Champs with no Hall-of-Famers

[Appling]

Before 1980, every World Series Champion team had at least one player on the roster who would later be voted to the Hall of Fame. But somehow, four MLB teams won World Championships prior to 1990 without a single player deemed good enough to enter the Hall of Fame:
* 1981 LA Dodgers
* 1984 Detroit Tigers
* 1989 Oakland A's
* 1990 Cincinnati Reds

Isn't winning a World Series what the game is all about? How did these four teams do it without any stars? (Actually, the 1989 A's will have a HOF member when Rickey Henderson finally becomes eligible.)

But what about the other teams? Do you agree that none of their players belongs in the Hall?

Let me focus on just those 1984 Tigers. Their roster included several players that I might have voted to the Hall: Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, Jack Morris, Kirk Gibson, or Darrell Evans. Isn't at least one of these HOF worthy?
(Jack Morris had more wins in the 1980's than any other pitcher!)

You may choose more than one answer on this poll question.

[Pine Tar]

Barry Larkin from the 1990 Reds should eventually get elected to the hall, but it doesn't look like anybody from the 1981 Dodgers will ever. You know you look at their roster though and its full of people who were at least of the ballot.
Steve Garvey is an obvious one but it also has:
Rick Sutcliffe
Dave Stewart
Fernando Valezuaela
Reggie Smith
Ron Cey
Dusty Baker
Davey Lopes
Rick Monday
Steve Sax
Burt Hooten
Bob Welch
Jerry Ruess
Pedro Guerrero

This just struck me as a unique list of players to all be on one team at the same time.

[Barnstormer]

This just struck me as a unique list of players to all be on one team at the same time.

You're right, it is unique, the whole starting lineup and half the pitchers were all-stars at one time or another.

[Captain Cold Nose]

2004 HOf'er Dennis Eckersley was the closer for the '89 A's. And Mark McGwire, steroid controversey or not, will probably get in. I don't see the sports writers turning up their noses at something that was not illegal at the time he did whatever he did. Nor do I see so many of them taking a "moral" stand.

To say they did it without any stars isn't really fair. You can be a star without being a HOF'er. The Tigers winning the world series was the result of having many all star-caliber players come up from their system around the same time (basically, all those listed in the poll). with a few nice free agency signings (Evans, Hernandez, etc.) Watching that team day in, day out (and the whole city really went nuts for that team.) was a pleasure. But, again watching that team day in, day out and seeing those players throughout their entire careers, they never seemed to me to be HOF'ers at the time. Tram and Whitaker seemed close to that superstar pinnacle, but never seemed beyond the borderline of such.

It would be cool to see Trammell get in, as I always liked him. But I would not be heartbroken if he didn't because I think he's just short of the mark. But I've never taken the opportunity to look at him at a distance because growing up in Detroit through the seventies and eighties, it never was at a distance.

[leecemark]

--I think that for a player, such as Trammell, who is a mid-tier or borderline HOFer, seeing them up close is a disadvantage. You live through their slumps and see their flaws and they seem more human than immortal. For a player in another city or league you only see them occasionally and you hear mostly the good about them. Not so much an issue for the first tier type guys.
--I also watched Trammell and Whitaker as they came up and developed and they didn't seem like all time greats to me either. Very good players that I was happy to have on the team, but not Hall of famers. Stepping back from a distance though, Trammell had a career than compares favorably to at least half the Hall of Fame SSs. I'm pretty sure if I'd seen Wallace, Tinker, Maranville, Bancroft, Sewell, Jackson, Appling (maybe), Reese, Rizzuto and Aparicio everyday I wouldn't have been in awe of them either. I rank Trammell ahead of all but Appling.

[DoubleX]

Trammell for sure. I'm on the fence with Whitaker and to a lesser extent, Evans, and a definite no to Jack Morris. I also think Lance Parrish is a player that doesn't get nearly the amount of credit he deserves and he is someone I would put close to the fence (and perhaps on). Morris the equivalent of some of those 1920s pitchers that are in the Hall and are among the most egregious selecitons to the Hall, such as Herb Pennock, Waite Hoyt and Jesse Helms (and to a lesser extent, Eppa Rixey, Red Faber, and Ted Lyons).

