Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

The Baseball Hall of Fame Thread


LethalStriker

Recommended Posts

And that's where I'm conflicted with Allen.  Belle was an insufferable jerk but came to play - 158+ games five times in 10 full-time seasons, including 163 one year.  Allen would not show up and did stuff to sink his own teams.  That's tough to reconcile with a guy who played as well as he did.  I think he belongs in the Hall but that's not a hill I'm going to die on.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tabe said:

And that's where I'm conflicted with Allen.  Belle was an insufferable jerk but came to play - 158+ games five times in 10 full-time seasons, including 163 one year.  Allen would not show up and did stuff to sink his own teams.  That's tough to reconcile with a guy who played as well as he did.  I think he belongs in the Hall but that's not a hill I'm going to die on.  

Excuse me, but did Albert Belle juggle baseballs in the dugout while smoking a cigarette?

536761c05fa3c9706a2b8835d2264104.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My lomng tanding love of The Yankees makes me wonder if Thurman Munson dying tragically deeply affected his chances for the HOF. He was on a slow decline before the crash and he would've probably ended up playing for Cleveland but after Johnny Bench he was the best catcher of that time period and probably had a decent shot at entry. Of course Munson is sports hero/idol. It was memories of him playing that led to me playing catcher in High School because, well who doesn't want to be like their hero?

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J.H. said:

My lomng tanding love of The Yankees makes me wonder if Thurman Munson dying tragically deeply affected his chances for the HOF. He was on a slow decline before the crash and he would've probably ended up playing for Cleveland but after Johnny Bench he was the best catcher of that time period and probably had a decent shot at entry. Of course Munson is sports hero/idol. It was memories of him playing that led to me playing catcher in High School because, well who doesn't want to be like their hero?

James

Here's what I had to say about Munson way back at the start of this thread:

Thurman Munson: I loathe the New York Yankees with every fiber of my being and have my entire life, but I loved Thurman Munson, who in a self-depreciating way referred to himself as "the fat kid". Well, he was the fat kid that played catcher and I was the fat kid that played short, so I loved me some Thurman Munson, (who I don't think was fat so much as solidly built), but that's neither here nor there. Let's talk about the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, Thurman Munson had a career shortened not by injury, but by fucking death. 

So here's the thing, we have a group of fans saying "Munson was on his way to a HOF career, put him in!" Well, was he? At 32 it was obvious Munson was starting to break down as a catcher, so what would likely happen? He was too slow to move to the outfield, 1st base seems the only real option, but we just don't know. What we do know was that in his tragically-shortened life, Munson was a fine, fine player who falls woefully short of any meaningful HOF stats. As with Tony Conigliaro, we have to look at what he actually did, not what we think he might have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with OSJ on this one.  Munson simply didn't do enough to warrant induction.  I don't think he would have if he'd lived either.  His power (never plentiful) was completely gone by 1979 and he was on a fast decline at the time of his passing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tabe said:

I'm with OSJ on this one.  Munson simply didn't do enough to warrant induction.  I don't think he would have if he'd lived either.  His power (never plentiful) was completely gone by 1979 and he was on a fast decline at the time of his passing.

And that's with me loving the hell out of Munson as a player, but then Matt Williams was my favorite player during his time and he ain't a HOFr either. In fact, the only players that I held on a pedestal that belonged in the HOF were Aaron, Mathews, and Eddie Murray. As much as I loved them, Joe Adcock & Matt Williams do not get in without a ticket. The other Yankee player that I want to see in is Lou Piniella, but certainly not as player, but he damn sure deserves it as a manager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Hamhock said:

Excuse me, but did Albert Belle juggle baseballs in the dugout while smoking a cigarette?

536761c05fa3c9706a2b8835d2264104.jpg

If there was a bottle of bourbon present, it would make the ultimate Dick Allen poster. Though I'm really not sure who would want a Dick Allen poster.  The kid down the street and me both dug when he was going by "Richie", seems like when he changed from "Richie" to "Dick", he became one...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OSJ said:

And that's with me loving the hell out of Munson as a player, but then Matt Williams was my favorite player during his time and he ain't a HOFr either. In fact, the only players that I held on a pedestal that belonged in the HOF were Aaron, Mathews, and Eddie Murray. As much as I loved them, Joe Adcock & Matt Williams do not get in without a ticket. The other Yankee player that I want to see in is Lou Piniella, but certainly not as player, but he damn sure deserves it as a manager.

