"Out by a Step" (100 best NOT enshrined)

[Chadwick]

Just received a copy of Out by a Step: The 100 Best Players Not in the Baseball Hall of Fame by Mike and Neil Shalin.

Mike Shalin is a writer for the Boston Herald and has been a voter in the BBWAA elections since 1989. His brother, Neil, is a freelance writer based in Chicago.

The Shalin brothers' book is a series of biographical portraits of each of the 100 best players not in the Hall of Fame. Eligibility for the book (published in 2002) was the same as eligibility for the Hall - played at least 10 years, retired at least 5, not banned from the sport - so don't get upset at the sight of Gary Carter's name, for example, or the lack of Albert Belle's.

I'm not sure exactly where in this list of 100 names, the Shalin brothers would draw their line (where everyone over deserves election and everyone under does not), nor do they cite separate lists for each brother (which would have been interesting, considering the one is an actual BBWAA voter.)

I haven't read the whole book yet, just the introduction and the appendicies, as well as the first half-dozen bios (presented in ranked order). Perhaps the best part of the book is the wealth of quotes from former teammates, coaches and other contemporaries about each player.

Here's the list. Thought I'd share. No more or less subjective than anyone else's, but it's a list, nevertheless. I'm sure both Shalins invite as much disagreement as concord with their list. (Anything to stir the hot stove!)

1. Dick Allen
2. Tony Oliva
   
3. Bruce Sutter
4. Gary Carter
   
5. Don Mattingly
6. Ron Santo
   
7. Dave Parker
   
8. Jim Rice
9. Maury Wills
   
10. Jack Morris
    
11. Steve Garvey
12. Ken Boyer
    
13. Rich Gossage
14. Biz Mackey
15. Joe Gordon
16. Ron Guidry
17. Gil Hodges
18. Thurman Munson
19. Luis Tiant
20. Roger Maris
21. Jim Kaat
    
22. Andre Dawson
23. The Yankees Big Three (Reynolds, Raschi & Lopat)
24. Dom DiMaggio
25. Keith Hernandez
26. Carl Mays
27. Bobby Bonds
    
28. Bert Blyleven
    
29. Dale Murphy
30. Al Rosen
31. Dick Lundy & John Beckwith
    
32. Tommy John
33. Minnie Minoso
    
34. Davey Concepcion
35. Billy Pierce
36. Marty Marion
37. Cristobal Torriente
38. Urban Shocker
39. Ted Simmons
40. Vada Pinson
41. Joe Torre
42. Ted Kluszewski
43. Cecil Travis
44. Curt Flood
45. Don Newcombe
46. Sherry Magee
47. Elston Howard
48. Wes Ferrell
49. Lew Burdette
    
50. Alan Trammell
51. Johnny Sain
52. Mule Suttles
53. Cesar Cedeno
54. Pete Reiser
55. Al Oliver
56. J.R. Richard
57. Bob Johnson
58. Dave Stewart
59. Johnny Kling
60. Rusty Staub
61. Rocky Colavito
62. Sal Maglie
63. Joe Wood
64. Bob Meusel
65. Larry Bowa
66. Dick Redding, Jose Mendez & Ray Brown
67. Dwight Evans
68. Bill Madlock
69. Buddy Myer
70. Jud Wilson
71. Mickey Lolich
72. Fred Lynn
73. Dick Groat
74. Graig Nettles
75. Frank White
76. Cecil Cooper
77. Kirk Gibson
78. Vern Stephens
79. Bob Boone
80. Bert Campaneris
81. Elroy Face
82. Reggie Smith
83. Burnis Wright
84. Carl Furillo
85. Stan Hack
86. Bobby Grich
87. Alvin Dark
88. Vida Blue
89. Bob Elliott
90. Hal Trosky
91. Willie Randolph
92. Tommy Davis
93. Dan Quisenberry
94. Terry Moore
95. Don Baylor
96. Del Ennis
97. Glenn Wright
98. Sparky Lyle
99. Wally Schang
100. Tommy Henrich (and 10 Yankee Greats: Bauer, Boyer, Keller, McDougald, Murphy, Richardson, Rolfe, Shawkey, Skowron, Woodling)

At the end of the book, the authors list, by position, "the Second 100 Players" as well as the "Not Prime-Time Long Enough All-Star Team" (ie. less than 10 years service time).

