Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ranking the HoF Players - #1

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by The Dude View Post
    If we were ranking a list of the most deserving based solely off who was the best, my top 10 would be completely different. However, as it says in the OP "subjective qualities beyond just statistics can be considered in determining a player's relative worthiness."
    John Montgomery Ward founded the first players union in secret while playing in baseballs epicenter - NYC - especially at the time just 40 years after the knickerbocker rules were written. He was the first to challenge the reserve clause. He led the players revolt that founded the Players League. On his plaque it reads "...played important part in establishing modern organized baseball." and that was written in 1964. He retired at 34 to become a lawyer.

    Kelly and Anson are unbelievbably important in baseballs development as well. I think these players have to be considered more important than for example Musial and Gehrig. They were both great players and great men don't get me wrong. Definitely the opposite of Kelly and Anson. But Musial and Gehrig didn't change the way the game was played. Musial wasn't even a top 5 player of his generation. They played the game at a high level in their times but didn't change the way the game was played.

    People don't generally know it but Anson is responsible for modern defensive play, suicide squeeze, hitting behind the runner, he and Kelly get co-credit for the hit and run, hook slide (all of which you can see tonight in any given game). Connie Mack called Anson the games consumate general. Kelly was Ty Cobb on the field with Reggie Jacksons personality. The first player to be sold for an exorbinate amount of money and had hit songs written about him and baseballs first autobiography (all of which you can see anytime with less than star players nowadays i.e. the 2004 Red Sox). But just because it isn't well known doesn't mean it isn't more important. Harry Wright is by far the most important man in the history of porfessional baseball but how many people know who he is?

    Gehrig, Musial and alike played the game EXTREMELY WELL but reverberations of their actions aren't felt today as Ward, Anson and Kellys are, they just played great, but its the HOF, who didn't play extremely well?

    Yea Anson probably was a racist but he didn't go to every park in the league and make sure blacks didn't play. The owners are the ones who banned black players. Anson is a nice conveniently dead dog for people to kick.
    bluesky5
    Registered User
    Last edited by bluesky5; 08-08-2011, 03:50 PM.
    "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by BigRon View Post
      This is not a lobbying effort, but I must say I'm a little surprised by the extremely high rankings Clemente is getting from some. A great player and a tragic death- yes. But that those aren't sufficient to elevate him to the highest level, in my opinion. Clemente wasn't even the first outstanding Latin MLer- Minoso was, and even Aparicio- a very different type of player- was winning accolades before Clemente. Clemente didn't cause the explosion of Latin American talent- it was there all along.
      It's true, but Clemente seems to mean a whole lot to the Latin American fans - he is their Babe Ruth. When you walk into Cooperstown, he's one of the three statutes that greets fans, he's also the namesake of the league's humanitarian award, and I think the reason for these tributes is the general high regard he's held in beyond just his baseball talents.

      If I were ranking players on straight ability, Clemente might fall somewhere around 50-60, perhaps even slightly lower, but in terms of meaningfulness and subjective fame, I don't think there are many greater than Clemente.

      Based purely on talents

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post
        John Montgomery Ward founded the first players union in secret while playing in baseballs epicenter - NYC - especially at the time just 40 years after the knickerbocker rules were written. He was the first to challenge the reserve clause. He led the players revolt that founded the Players League. On his plaque it reads "...played important part in establishing modern organized baseball." and that was written in 1964. He retired at 34 to become a lawyer.

        Kelly and Anson are unbelievbably important in baseballs development as well. I think these players have to be considered more important than for example Musial and Gehrig. They were both great players and great men don't get me wrong. Definitely the opposite of Kelly and Anson. But Musial and Gehrig didn't change the way the game was played. Musial wasn't even a top 5 player of his generation. They played the game at a high level in their times but didn't change the way the game was played.

        People don't generally know it but Anson is responsible for modern defensive play, suicide squeeze, hitting behind the runner, he and Kelly get co-credit for the hit and run, hook slide (all of which you can see tonight in any given game). Connie Mack called Anson the games consumate general. Kelly was Ty Cobb on the field with Reggie Jacksons personality. The first player to be sold for an exorbinate amount of money and had hit songs written about him and baseballs first autobiography (all of which you can see anytime with less than star players nowadays i.e. the 2004 Red Sox). But just because it isn't well known doesn't mean it isn't more important. Harry Wright is by far the most important man in the history of porfessional baseball but how many people know who he is?

        Gehrig, Musial and alike played the game EXTREMELY WELL but reverberations of their actions aren't felt today as Ward, Anson and Kellys are, they just played great, but its the HOF, who didn't play extremely well?

        Yea Anson probably was a racist but he didn't go to every park in the league and make sure blacks didn't play. The owners are the ones who banned black players. Anson is a nice conveniently dead dog for people to kick.
        I think these are very good points, and I'll probably end up ranking the players you mentioned higher than I normally would because of how important they were to the game's development. I anticipate voting for Anson in particular pretty early in this project as he was the game's first real superstar. That being said, Anson, Kelly, and Ward don't quite resonate today in the same way that Gehrig, Musial, and Clemente do. We can relate much better to the more modern players as they played a game that looks much more like the game we know, and because they've benefited by 20th Century media.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Freakshow View Post
          I like the format for this project, Mike. I have a couple ideas for tweaking the rules.

          As the project progresses, ballots will become more fragmented. You should expand the size of the ballot as we go along, while still "electing" five each time. Here's a possible schedule.

          1 to 40 players (first 8 elections): 10-player ballots
          41 to 80 players (elections 9-16): 12-player ballots

          You might consider pausing the project at this point (or sooner). The Veterans Committee "Golden Era" election will be held during this December's winter meetings. (Santo could finally make it in.) That will be followed about four weeks later by the BBWAA results. (Larkin, Morris and Bagwell are the leading candidates.) It also gives you a "holiday hiatus" when some voters may be busy.

          81 to 120 players (elections 17-24): 14-player ballots
          121 to 160 players (elections 25-32): 16-player ballots
          161 to 200 players (elections 33-40): 18-player ballots
          201 to 215 players (elections 41-43): 20-player ballots
          216 to 234 players: rank the final 19
          Good suggestions. If we increase the ballot size later on, how should points be awarded? I'm thinking just given 10-12 all one point each, or 9 and 10 two points with 11 and 12 one point.

          I also thought about what to do with respect to players that could be elected during this project, with the most likely candidates being Ron Santo and Barry Larkin. We could pause to see, but what if we already passed where we would have elected them? If we proceed with an election roughly each week between now and then, we'll probably have voted on at least the first 100 players by then, and that may well encompass Santo and/or Larkin (then it again, it may well also not).

          Also, as a general message, this actual election will probably go longer than a week just because I'll be away for a few days when it ends.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by DoubleX View Post
            Good suggestions. If we increase the ballot size later on, how should points be awarded? I'm thinking just given 10-12 all one point each, or 9 and 10 two points with 11 and 12 one point.
            I don't see where the points much matter. Each election is a discrete event; the points in this election have no relevance to the points in the next one, as far as I can see.

            Originally posted by DoubleX View Post
            I also thought about what to do with respect to players that could be elected during this project, with the most likely candidates being Ron Santo and Barry Larkin. We could pause to see, but what if we already passed where we would have elected them? If we proceed with an election roughly each week between now and then, we'll probably have voted on at least the first 100 players by then, and that may well encompass Santo and/or Larkin (then it again, it may well also not).
            This is where previous projects can inform us. I don't think Santo or Larkin rank with the top 80 in the HOF, but others may have them up there. Certainly neither one is top 60.

            Rather than pause the project we could just set them aside for ranking later. It's your call, of course.
            Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice.

            Comprehensive Reform for the Veterans Committee -- Fixing the Hall continued.

            Comment


            • #36
              This is very, VERY difficult

              1. Ruth
              2. Aaron
              3. Mays
              4. T. Samuel Williams
              5. Jackie Robinson
              6. Musial
              7. Cobb
              8. Gehrig
              9. Josh Gibson
              10. Walter Johnson
              3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