I don't think Piniella deserves it. One world title and a whole bunch of of underperforming teams in Seattle is not a HOF resume. The guy had Randy Johnson, ARod, Griffey, and Buhner on one team and couldn't win. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, Keltner List for Darrell Evans.

@Tabe feel free to add or subtract stuff, you're the Tigers guy...



1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

The very idea that Darrell Evans was the best player in baseball is absurd. 

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Now we might be getting somewhere, after Parrish got hurt, you could make a case that Evans was the major offensive weapon that the Tigers had to offer, but there are a number of his teammates that would be in the discussion as well. There were certainly times in his career when he was the best player on his team, but what hurts him is that these were several individual seasons, not consecutive ones 

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
Evans had the misfortune of playing at the same time as Mike Schmidt and Graig Nettles, but there were definitely some years that you could make a convincing argument for Evans being the best 3rd baseman in his league, if not in baseball.
4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races? 

Yes, without Evans it's doubtful that the Tigers ever reach the playoffs in '87 or win the WS in '84

5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

Evans was still a ferocious offensive threat at 40, and played the field (and played it well) until he was 42, so a definite "Yes!" to this.


6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No, in my opinion his Tiger teammate, Lou Whitaker should precede him as should Bobby Grich, and Ken Boyer is arguably the best player not in the HOF. That said, both 2nd and 3rd seem to be underrepresented and it certainly wouldn't be a crime to put all four of these gentlemen in.

7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

This is a tough one as the only real comparisons at his position among the top ten "similar players" are Graig Nettles, who is barely over the 900. mark, which is to say "kind of similar", and Gary Gaetti at 838. which is sort of similar but not really. and Ron Santo who is in the 700s, which pretty much means that they both played the same position. This is isn't really surprising, the truly great players tend to be unique in someway either as a positive or a negative (which we'll examine in due course).

8. Do the numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

According to Baseball Reference they do not, but he's damn close. Of eligible players at his position, Edgar Martinez (who is as much of a major league 3rd  baseman as I am), Sal Bando, Buddy Bell, and Dick Allen are the non-HOFrs. Of those not yet eligible, Adrian Beltre is a no-brainer first ballot type of player. Scott Rolen should probably make it in as well . Graig Nettles and Darrell Evans might as well be the same player statistically. The only major  difference is that Nettles hung around too long and Darrell knew when it was time to call it a career.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Yes, I fully believe that the basic stats, particularly batting average do not do a very good job of telling the Darrell Evans story. Instead, we should look at his fielding, and his more advanced stats such as runs created, JAWS, and WAR.  When you look at these numbers as well as some of the basics such as RBIs, Walks, and Runs created a pretty compelling picture begins to materialize.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

No, I would argue that Ken Boyer merits this distinction and Darrell Evans and Graig Nettles should probably go in together. You could argue that Scott Rolen should precede them, but Rolen is a relatively young man, and I'm sort of a softie when it comes to inducting guys who are still alive and can enjoy the honor.

11. How many MVP-type season did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

He was in the conversation four or five times, but Darrell Evans was never seriously considered for the MVP. Though I would argue that there was at least one season that he should have gained a lot more traction than he did. 

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many games get in?

Two time All-Star games and that's a fairly low count for a HOFr. I will once again mention Schmidt in NL, Brett in the AL and Graig Nettles in both. Evans had the misfortune of playing at the same time as several other great players at his position. It's sort of the Frank Thomas/Jeff Bagwell scenario, just because you come in second to one of the greatest to ever play the position does not mean that you aren't a HOFr in your own right.  

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

It's hard to say whether or not he was the best player on his team when the Tigers won the WS in '84, as it was a pretty stacked roster, but I'd say that Kirk Gibson, Lance Parrish, and Alan Trammell were probably better.  They were definitely better offensively, and we could have a great conversation about the Tigers infield being one for the ages with Evans at 3rd, Trammell at short, Lou Whitaker at 2nd and Ist basically being either Evans or Howard Johnson with Dave Bergman sometimes playing the position. The 1980s Tigers are noteworthy for having at least two players (Evans & Johnson) who could play pretty much anywhere that was needed. In the OF you had Kirk Gibson who you could move around anywhere in the OF or have him DH, for that matter Evans could be utilized as a DH if you wanted to start Hojo at third. So, "no" he wasn't the best player on his team when they went to (and won) the WS, but he was certainly an important component.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? We he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? did he change the game in any way?
 No to all.
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

By all reports, Darrell Evans was/is a fine gentleman, I can't recall ever hearing a bad word about him.  
 

