliva was named the 30th best candidate for the HOF.
In The Ultimate Quest for Candidates project, Oliva did not fare too well against other Hall candidates from the 1950's and 60's.
When we did the Hall of Fame Purgatory project three years ago, Oliva was not among the top 80 candidates for the HOF.

And this means what? That posters here don’t rate Oliva? So! Most likely there were scrubs like Da Evans and Tenace rated over him, with the sabermetric tilt that is on this board.

Yes, Oliva did get 47% support from the BBWAA voters one year, but that was on a very weak ballot, far and away his best support year. In his 15 years on the ballot his median support was 34.6%, less than half of what it takes to be elected.

Again So what! He received strong HOF consideration compared to most players. If writers knew what they were doing, we wouldn’t have this thread.

Oliva was a classic hacker, putting a lot of balls in play. Hence, all the high totals in hits and doubles. But what about making offense, creating runs for his team? There he is very lacking, falling short of the dominance needed to make a short-career player like him a hall of famer. Despite batting in the heart of a good lineup he never led the league in RBI (only three years in the top 5); he led the league in runs once (2 other years in the top 5). He led in Runs Created once (2 other years in the top 5). When you adjust for park effects he looks even worse. He was never his league's best offensive player, only twice one of the top 5.
.

This is some really poor analysis. Because he hit so well and led the league in batting, hits, and doubles so often ; he was something less because he should have taken more walks and scored more imaginary runs? It looks like he scored and batted in a lot of runs, especially for his era. And IMO he was the league’s best hitter in 1964. His rookie season is one of the best in history. 374 total bases has to rank really high among rookies. Oh that’s right, he should have walked more and not totaled up so many bases. He was MVP runner twice and should have been 1964 MVP when he finished a ridiculous 4th.

All of this was in an era when the AL was much the weaker of the two leagues. I believe that if Oliva switches leagues with Vada Pinson that it would be Vada with the batting titles and the drumbeat for HOF election.

There is no way to prove this. Oliva never had a bad year before his injury. Pinson wasn’t the hitter or slugger that Oliva was. However, I don’t feel that comparing Oliva to Pinson downgrades Oliva. Vada was a heck of a player. If Oliva hadn’t gotten hurt, his decline would not have been as significant as Pinson’s.

Position players with most years of 6+ WAR who debuted 1958-69:

Rk                    Yrs From   To   Age
1           Ron Santo   6 1963 1968 23-28 H
2           Rod Carew   5 1973 1977 27-31 H
3          Joe Morgan   5 1972 1976 28-32 H
4        Johnny Bench   5 1969 1975 21-27 H
5           Pete Rose   4 1969 1976 28-35
6      Reggie Jackson   4 1969 1975 23-29 H
7          Dick Allen   4 1964 1972 22-30
8    Carl Yastrzemski   4 1963 1970 23-30 H
9      Billy Williams   4 1963 1972 25-34 H
10     Willie McCovey   4 1963 1970 25-32 H
11        Bobby Bonds   3 1969 1973 23-27
12          Sal Bando   3 1969 1973 25-29
13           Jim Wynn   3 1965 1974 23-32
14         Tony Oliva   3 1964 1970 25-31
15        Vada Pinson   3 1959 1963 20-24

I think Oliva is the last player on this list who I'd put in the Hall.

I expressed in another thread, in detail ,my dislike for WAR. IMO, Oliva easily rates over B Bonds, Carew, Bando (LOL), Wynn, Pinson, and he’s not much worse than Billy Williams or Santo.

[Jackaroo Dave]

Oliva is a clear peak-value HOF. He was clearly better than Hafey, who was an after-the-fact HOFer Hafey was not regarded as a superstar in his time, whereas Olive was so regarded for a time. Oliva was comparable to Youngs, but Youngs is a guy who, IMO, is unfairly maligned, due to his selection as a "Frankie Frisch" candidate. Youngs was regarded as a star while active, and was, arguably, the best position player for the Giants on four (4) consecutive pennant-winning teams. His career .668 OWP is acceptable for a HOF right fielder, and it would have been higher had it not been for Bright's Disease, which began to affect him in 1925. The Giants dropped off when he got sick, so Youngs was a player that helped the Giants win.