              Comment


              • #37
                Isn't it funny (odd) that almost everybody's list contains not more than 1 player, maybe 2 at the most, who has played within the last 35 to 40 years? 30 years from now I wonder what these lists would look like?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Yankwood View Post
                  Isn't it funny (odd) that almost everybody's list contains not more than 1 player, maybe 2 at the most, who has played within the last 35 to 40 years? 30 years from now I wonder what these lists would look like?
                  I thought about this, too. But, the biggest name of this era (Bonds) isn't yet eligible for the HOF and his name is tarred. Same with Clemens. Maddux, like Clemens and Bonds, isn't eligible yet. The greatest stars of the 70s-80s-90s, other than these guys, probably are Schmidt, Seaver, then guys like Henderson, Yastrzemski, Brett, Carlton, Morgan, etc. As great as they were, do any of them resonate as top 10 guys (by DoubleX's criteria)?
                  BigRon
                  Registered User
                  Last edited by BigRon; 08-09-2011, 09:42 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by DoubleX View Post
                    I think these are very good points, and I'll probably end up ranking the players you mentioned higher than I normally would because of how important they were to the game's development. I anticipate voting for Anson in particular pretty early in this project as he was the game's first real superstar. That being said, Anson, Kelly, and Ward don't quite resonate today in the same way that Gehrig, Musial, and Clemente do. We can relate much better to the more modern players as they played a game that looks much more like the game we know, and because they've benefited by 20th Century media.
                    Al Spalding's impact on the game was immense. Harry Wright was as well, but are we going to include people like these when ranking? Out of the early players who are in as pioneers, which ones are we including as players?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by BigRon View Post
                      I thought about this, too. But, the biggest name of this era (Bonds) isn't yet in the HOF and his name is tarred. Same with Clemens. Maddux, like Clemens, isn't eligible yet. The greatest stars of the 70s-80s-90s, other than these guys, probably are Schmidt, Seaver, then guys like Henderson, Yastrzemski, Brett, Carlton, Morgan, etc. As great as they were, do any of them resonate as top 10 guys (by DoubleX's criteria)?


                      I don't know but I think this shows how traditional most baseball lovers are and how we cling to our history. Actually, I think it's fine. Those more recent names you mention may show up on our grandchildren's lists.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Yankwood View Post
                        I don't know but I think this shows how traditional most baseball lovers are and how we cling to our history. Actually, I think it's fine. Those more recent names you mention may show up on our grandchildren's lists.
                        Eh, I'm not a traditionalist at all. I would love to make a list saying Schmidt, Yount, Carlton, Seaver, Brett, Ripken, etc. were the most famous and some of the worthiest hall of fame players, but it'd be a lie right now. Like you said, 30+ years from now who knows, but right now the most famous guys who are eligible played 40 years ago or more.
                        AL East Champions: 1981 1982
                        AL Pennant: 1982
                        NL Central Champions: 2011
                        NL Wild Card: 2008

                        "It was like coming this close to your dreams and then watching them brush past you like a stranger in a crowd. At the time you don't think much of it; you know, we just don't recognize the significant moments of our lives while they're happening. Back then I thought, 'Well, there'll be other days.' I didn't realize that that was the only day." - Moonlight Graham

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Schmidt, Seaver, Brett and Henderson are all in my top 20.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Yankwood View Post
                            Isn't it funny (odd) that almost everybody's list contains not more than 1 player, maybe 2 at the most, who has played within the last 35 to 40 years? 30 years from now I wonder what these lists would look like?
                            I don't know if you're counting him as a 70s player or not, but...
                            How we often forget that two of Aaron's he-man years came in the 70s. Aaron could still tear it up at the plate in 71 and 73. In fact, 1971 could possibly have been Aaron best offensive year. He lead the majors in OBP and OPS+, and he hit his career high seasonal HR total in 1971. If he would have played more in 71, it would almost be a no-doubter.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by dgarza View Post
                              I don't know if you're counting him as a 70s player or not, but...
                              How we often forget that two of Aaron's he-man years came in the 70s. Aaron could still tear it up at the plate in 71 and 73. In fact, 1971 could possibly have been Aaron best offensive year. He lead the majors in OBP and OPS+, and he hit his career high seasonal HR total in 1971. If he would have played more in 71, it would almost be a no-doubter.
                              Exactly. And it's he and Mays who show up and that's about it. Personally I slipped Seaver in there but never really considered anyone else. They may be worthy but my mind won't let them.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
                                Al Spalding's impact on the game was immense. Harry Wright was as well, but are we going to include people like these when ranking? Out of the early players who are in as pioneers, which ones are we including as players?
                                Only individuals who have been designated as players as listed on the Hall of Fame's website, will be considered here. Thus no Al Spalding and Harry Wright.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X