16.  (with thanks to @sorceressknight for suggesting this.) Is there a major negative for this player, and if so what is it and is it a valid reason to keep him out of the HOF?  This one is pretty damn simple and ignores the 2200 hits, and the 1300+ runs scored, runs created, and runs batted in.  The 600 lb. gorilla in the room is easy to spot, a career batting average of .248 which interestingly enough matches up with Graig Nettles BA of (you guessed it) .248. Evan scored about 100 more runs, but otherwise these two players are almost identical. Simply stated, hitting for a high average was not something that either man did well. As far as defense goes, the GG habitually was awarded to Mike Schmidt, even in a couple of seasons where Evans was clearly superior with the glove.

Evans wasn't flashy or as graceful as Nettles, but he played both 1st and 3rd with a clockwork-like precision, you can make a pretty good argument for Evans being the best defensive 3rd baseman in the 1970s. But there's that damned batting average... No one in their right mind is going to defend .248 as being good, it isn't, but what does it really mean? Both Nettles and Evans drove in lots of runs and scored plenty of them. Both had over 2200 hits and over 1300 Runs scored and batted in. However, when we get to runs created, which is basically the job of every player regardless of position, Evans blows Nettles out of the water and does the same with Ken Boyer, however, comparing the eras, one has to look at context. That said, I think we can safely dismiss the negative of a low batting average when we look at Evans' ability to get on base and/or create runs. 

So, what conclusion do I come to? I won't scream and yell that it's an outrage that Darrell Evans (and Ken Boyer and Graig Nettles) aren't in the HOF, but it certainly would be a positive if all three went in along with Whitaker and Grich representing another position that is definitely underrated. Boyer retired when I was a kid, but I do recall that my contemporaries and I considered him a solid #2 after Eddie Mathews in the NL and #3 in baseball after Mathews and Brooks Robinson. You definitely had to give up some decent cards to trade for his 1963 Fleer card. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tigers also had Tom Brookens who played everywhere. 

Evans was almost exclusively a 1B with Detroit.  He was "meh" in the field and would get replaced by Dave Bergman for defensive purposes. 

He was definitely not their best player in 1984 and was actually considered a bust at the time. He hit just .232 and seemed to strike out constantly (though he didn't in reality).

 He was a lot better in 85 but the reality is he was never considered Detroit's best player or even close to it. Parrish and Trammell and Whitaker and Gibson were all better and Willie Hernandez won an MVP in there, too. 

He definitely had an impact on the 87 pennant race, not so much in 1984 where, again, he was considered a borderline flop. 

At the end of the day, Evans had a good career but .248 is still .248.  Doesn't matter how much you walk, that just sucks too much to get into the Hall. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tabe said:

Perhaps the most lasting image for Detroit fans of Evans is his getting picked off in the 87 playoffs. An unbelievably terrible play. 

There is that... Fleet of foot the man was not.  So,  I take it that in your estimation Nettles doesn't make the cut, either? Like I said, I don't think that the induction of Evans and/or Nettles would besmirch the HOF in the way that Harold fucking Baines does, but it certainly isn't a crime to keep them out; whereas keeping Ken Boyer out is a cardinal sin (you see what I did there). ?

I sort of think that the induction of "Indian Bob" Johnson would make a nice gatekeeper for outfielders, better than Bob, you almost certainly should go in (unless there are other mitigating circumstances), not as good, you really have no platform to build on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Munson, I think he's got a bit more of a case then you guys describe. By WAR7 he is one of the 10 best catchers ever. The other 9 are 7 HOFers (The Catching "Big 6" of Bench, Carter, Fisk, Rodriguez, Piazza, and Berra, as well as Mickey Cochrane) and the 2 players not yet on the ballot with the best case for the Hall (Mauer and Posey). So he's probably had the best prime of any catcher not already in the HOF. 

That said, the trick with catchers is that I feel that evaluating catchers is probably the position that we still don't evaluate to a very strong extent, mainly because it more then any other is the position we just can't evaluate with any modern stats properly. I think Munson has a good case, but with how catchers age (Look at Mauer or Posey for potential evidence) they are hard to evaluate career wise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mauer's not a HOFer, and Posey's still got some work to make it. I was born about when Munson died, so I'm the wrong person to say his qualifications, but I trust the other people on this board when they say no for him. . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Kuetsar said:

Mauer's not a HOFer

Any explanation as for why not? 5 Silver Slugger Awards, 3 Gold Gloves, an MVP, a career 300 hitter and 388 OBP out of the catching position. Has a pretty easy case for the best Catcher of the last 20 years, honestly. If you can say you have are a A: a top 10 player all time at your position (He ranks 5th in WAR7, 7th in JAWS and total bWAR, so both are pretty easy cases to make), and B: The best player at that position over a 2 decade period, you are pretty clearly a HOFer to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, OSJ said:

There is that... Fleet of foot the man was not.  So,  I take it that in your estimation Nettles doesn't make the cut, either? Like I said, I don't think that the induction of Evans and/or Nettles would besmirch the HOF in the way that Harold fucking Baines does, but it certainly isn't a crime to keep them out; whereas keeping Ken Boyer out is a cardinal sin (you see what I did there). ?