Naturally, all of us are going to have our quibbles with this list, but it's certainly thought provoking.

[jalbright]

The ordering of that list looks like a classic case of subjective only ratings, with few if any real banchmarks.

Jim Albright

[iPod]

I just want to point out something that absolutely drives me up the wall insane with anger. That is, making and publishing a list of whatever, but, out of laziness, putting things on the list that, from the definition of the list, blatantly don't belong there. If you didn't want to work hard at your list, don't make your list at all. Allie Reynolds, Vic Raschi, and Eddie Lopat will never be asked to split a Hall of Fame nomination three ways, so it's idiotic and lazy for the author to lump them together into one slot. Besides, it's not 100 players now!

The list itself blows, also.

[Edgartohof]

I just want to point out something that absolutely drives me up the wall insane with anger. That is, making and publishing a list of whatever, but, out of laziness, putting things on the list that, from the definition of the list, blatantly don't belong there. If you didn't want to work hard at your list, don't make your list at all. Allie Reynolds, Vic Raschi, and Eddie Lopat will never be asked to split a Hall of Fame nomination three ways, so it's idiotic and lazy for the author to lump them together into one slot. Besides, it's not 100 players now!

The list itself blows, also.

What's your problem? He was just stating his opinion - he has every right to do so, just as you do. So what if you don't like his list - maybe he doesn't like yours! He can say whatever he wants, and you don't have to agree with it, but you're being rude and pathetic in the way you are talking about it. It diminishes the respect others have for you and your opinion.

Hey, if you want, tell us what you think is wrong with it - 'cause trust me - there is a lot (Joe Torre only 41st?!? :noidea )

[csh19792001]

The list itself blows, also.

Yes, I see the list as lacking also.

[Chadwick]

I just want to point out something that absolutely drives me up the wall insane with anger. That is, making and publishing a list of whatever, but, out of laziness, putting things on the list that, from the definition of the list, blatantly don't belong there. If you didn't want to work hard at your list, don't make your list at all. Allie Reynolds, Vic Raschi, and Eddie Lopat will never be asked to split a Hall of Fame nomination three ways, so it's idiotic and lazy for the author to lump them together into one slot. Besides, it's not 100 players now!

I have to agree with you, iPod. It is pure laziness for the authors to lump multiple players together in a single ranking. How sensible, really, is it to put Reynolds, Raschi and Lopat all at 23? Or Lundy and Beckwith both at 31? Redding, Mendez and Brown are left unsorted at 66. And of course, there are no less than eleven players crammed into the 100 spot. What sense does that make? It defies logic. I think this really became an issue for me with Bill James' New Historical Baseball Abstract, when he lumped Nomar, Jeter and A-Rod together at one rating (17th) among shortstops. Either give each individual a full and fair hearing for their own place on the list, or don't review them at all. It's intellectually lazy and organizationally sloppy to do otherwise.

[digglahhh]

Agreed, Ipod and Chancellor.

It is particularly infuriating to know that there are people here at BBF, undertaking similar exercises for purposes of leisure, who give more thorough thought, analysis and diligence to our musings/lists than people who are getting published, not to mention paid. This is not endemic to this individual, I feel this when reading/watching ESPN and many other mainstream sports outlets as well, not to mention roundtable discussion shows regarding political and historical events. Baseball is just like any other topic, people are largely clueless as to where to go to get quality information/analysis.

