Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tiered HOF

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

  • Tiered HOF

    Even though I wouldn't support it in real life, I think it is pretty fun to try to separate the HOF's members into separate "tiers". I chose four tiers, with tier 1 being the best players in the HOF, and with Tier 4 mostly being players who I don't think belong in or are very marginal selections. Here's how it ended up:

    Tier 1
    Hank Aaron
    Pete Alexander
    Cap Anson
    Johnny Bench
    Yogi Berra
    George Brett
    Oscar Charleston
    Ty Cobb
    Mickey Cochrane
    Eddie Collins
    Ed Delahanty
    Bill Dickey
    Joe DiMaggio
    Buck Ewing
    Bob Feller
    Jimmie Foxx
    Lou Gehrig
    Charlie Gehringer
    Bob Gibson
    Josh Gibson
    Lefty Grove
    Rogers Hornsby
    Reggie Jackson
    Walter Johnson
    King Kelly
    Nap Lajoie
    Pop Lloyd
    Mickey Mantle
    Juan Marichal
    Eddie Mathews
    Christy Mathewson
    Willie Mays
    Joe Morgan
    Stan Musial
    Kid Nichols
    Satchel Paige
    Mel Ott
    Frank Robinson
    Jackie Robinson
    Babe Ruth
    Mike Schmidt
    Tom Seaver
    Warren Spahn
    Tris Speaker
    Arky Vaughan
    Honus Wagner
    Monte Ward
    Smokey Joe Williams
    Ted Williams
    Carl Yastremski
    Cy Young

    Tier 2
    Luke Appling
    Frank Baker
    Ernie Banks
    Cool Papa Bell
    Wade Boggs
    Dan Brouthers
    Roy Campanella
    Rod Carew
    Steve Carlton
    Gary Carter
    Fred Clarke
    John Clarkson
    Roberto Clemente
    Roger Connor
    Sam Crawford
    Ray Dandridge
    Martin Dihigo
    Carlton Fisk
    Whitey Ford
    Bill Foster
    Frankie Frisch
    Billy Hamilton
    Gabby Hartnett
    Carl Hubbell
    Al Kaline
    Harmon Killebrew
    Sandy Koufax
    Fergie Jenkins
    Buck Leonard
    Juan Marichal
    Willie McCovey
    Johnny Mize
    Paul Molitor
    Eddie Murray
    Jim Palmer
    Gaylord Perry
    Eddie Plank
    Charles Radbourn
    Robin Roberts
    Brooks Robinson
    Bullet Joe Rogan
    Nolan Ryan
    Al Simmons
    Ozzie Smith
    Duke Snider
    Willie Stargell
    Turkey Stearnes
    Dazzy Vance
    Ed Walsh
    Paul Waner
    Hoyt Wilhelm
    Robin Yount

    Tier 3
    Richie Ashburn
    Earl Averill
    Lou Boudreau
    Mordecai Brown
    Jim Bunning
    Jesse Burkett
    Max Carey
    Orlando Cepeda
    Jimmy Collins
    Joe Cronin
    George Davis
    Leon Day
    Dizzy Dean
    Larry Doby
    Don Drysdale
    Hugh Duffy
    Dennis Eckersley
    Nellie Fox
    Frankie Frisch
    Goose Goslin
    Hank Greenberg
    Harry Heilmann
    Billy Herman
    Monte Irvin
    Tim Keefe
    Joe Kelley
    Ralph Kiner
    Bob Lemon
    Ted Lyons
    Joe McGinnnity
    Joe Medwick
    Hal Newhouser
    Phil Niekro
    Tony Perez
    Kirby Puckett
    Pee Wee Reese
    Amos Rusie
    Ryne Sandberg
    George Sisler
    Don Sutton
    Bill Terry
    Sam Thompson
    Pie Traynor
    Rube Waddell
    Bobby Wallace
    Dave Winfield
    Mickey Welch
    Willie Wells
    Billy Williams
    Early Wynn

    Tier 4
    Luis Aparicio
    Dave Bancroft
    Jake Beckley
    Chief Bender
    Jim Bottomley
    Roger Bresnahan
    Lou Brock
    Frank Chance
    Jack Chesbro
    Earle Combs
    Stan Covelski
    Bobby Doerr
    Johnny Evers
    Red Faber
    Rick Ferrell
    Rollie Fingers
    Elmer Flick
    Pud Galvin
    Lefty Gomez
    Burleigh Grimes
    Chick Hafey
    Jesse Haines
    Harry Hooper
    Waite Hoyt
    Catfish Hunter
    Travis Jackson
    Hughie Jennings
    Judy Johnson
    Addie Joss
    Willie Keeler
    George Kell
    George Kelly
    Chuck Klein
    Tony Lazzeri
    Freddy Lindstrom
    Ernie Lombardi
    Heinie Manush
    Rabbit Maranville
    Rube Marquard
    Bill Mazeroski
    Tommy McCarthy
    Bid McPhee
    Jim O’Rourke
    Herb Pennock
    Sam Rice
    Eppa Rixey
    Phil Rizzuto
    Edd Roush
    Red Ruffing
    Ray Schalk
    Red Schoendienst
    Joe Sewell
    Enos Slaughter
    Hilton Smith
    Joe Tinker
    Lloyd Waner
    Vic Willis
    Hack Wilson
    Ross Youngs

    You can feel free to either argue with my selections or make your own tiered HoF.

  • #2
    --I wouldn't support a tiered Hall in real life either, but I would support an inner circle concept where the true elite get an additional level of honor. Multiple tiers can only end up insulting some players who are supposed to be honored. A small group of players, chosen only from players already inducted, could serve to quell the complaints of people who don't want to see Tony Perez in the same Hall as Babe Ruth or Bert Blyleven with Walter Johnson or whatever.
    -- Induct say 5 players to start and 2 a year for however long seems appropriate. They could have statues instead of plaques or gold instead of bronze or a separate display area or something. Who would be your first 5?

    Comment


    • #3
      Chris, would you ever consider moving Schalk up to tier #3? Just wonderin'. He was a whiz.




      The tiered idea would get my vote in real life, but not to the extent Chris went to on this one. Good work too Chris, you alphabetized all of them and everything. Lotsa work.

      Four tiers is too much. Three might be alright. I like the idea of an elite tier, where every player in there has there own special section and stuff. It'd have to be much smaller than the one you laid out Chris. We're talking the upper elites of the elites here.

      The second tier would have the Reggies and the Arkys and stuff, then the bottom tier would be for the Rizzutos and Sandbergs of the world.

      Elite Tier

      Honus
      Ty
      Babe
      Walter
      Cy
      Tris
      Willie
      Stan
      Christy
      Joe M.
      Rogers
      Ted W.
      Mickey
      Joe D.
      A few more, probably up to 20.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm for an inner circle.

        I even think the writers may be capable of pulling that one off.
        "I think about baseball when I wake up in the morning. I think about it all day and I dream about it at night. The only time I don't think about it is when I'm playing it."
        Carl Yastrzemski

        Comment


        • #5
          Christ,

          Great list. The only I would strongly diagree with is Ernie Lombardi as a 4th tier. I'd have him as a 3rd tier myself, but that's just me.
          Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
            Chris, would you ever consider moving Schalk up to tier #3? Just wonderin'. He was a whiz.
            Maybe if you could give me some reasons why. I'm pretty set on Schalk though. He's one of the worst players in the Hall, he was reputed to be a great defensive catcher (one of the best ever actually), but statistics haven't been that kind to him. He was supposed to be great at handling pitchers, so maybe defensive metrics are missing much of his greatness. So, I'm willing to call him a great defensive catcher.

            But, so was Rick Dempsey, Del Crandall, Jim Sundberg, and Hank Gowdy, and those guys were just as good or probably better hitters, and they lasted about the same amount of time. I've never heard any of those guys mentioned as HOFers. Really, what does Schalk have that Rick Dempsey doesn't?

            One more question: You don't think Ryne Sandberg is a HOFer? Don't really see any legitimate argument against him. He was a very good hitter, especially for a 2B, an all time great fielder (9 Gold Gloves), and an MVP. Traditional opinions and sabermetrics both seem to think he was an all time great, so why don't you like him?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 538280
              Maybe if you could give me some reasons why. I'm pretty set on Schalk though. He's one of the worst players in the Hall, he was reputed to be a great defensive catcher (one of the best ever actually), but statistics haven't been that kind to him. He was supposed to be great at handling pitchers, so maybe defensive metrics are missing much of his greatness. So, I'm willing to call him a great defensive catcher.

              But, so was Rick Dempsey, Del Crandall, Jim Sundberg, and Hank Gowdy, and those guys were just as good or probably better hitters, and they lasted about the same amount of time. I've never heard any of those guys mentioned as HOFers. Really, what does Schalk have that Rick Dempsey doesn't?

              One more question: You don't think Ryne Sandberg is a HOFer? Don't really see any legitimate argument against him. He was a very good hitter, especially for a 2B, an all time great fielder (9 Gold Gloves), and an MVP. Traditional opinions and sabermetrics both seem to think he was an all time great, so why don't you like him?
              I don't really have much motivation to prove a case for Schalk, just curious as to why you have him in tier #4. I wasn't aware that your defensive metrics didn't see him for what he was. If that's the case, then I understand your position.

              His career wasn't long, and he did swing a wet noodle. He had 177SB/69CS which is pretty darn good for a catcher taking the wear and tear they do. I would only say that the same criticism you apply to Pudge for not working with the pitchers, etc, you should extend the same level of praise to Schalk in that sense. He worked with the pitchers, called a great game and thought along with the hitter, he was a true team guy, a scrappy defensive genius. Not to mention he caught Cicotte, which couldn't have been a walk in the park. Taking the era in context, and understanding that he was an unselfish guy playing a defense first position, I just think he shouldn't be in tier #4. Tier #3 seems reasonable.

              As far as Sandberg, I grew up watching him on WGN day in and day out. He was a fine player. I think the park he played in had a lot to do with his success, but maybe you could show me numbers that prove me wrong on that, eh

              Comment


              • #8
                The TOP-tier is already there!

                The First Ballot Hall of Famers.

                Anything else is disrespectful to other Hall of Famers!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                  I don't really have much motivation to prove a case for Schalk, just curious as to why you have him in tier #4. I wasn't aware that your defensive metrics didn't see him for what he was. If that's the case, then I understand your position.

                  His career wasn't long, and he did swing a wet noodle. He had 177SB/69CS which is pretty darn good for a catcher taking the wear and tear they do. I would only say that the same criticism you apply to Pudge for not working with the pitchers, etc, you should extend the same level of praise to Schalk in that sense. He worked with the pitchers, called a great game and thought along with the hitter, he was a true team guy, a scrappy defensive genius. Not to mention he caught Cicotte, which couldn't have been a walk in the park. Taking the era in context, and understanding that he was an unselfish guy playing a defense first position, I just think he shouldn't be in tier #4. Tier #3 seems reasonable.
                  I'm sure Schalk was a great defensive catcher (the defensive metrics don't take pitcher handling into account), but still, all of the things you say about Schalk could also be said about Rick Dempsey, and I don't think anyone wants him in the Hall.

                  I said Tier 4 was for "mistakes or very marginal choices", and I just don't see how Schalk really does belong in. He is extremely similar to Rick Dempsey, and that's not too much a compliment for his HOF worthiness. Charles Johnson was a better hitter and better on defense (although he did have a shorter career), and I don't think anyone wants him in either.

                  As far as Sandberg, I grew up watching him on WGN day in and day out. He was a fine player. I think the park he played in had a lot to do with his success, but maybe you could show me numbers that prove me wrong on that, eh
                  His home park probably did help him a lot, but his numbers are still fantastic. He was an awesome hitter for a 2B, and he was an outstanding fielder and an MVP with a long career. Not too much of a case against him.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 538280
                    I'm sure Schalk was a great defensive catcher (the defensive metrics don't take pitcher handling into account), but still, all of the things you say about Schalk could also be said about Rick Dempsey, and I don't think anyone wants him in the Hall.

                    I said Tier 4 was for "mistakes or very marginal choices", and I just don't see how Schalk really does belong in. He is extremely similar to Rick Dempsey, and that's not too much a compliment for his HOF worthiness. Charles Johnson was a better hitter and better on defense (although he did have a shorter career), and I don't think anyone wants him in either.