Yeah, I don't give a whole lot of weight to batting average... unless a guy's average is terrible. And .248 is terrible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kuetsar said:

Mauer's not a HOFer, and Posey's still got some work to make it. I was born about when Munson died, so I'm the wrong person to say his qualifications, but I trust the other people on this board when they say no for him. . . . .

Mauer is not a HOFer but he was on track to be one. He hit .328 as a catcher. That's RIDICULOUS. But... he didn't stay one. And the rest of his career wasn't good enough, IMHO. 

That said, if you wanna say "but he was an all-time great during his time as a catcher" - which he was - and put him in because of that (hello, Sandy Koufax), then OK. I wouldn't say he'd be a bad addition by any means. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Mauer's hit total was low until I looked at the catcher position, and 2k hits for a catcher isn't bad. But where he falls short in comparison to other catchers is Hr's and RBI. Only 143 HR's and 923 RBI? Not enough, especially since he played in an offensive oriented era and wasn't catcher the whole time..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't know where to post this: Baines probably shouldn't have gotten in but after the ridiculous over the top and vitriolic reaction as if they had inducted Johnny LeMasters or Mario Mendoza I'm totally fine with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW - just checked the tracker for the first time in like a week.

It is only still at 50 ballots but I did notice that Mariano is now the only one still at 100%

Edgar has had 5 people not vote for him since the last time I mentioned it. In fact - of the public ballots - Edgar is now tied with Roy Halladay for 2nd most votes (both have 45 so far)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sabremike said:

Didn't know where to post this: Baines probably shouldn't have gotten in but after the ridiculous over the top and vitriolic reaction as if they had inducted Johnny LeMasters or Mario Mendoza I'm totally fine with it.

My issue with Baines going in is much more about the people who aren't in the hall of fame than the fact that he is in the hall of fame.  It would be like Mitch Richmond getting into the hall of fame while Michael Jordan, Dr. J., Charles Barkley, George Gervin, and Scottie Pippen were still waiting to get in.  I don't think Mitch Richmond should be in the hall of fame, but I'm not going to complain about it because everyone else who matters is in the hall of fame.  If you go to the baseball hall of fame you can see above average ass Harold Baines, but not all-time greats Barry Bonds and Roger Clemons, or the excellent Curt Schilling, or the great Manny Ramirez and Sammy Sosa.  The issue isn't that he's there, its that the people who put him there are keeping the others out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, supremebve said:

My issue with Baines going in is much more about the people who aren't in the hall of fame than the fact that he is in the hall of fame.  It would be like Mitch Richmond getting into the hall of fame while Michael Jordan, Dr. J., Charles Barkley, George Gervin, and Scottie Pippen were still waiting to get in.  I don't think Mitch Richmond should be in the hall of fame, but I'm not going to complain about it because everyone else who matters is in the hall of fame.  If you go to the baseball hall of fame you can see above average ass Harold Baines, but not all-time greats Barry Bonds and Roger Clemons, or the excellent Curt Schilling, or the great Manny Ramirez and Sammy Sosa.  The issue isn't that he's there, its that the people who put him there are keeping the others out.

I think your point is 100% valid and would further say all those guys belong in but we all know the whole PED thing is keeping them out. The writers are essentially trying to make up for having completely ignored the issue for years. And I'd add that it's no secret at all that the league in the 70's and 80's was fueled by uppers, so how were they not PED's? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They only cared about PED"S when the home run records started to fall. I'm not sure how much greenies enhanced performance as much as helped guys get up for games, and we have much better stuff than that now.  Doesn't make greenies good or right, but that's the distinction, not that I think most writers give a shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As always, my argument is the line is arbitrary. Greenies are bad, but endless cups of coffee are okay. Blood doping is bad, but lasik is okay. And so on ...

As people have said, how much would guys performance have dropped off in tthe dog days of August playing in KC or STL and so on without amphetamines? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...