I'd rank the 1984 Tigers as:

Alan Trammell - Definite Hall of Famer
Lou Whitaker - Wouldn't be a Bad Selection
Darrell Evans - Wouldn't be a Bad Selection
Lance Parrish - Very Underrated, but not quite a Hall of Famer
Jack Morris - Very Overrated and definitely not a Hall of Famer
Howard Johnson - Very Underrated, a fine 3Bman with nice power (too short of a career though)
Kirk Gibson - I could probably think of at least 20-30 outfielders that deserve induction before Gibson
Chet Lemon - Not too far behind Gibson
Willie Hernandez - Great Season, good follow-up in '85, but then what?

[Cougar]

The managers on the four teams you mention:

Tommy Lasorda, Sparky Anderson (HOFers)

Tony Larussa (lock HOFer when he quits)

Lou Piniella (Possible HOF manager -- I'd actually guess a probable one).

-------------

Rickey Henderson was also on the 1989 A's (joined midseason); he's as good a first ballot lock as there ever was.

Dave Parker was also on the 1989 A's -- he's likely to get in someday (although surely not via the BBWAA). Someone already mentioned McGwire and Eckersley, and it may be too soon to entirely discount Canseco's chances (although I wouldn't support him myself).

[Cougar]

Trammell for sure. I'm on the fence with Whitaker and to a lesser extent, Evans, and a definite no to Jack Morris. I also think Lance Parrish is a player that doesn't get nearly the amount of credit he deserves and he is someone I would put close to the fence (and perhaps on). Morris the equivalent of some of those 1920s pitchers that are in the Hall and are among the most egregious selecitons to the Hall, such as Herb Pennock, Waite Hoyt and Jesse Helms (and to a lesser extent, Eppa Rixey, Red Faber, and Ted Lyons).

I'd rank the 1984 Tigers as:

Alan Trammell - Definite Hall of Famer
Lou Whitaker - Wouldn't be a Bad Selection
Darrell Evans - Wouldn't be a Bad Selection
Lance Parrish - Very Underrated, but not quite a Hall of Famer
Jack Morris - Very Overrated and definitely not a Hall of Famer
Howard Johnson - Very Underrated, a fine 3Bman with nice power (too short of a career though)
Kirk Gibson - I could probably think of at least 20-30 outfielders that deserve induction before Gibson
Chet Lemon - Not too far behind Gibson
Willie Hernandez - Great Season, good follow-up in '85, but then what?

1. Excellent point about Parrish; he's much too overlooked as a Gold Glove catcher who hit over 300 HR. I'd actually support him for the HOF myself (although not ahead of 5-6 guys, including fellow Tiger Bill Freehan).

2. Jesse Haines, not Jesse Helms. (Freudian slip, perhaps?)

[Cougar]

1990 Reds

Larkin surely should make the Hall -- how long it'll take him (given Trammell's shabby treatment by the baseball writers) is another question. The MVP will help (he wasn't robbed of his like Trammell was in 1987).

Eric Davis almost surely would have been a HOF had he stayed healthy. A similar, though weaker case could be made for Jose Rijo.

Randy Myers has a modest HOF claim that just got stronger with Sutter's induction, but is still quite weak, with at minimum a dozen more worthy relievers not yet inducted. How much Sutter lowered the bar is still TBD, though.

[KCGHOST]

Trammell is the only one I would consider voting for if I had a ballot. The others are fine players, but have real flaws to their candidacy.

[DoubleX]

1. Excellent point about Parrish; he's much too overlooked as a Gold Glove catcher who hit over 300 HR. I'd actually support him for the HOF myself (although not ahead of 5-6 guys, including fellow Tiger Bill Freehan).

2. Jesse Haines, not Jesse Helms. (Freudian slip, perhaps?)

1. I have Freehan ahead of Parrish to (as well as Torre, Simmons, and Schang).

2. That was a funny slip...

[Cougar]

1. I have Freehan ahead of Parrish to (as well as Torre, Simmons, and Schang).

That's pretty much my list too:

Retired catchers, in order of HOF worthiness

1. Ted Simmons (Cardinals)
2. Joe Torre (PLYR/MGR; Yankees)
3. (tie) Thurman Munson (Yankees)
3. (tie) Bill Freehan (Tigers)
5. Wally Schang (Philadelphia Athletics)
6. Lance Parrish (Tigers)
7. Elston Howard (Yankees)
8. Bob Boone (Phillies)
9. Tim McCarver (PLYR/BRDCSTR; Cardinals)
10. Del Crandall (Milwaukee Braves)
11. (tie) Tony Pena (Pirates), Jim Sundberg (Rangers), Benito Santiago (Padres)

I haven't done a big reevaluation of catchers in a while. When I do, I suspect I might drop Munson down a couple pegs.