                    His home park probably did help him a lot, but his numbers are still fantastic. He was an awesome hitter for a 2B, and he was an outstanding fielder and an MVP with a long career. Not too much of a case against him.
                    By no means is Schalk an elite, or even second tier HOFer, so I was just throwin' a bone out there for him to be in tier #3. You do apply your own harsh judgement on Ivan (which I agree with) for certain reasons, and those same reasons are what Schalk had/did to a great degree. So I think maybe you should take your defensive metrics and flush 'em down the friekin' toilet! lol, jk man, thought I'd throw ya for a loop there Nah, you should use them if you believe in them, but you should also take into account that he was not only very good in other important catching areas, but he was great at them. I haven't read up or heard much about Rick Dempsey though.

                    For Sandberg, he was a solid player in his day. If his home park helped him offensively, does it matter what position he played? Honestly, if it helped, it helped. Once he steps in the batters box, it doesn't matter if he's a third baseman, centerfielder, or shorstop. He's a hitter at that point.

                    Having said that, I understand how you like to use positional adjustments because of "value" to a team. I get that. Judging an actual players greatness has little to do with "value" though. We're not building a team here, just judging his skills, so in that sense, his home park did help him put up better numbers, regardless of what position he played. Do you see what I'm getting at?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      [QUOTE=Sultan_1895-1948Nah, you should use them if you believe in them, but you should also take into account that he was not only very good in other important catching areas, but he was great at them. I haven't read up or heard much about Rick Dempsey though.[/quote]

                      Rick Dempsey was a team leader and great handler of the pitchers, and he also was known to have a strong arm and be great at throwing out would be basestealers. He was known as one of the best defensive catchers in his time, just like Schalk. He was actually a better hitter than Schalk too, with an OPS+ 4 points higher and a couple of good hitting seasons for a catcher (1980, 1985, 1988). Schalk may have been a little bit better defensively but a little bit worse offensively. They had careers of about the same length. Basically the same players 60 or so years apart. Neither are anywhere near HOF credentials. One, of course, is in as one of the worst players in the Hall.

                      For Sandberg, he was a solid player in his day. If his home park helped him offensively, does it matter what position he played? Honestly, if it helped, it helped. Once he steps in the batters box, it doesn't matter if he's a third baseman, centerfielder, or shorstop. He's a hitter at that point.

                      Having said that, I understand how you like to use positional adjustments because of "value" to a team. I get that. Judging an actual players greatness has little to do with "value" though. We're not building a team here, just judging his skills, so in that sense, his home park did help him put up better numbers, regardless of what position he played. Do you see what I'm getting at?
                      Value to the team is a big part of HOF credentials. To me, the biggest part of what makes how good you are is how much you help your team win. The fact Sandberg can hit like that from a defensive position makes him extremely valuable. He's not top tier certainly, or maybe not even 2nd tier but he's a good, solid HOFer.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        --Sandberg is pretty clearly amoung the top 10 at 2B. Being top 10 at your position is a solid Hall of Fame credential. The only player who fits that criteria and is not in IMO is Ron Santo. Santo, not coincidentally, is also the best eligible player not in the Hall IMO.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by leecemark
                          A small group of players, chosen only from players already inducted, could serve to quell the complaints of people who don't want to see Tony Perez in the same Hall as Babe Ruth or Bert Blyleven with Walter Johnson or whatever.
                          OMG, did I miss it? Did Blyleven get in?!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            --The arguement against him is that he was never a dominating star. Which is true enough. He wasn't Walter Johnson or Lefty Grove or even Robin Roberts. Of course, neither were Eppa Rixey or Don Drysdale or most of the other HoFers. Having an inner circle would help eliminate the elitist arguements which fantasize about a Hall that doesn't actually exist anyway.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by leecemark
                              --I wouldn't support a tiered Hall in real life either, but I would support an inner circle concept where the true elite get an additional level of honor.
                              Tiering v. inner circle? What's the difference?
                              You are still saying some are better than others!
                              1968 and 1984, the greatest ever.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X