George Kell?

[DoubleX]

Here's a Hall of Famer we don't talk about much. How do people feel about George Kell's inclusion in the Hall of Fame (via the Veterans Committee in 1983)? I don't have much of a problem with him being in, and given some of the other players the VC has put in, he really isn't a bad choice. My problem is with the Hall of Fame representation at 3B in general. Like I said, I don't mind Kell being in so much, but I do mind him being in and guys like Santo, Boyer, Evans, Nettles, Bando, Groh, Hack, Bell, Elliot, and Cey being out.

Kell is a good borderline candidate, but at a position where there are a number of approximately equally qualified, if not superior candidates, on the outside, I don't know how I feel about Kell being in.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Here's a Hall of Famer we don't talk about much. How do people feel about George Kell's inclusion in the Hall of Fame (via the Veterans Committee in 1983)? I don't have much of a problem with him being in, and given some of the other players the VC has put in, he really isn't a bad choice. My problem is with the Hall of Fame representation at 3B in general. Like I said, I don't mind Kell being in so much, but I do mind him being in and guys like Santo, Boyer, Evans, Nettles, Bando, Groh, Hack, Bell, Elliot, and Cey being out.

Kell is a good borderline candidate, but at a position where there are a number of approximately equally qualified, if not superior candidates, on the outside, I don't know how I feel about Kell being in.

There are better third basemen than Kell not in. That it and of itself does not make him a poor choice.
Kell's long post-playing career had to be on the mind of voters when elected. He was a scout for the Tigers as well as a longtime broadcaster, and an excellent one at that, objective and polished, certainly the best player-turned broadcaster I have ever heard.

[oscargamblesfro]

Kell always struck me as sort of an inferior forerunner to say Wade Boggs in some ways. He won a batting title and led the league in things like doubles and hits a few times, some power but not a whole lot. If I remember correctly, he was regarded as a very good glove. Kell was a good, even very good player, but his career really wasn't all that long and there are as you say quite a few better 3b out of the Hall. Not the worst player in there, and one of the better 3b of his time, but still, overall, kind of a poor man's Boggs, and what you might call a 3rd level HOF'er .

[DoubleX]

Can someone make an argument of why George Kell but not Stan Hack? Their careers looks very similar. Is Kell's post-playing career, as CCN mentioned, the difference?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Can someone make an argument of why George Kell but not Stan Hack? Their careers looks very similar. Is Kell's post-playing career, as CCN mentioned, the difference?

It could also be a matter of who was on the committee and timing. If Kell had more direct contemporaries than Hack on the VC when he was elected that could make all the difference in the world. Which is a big problem with such a committee to begin with and may actually go toward explaining why the VC hasn't elected anyone the last couple years. Cronyism only goes so far in bigger groups.

[KCGHOST]

I always felt Kell was a dreadful selection. You have to give him an awful lot of "glove" credit to get him up to HoF status to me.

I know, 3B seems to be underrepresented in the HoF, but it is not like we have passed over some outstanding players. Hack, Santo, Rosen, Elliott, Bando, Evans, Cey, etc., are very good players but the omission of them is not a glaring over sight.

[DoubleX]

I always felt Kell was a dreadful selection. You have to give him an awful lot of "glove" credit to get him up to HoF status to me.

I know, 3B seems to be underrepresented in the HoF, but it is not like we have passed over some outstanding players. Hack, Santo, Rosen, Elliott, Bando, Evans, Cey, etc., are very good players but the omission of them is not a glaring over sight.

Not even Santo? I consider Santo to be the biggest oversight of all players.

[Chadwick]

I don't know what third basemen you've been researching, but yes, some of them damn well were outstanding selections that have been passed over. Santo and Boyer ought to be on every Veterans Committee voter's ballot this year.

Kell isn't that horrible a selection, but it's too bad the voters didn't select a few more (better) third sackers before putting Kell in. Kell as a marginal selection is much more defensible than Kell as a standard bearer.

[KCGHOST]

Not even Santo? I consider Santo to be the biggest oversight of all players.

He may well be the biggest oversight, other than Blyleven and some 19th century guys, but he is not by any means a great player. Like you, I support his induction but I am not confusing him with Eddie Mathews.

[DoubleX]

He may well be the biggest oversight, other than Blyleven and some 19th century guys, but he is not by any means a great player. Like you, I support his induction but I am not confusing him with Eddie Mathews.

I agree that there is a pretty big drop between the Big 4 at 3B (Schmidt, Brett, Mathews, and Boggs) and the rest, but IMO, Santo is the best of the rest, and that to me is more than good enough to be in. He's the 5th best at his position in my book, and that's well within Hall of Fame territory. I'm also a big Blyleven supporter, but I think Santo is the bigger oversight.

[538280]

I don't know what third basemen you've been researching, but yes, some of them damn well were outstanding selections that have been passed over. Santo and Boyer ought to be on every Veterans Committee voter's ballot this year.

I think there are far worse players than Kell in the HOF, but I wouldn't consider him a HOFer or even very close.

Sorry if this is hijacking, but what honestly is the deal with Ken Boyer? I've asked a number of people this, I don't understand what makes him so clearly deserving. Why is he better than Sal Bando? I see Boyer being a better fielder, but that's not a huge advantage, and Bando was the better hitter and significantly better there at his peak. I don't see how Boyer is extremely similar in value to Ron Santo (I see Santo being MUCH better).

[DoubleX]

I think there are far worse players than Kell in the HOF, but I wouldn't consider him a HOFer or even very close.

Sorry if this is hijacking, but what honestly is the deal with Ken Boyer? I've asked a number of people this, I don't understand what makes him so clearly deserving. Why is he better than Sal Bando? I see Boyer being a better fielder, but that's not a huge advantage, and Bando was the better hitter and significantly better there at his peak. I don't see how Boyer is extremely similar in value to Ron Santo (I see Santo being MUCH better).

Why are you so predictable? Whenever Ken Boyer gets mentioned, you have to launch your Sal Bando crusade.

[538280]

Why are you so predictable? Whenever Ken Boyer gets mentioned, you have to launch your Sal Bando crusade.

Because it rarely ever gets addressed. I really don't get the big deal about Ken Boyer though-and I've never seen anyone really explain to me what is so great about him convincingly.

[The Commissioner]

One thing that people forget about Kell is that he was considered to be great fielder during his own time. Had his resume been padded with a few Gold Gloves to accompany his batting stats, his Hall credentials wouldn't even be in question.

[DoubleX]

One thing that people forget about Kell is that he was considered to be great fielder during his own time. Had his resume been padded with a few Gold Gloves to accompany his batting stats, his Hall credentials wouldn't even be in question.

It didn't do Buddy Bell any good (or Santo or Boyer for that matter). Unless we're talking about Brooks Robinson good and like 10 Gold Gloves, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference.