Baseball Fever Hall of Fame

[jalbright]

I've supported Stovey, so I'm sympathetic, but his chances this month aren't good. While what catcher24 said is correct, there are four outstanding ballots this month. Stovey has to get all of them unless a new ballot is cast with his name on it--and not one of those outstanding ballots had Stovey's name on it last month.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

We've gotten to 25 voters, with three outstanding votes. Five players have insurance votes in their pockets, and their prospects of induction this month are excellent: Boudreau, Foster, Lemon, Nagashima and Wilson. Lyons and Belle have received temporary reprieves, but need at least three favorable votes (i.e., if only those who voted last month vote the rest of this month, they need to run the table), and in each case, two of the three outstanding voters didn't vote for them last month. Either one might make it, but if I had to guess, I'd say both fall short this month. Welch is in a better position, needing only two of the three outstanding votes. Again, two of the three didn't vote for him last month, but in his case, he only needs one of them to go his way. I'd say he's pretty much even money. All other players are done this month as far as I'm aware.

My favorites among the contributors, Kawakami and Taylor, will spend at least one more month before induction.

Jim Albright

[Chadwick]

Mickey Welch and Ted Lyons need you!

These are two 300-game winners who are languishing outside a Hall of Fame that already has nearly 200 members. Unless there's some very good reason not to include them (which I certainly can't see), I implore those of you who haven't already voted for these men this month to reconsider. They are both r-i-g-h-t on the fence going into the final days of this election.

Who doesn't like a 300-game winner, after all?

[jalbright]

To follow up on the above, with our three outstanding voters (and counting the return to the fold of a familiar face--welcome back, 538280 ), the situation is this:

Unless we get new voters, Boudreau, Foster, Lemon and Nagashima are in

Wilson is in unless three more votes are cast, all against him (and one of the outstanding voters had him on last month's ballot)--so he's in good shape as well.

Welch and Lyons need all the votes cast the rest of the way, and need at least two votes to be cast. Both only had support from one of the 3 outstanding voters last month. That means they're longshots.

C. I. Taylor's chances were revived, and he needs all three outstanding voters to cast their votes for him. Two supported him last month, so he's got a real chance.

As far as I'm aware, no other players have a chance absent new voters--IIRC there is one contributor in reasonable shape.

Jim Albright

[catcher24]

No doubt Welch was a 300 game winner, Chancellor. But Lyons is about 40 wins shy of 300, unless I missed something at bb-ref.com.

[Chadwick]

(Is my face red?) I don't know what came over me. Must have been thinking Ted Lyons = Early Wynn or something like that.

Nevertheless...he might have won 300 games!

[538280]

Sal Bando

Sal Bando is a player who I'm voting for, but no one else has. Why? I don't know, I would think he deserves at least some votes. So, this is my little case for Sal Bando.

I think Bando gets a bad rap too for being the captain of the "Swinging A's". In reality, he was about as good a captain as the team could have possibly had. He kept them under control, and kind of served as a spokesman for the team with their owner, Charlie Finley. I said this in another post:

Bando was one of the greatest intangible players of all time. He was the leader of the Oakland A's who won three straight championships 1972-1974 and helped to keep the team together during some of their famed brawls. Reggie Jackson in his autobiography talks at some length about how great Bando was for the team and how he kept everyone focused on their goals-winning the World Series. To quote him:

"Sal Bando was the Godfather. Capo di capo. Boss of all bosses on the Oakland A's. We all had our roles, we all contributed, but Sal was the leader and everyone knew it. He didn't make a big deal out of it, but when something needed to be said, he said it."

Bando was the leader of the team. Without him, the A's wouldn't have been the same. The Baseball Page calls him "the glue that held the A's together".

Where do I rank Bando? For a long time I've had him 8th among 3Bmen, and I haven't seen a great argument for why I should lower him. I think Bando had one hell of a peak, and was one of the greatest intangible players of all time. Probably a HOF caliber player.

Bill James rates him 11th among 3Bmen, which is a HOF type rating, and he's not doing it on his subjective element, rather Bando is a player who a closer look at the evidence by James has elevated him into that rating. In his first Abstract, James didn't even mention Bando in his 3B section. Now he's 11th. Why? Simple, Win Shares, which take into account all things a player does in context have showed Bando to be what he really is-a great player. Here are his top 15 3Bs of all time, ranked according to James' rating system, minus the subjective element:

1.Mike Schmidt 153.87
2.Eddie Mathews 148.97
3.George Brett 141.38
4.Wade Boggs 140.89
5.Frank Baker 139.38
6.Ron Santo 133.26
7.Paul Molitor 129.85
8.Al Rosen 127.66
9.Stan Hack 126.55
10.Sal Bando 124.36
11.Darrell Evans 119.75
12.Brooks Robinson 118.14
13.Ken Boyer 116.77
14.Graig Nettles 113.32
15.Pie Traynor 109.04

It is ironic that the player James calls the most underrated of all time (Darrell Evans) actually rates below Sal Bando (a player historically rated even lower) by his own system.

