Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Baseball Hall Of Fame Modern Era 1970-1987 Candidates Announced

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Baseball Hall Of Fame Modern Era 1970-1987 Candidates Announced

    Ten HOF Modern Baseball Era (1970-1987) Candidates were announced yesterday.
    Electees will be announced on Sunday, December 8.

    Ted Simmons
    Marvin Miller (the only non-player among the final 10 candidates).
    Thurman Munson
    Don Mattingly
    Tommy John
    Lou Whitaker
    Dwight Evans
    Dale Murphy
    Dave Parker
    Steve Garvey


  • #2
    Before Baines was elected I'd say probably NO these guys. I'd have put in Whitaker, and I'd have Simmons and Evans over 50/50 on the deserving scale.

    Now, with Baines in, it kind of changes what the hall of fame means to me. I'd leave off Garvey and probably Mattingly (50/50) and put in all the rest. Evans, Murphy and Parker were just better and more important to baseball history.

    A problem though is that we know have like 4 committees. We have a committee for modern players who played since 1988. Then another committee for like 1960-1988, and one for 1920-1960, and one from before 1920. So they meet every 4 years. I mean at some point, do we really need to be voting on players from 60 years ago who have basically been voted down multiple times in the past.

    Baines changed the HOF for me, because I used to be for a small hall-basically about the size that we would have if only BBWAA original elections held up. There are very few bad choices among the standard elections. There were players who missed out and need to get in, but I don't think that we need to go back every 4 years. The committees should have met and elected the obvious guys, and then once they start electing nobody for 2-3 years be disbanded.

    Anyway, for the hall of fame to mean anything to me anymore, I have to change my view of it to make it more inclusive. I can either enjoy it for what it has become, or ignore it. I think I'll do the former. In order I'd go:

    Whitaker
    Evans
    John
    Simmons
    Munson
    Murphy
    Parker
    Mattingly
    Garvey

    And Garvey is better than Baines. More important player. More WAA, Same WAR, higher peak WAR seasons. Parker and Garvey would probably get negative points for being A-holes, and at times poor representatives of the human race, while Murphy would earn a boost. Right now, I think I'd definitely put in Whitaker, Evans, Johm, Simmons and Munson, and since I liked Murphy a lot, I'd vote for him too. He narrowly missed 400 home runs, and had 2 MVPs which both would have made him a virtual lock before the 90s offensive explosion.
    Last edited by brett; 11-05-2019, 07:25 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      I really don't understand the "Player A is now in so lets elected every other player of similar value". Can't we agree that Baines was a mistake and move on from there? Why does Baines have to be the new lowest standard for future selections? At the very least Ted Simmons deserves induction on his own merits and not because Baines was elected.
      Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

      Comment


      • #4
        I'd put them all in and throw in Will Clark.

        Go Garv especially

        I want the BBF meltdown!!!
        This week's Giant

        #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

        Comment


        • #5
          I mean at some point, do we really need to be voting on players from 60 years ago who have basically been voted down multiple times in the past.
          Yes we do.

          Oversights are still oversights

          Bill Dahlen and others belong.
          This week's Giant

          #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
            I really don't understand the "Player A is now in so lets elected every other player of similar value". Can't we agree that Baines was a mistake and move on from there? Why does Baines have to be the new lowest standard for future selections? At the very least Ted Simmons deserves induction on his own merits and not because Baines was elected.
            It's not about similar value, it is that Baines basically got in because he is up there on a lot of traditional leaderboards. Maybe I could see putting guys in not because of "value" but rather statistical accomplishments and historical narrative.

            There are a lot of guys who got in that way who I wouldn't put in on value.
            Lee Smith
            Hoffman
            Rice
            Brock
            Maz
            Hunter

            And I'm not talking about guys who got in by the VC who have no business being considered.

            Maybe the HOF will be fun again if I open up to looking at value, narrative, and statistical accomplishments as all having a place. Don't know if there is a place for say Bill Madlock, but 4 batting titles takes a talent even if it doesn't necessarily equate to him being a valuable player.
            Last edited by brett; 11-05-2019, 11:06 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JR Hart View Post

              Yes we do.

              Oversights are still oversights

              Bill Dahlen and others belong.
              In a small hall of fame, say the top 150 position players of all tie, Dahlen may be the only deserving guy who's not in, and we've gotten maybe 30 outright bad choices in keeping the door open.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by brett View Post

                It's not about similar value, it is that Baines basically got in because he is up there on a lot of traditional leaderboards. Maybe I could see putting guys in not because of "value" but rather statistical accomplishments and historical narrative.
                This.

                It's not that Harold Baines set a new standard. It's not even that there's cronyism (although I'm sure that didn't hurt, especially with the generous application of labor strike credit).

                It's that Baines is sui generis. Was he a compiler? Oh yeah he was. But no one else in baseball history has been such a successful compiler. No "compiler type" has ever compiled his way so far up the leaderboards.

                Rusty Staub probably came the closest prior to Baines, in terms of building a HOF resume on a big pile of good-not-great seasons. But Baines outdistanced Staub by a fair bit.

                If Nick Markakis has like 4-5 more good years, he's going to surpass or encroach upon 3000 hits, and maybe he'll be the new "great compiler". (To be fair, Markakis is an excellent right fielder, and he usually hits a lot of doubles.) But Markakis hasn't done that yet, and history tells us that he's most likely going to peter out around 2600 or 2700 hits. He's on year-to-year contracts now, and the first time his average slips to .250 or so, and/or if he loses a step in the field, he's going to be out of a job in a hurry.

                However he did it, Baines put up career totals in major counting numbers that simply could not be ignored. On the leaderboards, he was surrounded by solid HOFers on both sides in hits, RBI, total bases, etc. He stuck out like a sore thumb as the only non-HOFer in that crowd. And his rate stats were not especially out of place either; probably below the median, but not egregiously so.

                Is it because Baines hung around forever as a DH and ended up 20th in Games Played, getting scads of opportunities? Yep. But who else has managed that? Nobody. There's not a serious danger of having a Baines type come along every five or ten years. It just doesn't happen.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Dw. Evans did have 2400 hits, 385 home runs and over 4000 TBs and won 8 gold gloves.

                  There have been players who made late career surges to put them over the line with voters. Molitor, Beltre, Fisk and Murray all moved into slam dunk territory based on late surges and they all would have had a harder time if that had retired at 35. How many players were not strong HOFers through age 35 but were sure things by the time they retired? Beltre, Fisk and Murray all should have been in based on age 35 stats but weren't totally on the radar, or had people asking questions about. Molitor got in because of his late surge. All of them were much better peak players than Baines though.

                  Julio Franco and Dwight Evans might be similar to Baines in their case, though they were both better peak players.

                  Comment

                  Ad Widget

                  Collapse
                  Working...
                  X