But anyway, it's nice to see that someone else out there has pretty much the same pecking order as me on elligible catchers.

I'd endorse the enshrinement of the top 6, and I would be OK with Howard and Boone too, although I'm not sure I'd campaign for them. McCarver is overqualified as a broadcaster, but was a better catcher than people realize.

Naturally, Piazza and IRod go to the head of the class upon retirement.

Among other active players, Jason Kendall, Jorge Posada, and Javy Lopez are gaining on the top 10, but probably aren't there yet.

[DoubleX]

That's pretty much my list too:

Retired catchers, in order of HOF worthiness

1. Ted Simmons (Cardinals)
2. Joe Torre (PLYR/MGR; Yankees)
3. (tie) Thurman Munson (Yankees)
3. (tie) Bill Freehan (Tigers)
5. Wally Schang (Philadelphia Athletics)
6. Lance Parrish (Tigers)
7. Elston Howard (Yankees)
8. Bob Boone (Phillies)
9. Tim McCarver (PLYR/BRDCSTR; Cardinals)
10. Del Crandall (Milwaukee Braves)
11. (tie) Tony Pena (Pirates), Jim Sundberg (Rangers), Benito Santiago (Padres)

I haven't done a big reevaluation of catchers in a while. When I do, I suspect I might drop Munson down a couple pegs.

But anyway, it's nice to see that someone else out there has pretty much the same pecking order as me on elligible catchers.

I'd endorse the enshrinement of the top 6, and I would be OK with Howard and Boone too, although I'm not sure I'd campaign for them. McCarver is overqualified as a broadcaster, but was a better catcher than people realize.

Naturally, Piazza and IRod go to the head of the class upon retirement.

Among other active players, Jason Kendall, Jorge Posada, and Javy Lopez are gaining on the top 10, but probably aren't there yet.

We're pretty much the same until the very end of your top 10. I have some catchers from the 40s and 50s ahead of Boone, Pena, Santiago, McCarver and Sundberg. In addition to Del Crandall (whom you have), I have Sherm Lollar, Walker Cooper, and Smokey Burgess. Gene Tenace is another guy I have in there.

[ElHalo]

I'm pretty sure if I'd seen Wallace, Tinker, Maranville, Bancroft, Sewell, Jackson, Appling (maybe), Reese, Rizzuto and Aparicio everyday I wouldn't have been in awe of them either. I rank Trammell ahead of all but Appling.

Couple of these guys don't fit the point you're making; Rizzuto is one of the least deserving HoF'ers, but he was apparently an absolutely amazing player to watch (all the old timers were in awe of him; wasn't it Cobb who said that Rizzuto and Ted Williams were the only players who could hold a candle to the guys of his era?), and people were impressed by him all out of proportion to how good he actually was. Same thing with Maranville; there was no Hall of Fame then, but everybody who watched him play thought they were watching a true superstar.

[iPod]

Couple of these guys don't fit the point you're making; Rizzuto is one of the least deserving HoF'ers, but he was apparently an absolutely amazing player to watch (all the old timers were in awe of him; wasn't it Cobb who said that Rizzuto and Ted Williams were the only players who could hold a candle to the guys of his era?), and people were impressed by him all out of proportion to how good he actually was. Same thing with Maranville; there was no Hall of Fame then, but everybody who watched him play thought they were watching a true superstar.

I don't doubt that from what little I've read, but I tend to side more with leecemark on this one. I think that a lot of the people (like me) who say that baseball fans focus too much on intangibles would be tearing their eyeballs out of their sockets in the 1950s and back. It's really tough for a player nowadays to develop a big following unless there's some sort of numerical justification for it, just because the numbers are so readily available to anyone in contact with the game on a day-to-day basis. If Phil Rizzuto came into the league today, more people would see him, say "wow, he's pretty good," then go home and look up his numbers and say "hmm, well, maybe not." Whether or not Rizzuto actually was great despite his numbers is another story, but I think it'd be much harder for the rep he had in the 50s to persist today.