Players who receive much more support for our hall like Boyer, Nettles, and Evans rate below Bando, and some who have already been elected like Traynor and Robinson also rate lower.

I'm not asking that everyone put Bando on their ballots, just that you take a closer look, because he has received just about no support other than my ballot.

[2Chance]

I'm not asking that everyone put Bando on their ballots, just that you take a closer look....

Good case, well thought out. And that is the reason we make our cases for certain players, in order to get our members to take a closer look.

I liked Bando when he was playing, but never thought he was a HoFer. However, it's worth looking into. I thought I was done at 3B, but am willing to spend the time to be convinced that the top 25 players left next month might include another third baseman. If so, it might be him--or Evans, or Hack (who I feel is below the line), or somebody else.

[538280]

Good case, well thought out. And that is the reason we make our cases for certain players, in order to get our members to take a closer look.

I liked Bando when he was playing, but never thought he was a HoFer. However, it's worth looking into. I thought I was done at 3B, but am willing to spend the time to be convinced that the top 25 players left next month might include another third baseman. If so, it might be him--or Evans, or Hack (who I feel is below the line), or somebody else.

Thanks, 2Chance. I've been arguing for Bando as a truly great player for a long time, and when I starting looking at previous results I must admit I was surpreised that I am the only one voting for Sal Bando! I thought there'd be at least one other....

Anyway, thanks for reading and taking him into consideration.

[Chadwick]

Results for April have been posted in that month's voting thread.

Congrats to Tom Connolly, Jud Wilson, Shigeo Nagashima, Bob Lemon, Lou Boudreau and Willie Foster, our April inductees!

[abacab]

I noticed Stan Hack missed by one vote. Can anyone explain what is so special about him? Are people voting for him just because he played third base? Because if he'd been a first baseman or outfielder, I can't imagine him getting much support.

If Mickey Welch had won 297 games instead of 307, would anyone be voting for him? Being a member of the 300 win club is all Welch has going for him, that I can see.

Albert Belle spent his career as baseball's black eye (position now occupied by Barry Bonds). The numbers deserve election, but the man does not.

[Freakshow]

I noticed Stan Hack missed by one vote. Can anyone explain what is so special about him? Are people voting for him just because he played third base? Because if he'd been a first baseman or outfielder, I can't imagine him getting much support.

If Mickey Welch had won 297 games instead of 307, would anyone be voting for him? Being a member of the 300 win club is all Welch has going for him, that I can see.

Albert Belle spent his career as baseball's black eye (position now occupied by Barry Bonds). The numbers deserve election, but the man does not.

1) Hack is often seen as the best thirdbaseman in the 30 years between Baker and Mathews. Traynor fans, YMMV.

2) Welch: agreed.

3) From the Rules: Players are to be considered based on their performance and its impact on their teams. What evidence is there that Belle's demeanor cost his team wins?

[dgarza]

I noticed Stan Hack missed by one vote. Can anyone explain what is so special about him? Are people voting for him just because he played third base? Because if he'd been a first baseman or outfielder, I can't imagine him getting much support.

For me this generally applies more to Bobby Grich. I used to have Hack as the best MLB 3B available. All this time I forgot about Al Rosen and am now sticking him up in the "best" position.

Johnny Bench at 1B doesn't quite do it for me either.

If Mickey Welch had won 297 games instead of 307, would anyone be voting for him? Being a member of the 300 win club is all Welch has going for him, that I can see.

Welch certainly does have alot of counting stats in his favor, but even with 275 wins he would probably still be making my ballot.

Albert Belle spent his career as baseball's black eye (position now occupied by Barry Bonds). The numbers deserve election, but the man does not.

I think players are a mixture of the 2. Purely neither.

[abacab]

1) Hack is often seen as the best thirdbaseman in the 30 years between Baker and Mathews.

That's my point exactly - if Hack would have put up the same numbers at LF, RF, 1B, and probably CF, he just wouldn't have as much support. Of course you'll tell me that standards for third base are different, which is true. I think my problem is that Hack is getting credit just for playing third base, without being particularly good at it. Had he been a Gold Glover, then I'd support him. Grich is a different situation in this respect, because his support is due mainly to the fact that he was a terrific fielder, and also a good hitter for his position. Hack was a good hitter for his position, but not a particularly good fielder; he's a good hitter who happened to play third base, rather than a great third baseman, if that makes any sense.

As for Belle, I maintain that electing him is honoring his numbers rather than the person. To me, a player that spends his career disgracing the game does not deserve the highest honor. Then again, I voted for Dick Allen.

[The Dude]

I think my problem is that Hack is getting credit just for playing third base, without being particularly good at it. Had he been a Gold Glover, then I'd support him. Hack was a good hitter for his position, but not a particularly good fielder; he's a good hitter who happened to play third base, rather than a great third baseman, if that makes any sense.

Everything I use for fielding (FWS, FRAR, League Leads) shows Hack from being an average to good to very good fielder. What am I missing?