It is even more peculiar that he overloads the list when he goes through the trouble of including a second, and presumably worse list of the next 100 players. Why bother?

[ElHalo]

I believe, a while back, we had a very, extremely extensive, drawn out elimination voting process for who the most deserving guy was... he finishes, I believe, forty sixth in this list... Sherry Magee.

No Gavvy Cravath? Anywhere? No Pete Browning or Harry Stovey? Those guys are all top 10 in my book.

[dgarza]

No Gavvy Cravath? Anywhere? No Pete Browning or Harry Stovey?

Or Tip O'Neill, Deacon White, Bobby Veach, Lefty O'Doul, Babe Herman, Charley Jones, George Van Haltren, Mike Tiernan, Jimmy Ryan, Bucky Walters, and any number of 19th Cent. pitchers.

[KCGHOST]

This is simply a "make a quick buck" book. No harm in that, I suppose, but too many will take it as serious stuff. Once you saw the list had no 19th century players you knew it was fluff.

[Chadwick]

As long as we're on the subject, how many 19th century stars ought to be among the top players deserving enshrinement? (I know a "quota" isn't needed, what I mean is how many would you reasonably expect to see among the top 10, top 25, top 50 or top 100 players not already inducted?)

How many has the Hall really missed? Where do you draw the line? Sure the era is somewhat underrepresented now, but how many get in before it is adequately represented? Before it is overrepresented?

I disagree with people like Bill James who follow the logic that since these players are long dead, they don't deserve to be honored with enshrinement, that it wouldn't do any good to put them in at this point. If the guy was an all-time great, one of the best of his time, he deserves to be remembered as such and the best way to insure that is with induction to Cooperstown.

But how many? Surely, ElHalo, your opinion is somewhat extreme? How can you reasonably say that - pulling a number out of thin air - 5 out of the top 10 players not in the Hall of Fame played before 1900?

I know at least one person on these boards who thinks Bob Caruthers is the most deserving (retired) pitcher not yet elected; over Blyleven, Kaat, Mays, Ferrell, any number of others post-1900 pitchers.

And I'm not saying they aren't deserving. Again...lazy of the authors to not include those players (though they did admit to leaning towards players they'd seen in their lifetimes). In my mind there are a number of 19th century players who ought to be honored. I'm just uncertain where to draw the line. And I'm really uncertain where to insert these guys on a list with players like Blyleven or Dick Allen or Ted Simmons.

Just curious what you guys think of the issue. How many are missing? Where do they rank among candidates at their positions (and why?)

[538280]

Yeah, I agree with everyone else. This list is completely horrible, and looks like it was lazily lumped together with no thought. Any list that has Joe Torre 41st, Sherry Magee 46th Stan Hack 85th, and Bobby Grich 86th among players outside the Hall loses big time credibility with me. They have Christobal Torriente below Marty Marion!

At least they have Dick Allen #1.

[csh19792001]

I believe, a while back, we had a very, extremely extensive, drawn out elimination voting process for who the most deserving guy was... he finishes, I believe, forty sixth in this list... Sherry Magee.

No Gavvy Cravath? Anywhere? No Pete Browning or Harry Stovey? Those guys are all top 10 in my book.

Agreed.

Is Bill Dahlen even on that list? He's as viable as Dick Allen, their #1 guy. George Van Haltren even? If Carl Mays hand't killed Ray Chapman, I'm sure they would have no clue who he was, either, and he'd be left him off also.

These guys clearly didn't do their homework- so many glaring omissions. The list looks more like a popularity contest more than anything else.

[dgarza]

"Out By A Step" MUST be in reference to the list itself.

[dgarza]

I am very open and liberal when it come to the HOF.
Looking at the 1870s, there are only 5 or 6 players, I think, who are in the HOF as players. There have been years when the HOF has inducted more players than that ('39, mid-40s, early-70s). Most decades seem to have at least 20-30 players represented. I strongly endorse players from the 1870s.