I actually think a lot of Youngs, too, and if we look at peak value only, I think a better HOF comp is Klein. Corner outfielders that are similar in having a run of about 40 WAR with a 140+ OPS+ and not much else are Strawberry, Belle, and Ken Williams. Maris, out, and Wilson, in, are also similar, but not as close. Spread out, without the peak, Ken Singleton is similar.

I remember before Klein and Wilson were selected, my sense of the feeling about them was not "Why were they overlooked?" but "if only they had played at that level a little longer . . ," about the same feeling that many have for Tony. So maybe his vet committee prospects are also good.

[Freakshow]

And this means what?

That there is a consensus of fans interested in the topic who rate Oliva nowhere near the top of the candidates pile.

Again So what

While we agree on the generally lackluster quality of the BBWAA electorate, in Oliva's case they got it right. Two-thirds of the scribes who saw him play don't think he belongs in the Hall.

This is some...analysis

Which you entirely fail to refute.

my dislike for WAR

Let's use one of your favorites, total bases. Same set of players as previous list, most years 290+ TB:

Rk                    Yrs From   To   Age
1      Billy Williams  10 1963 1972 25-34 H
2           Pete Rose   7 1965 1976 24-35
3         Vada Pinson   7 1959 1967 20-28
4      Orlando Cepeda   7 1958 1970 20-32 H
5        Steve Garvey   6 1974 1980 25-31
6         Bobby Bonds   5 1969 1977 23-31
7           Ron Santo   5 1963 1967 23-27 H
8      Willie McCovey   5 1963 1970 25-32 H
9           Al Oliver   4 1973 1982 26-35
10            Lee May   4 1969 1972 26-29
11         Tony Perez   4 1967 1973 25-31 H
12          Joe Torre   4 1964 1971 23-30
13         Tony Oliva   4 1964 1970 25-31
14         Dick Allen   4 1964 1972 22-30
15   Carl Yastrzemski   4 1962 1970 22-30 H
16    Johnny Callison   4 1962 1965 23-26

[yankillaz]

JR Hart, since you shout so stubbornly "OLIVA belongs!!!", who else do you think belongs, using that same criteria?

[yankillaz]

I made a program that included the following: ASG appearances (public perception in their time), HOF Monitor and Standards as well as Black and Gray Ink (Bill James's creations that can be related to HOF level, old-school sabermetrics) and WAR, WAR7 and JAWS (really liked this data collected by Jay Jaffe). Made a correlation to HOF Level and came up with this list of players most deserving of HOF enshrinement, that are not in the HOF thus being eligible:

1. Pete Rose
2. Jeff Bagwell
3. Larry Walker
4. Tony Oliva
5. Mark McGwire
6. Joe Torre
7. Alan Trammell
8. Joe Jackson
9. Harry Stovey
10. Dale Murphy

Pretty neat. And going to use it for all players, included HOF to see a new ranking. But the thing is, that Tony Oliva is up there in the discussion.

[JR Hart]

I made a program that included the following: ASG appearances (public perception in their time), HOF Monitor and Standards as well as Black and Gray Ink (Bill James's creations that can be related to HOF level, old-school sabermetrics) and WAR, WAR7 and JAWS (really liked this data collected by Jay Jaffe). Made a correlation to HOF Level and came up with this list of players most deserving of HOF enshrinement, that are not in the HOF thus being eligible:

1. Pete Rose
2. Jeff Bagwell
3. Larry Walker
4. Tony Oliva
5. Mark McGwire
6. Joe Torre
7. Alan Trammell
8. Joe Jackson
9. Harry Stovey
10. Dale Murphy

Pretty neat. And going to use it for all players, included HOF to see a new ranking. But the thing is, that Tony Oliva is up there in the discussion.

nice list although I'm not that hip on Joe Torre as a player being in the hall.

[JR Hart]

JR Hart, since you shout so stubbornly "OLIVA belongs!!!", who else do you think belongs, using that same criteria?

I'm not sure what my criteria is. I think that Oliva was dominant enough before his injury to get special consideration along with the other career shortened inductees.

I think that Steve Garvey is hugely overlooked. He was seen as a dominant player when he played.