Off-Topic Forum

I agree with Baines not being Hall worthy; as for the other 4, I never saw them play so do not think that I should be the judge of their ability and contributions to their teams' successes (though I found it interesting that George Kelly preceeded Baines in how he got voted in).

I agree with Gil Hodges (though some argue his would be based on both Player/manager which the Hall does not condone), Joe Jackson, and Dale Murphy being in the Hall. I also think Munson was headed for the Hall but I thought he had failed to meet one of the prerequisites for inclusion. And till Rose is in the Hall, the Hall inductees will be always be incomplete.

I have heard some present the case for Minoso but I did not see him play so will not judge. I do not agree with Fred McGriff even though his homer total alone would have one time put him as an automatic.  I saw him play and I never saw a better bases-empty home run hitter.  He was not the guy you wanted at the plate with 2 on, bottom of the ninth trailing by 2. Here in Toronto, you wanted George Bell, Jesse Barfield, even Ernie Whitt as they could get you a clutch hit or HR.  Now if you were ahead by 5 in the eight inning, and bases empty, bring up the Crime Dog to see a HR.  There is a reason he was packaged with Tony Fernandez in a trade to San Diego for 2 players who still not had hit the lime-light, Alomar and Carter. On that, I would put Carter into the HoF way before Baines or McGriff, though his longevity of high production does not warrant it.

One player that did not get any consideration in his first year of elegibility that should have gotten in - Johnny Damon. I also think Lou Whitaker should have gotten as much "love" as Trammell did. One player I was surprised how quickly he got in was Mike Mussina.

I know most look at stats when considering a player's value to the game.  I like to see them play and see what they bring to the game, day in, day out.  There have been many good players that put up some good stats but never really played at that AS level continuously; many times they did not bring their game to the park. Those that I enjoyed seeing paly and thought they were above the rest usually ended up with stats that reflected that; the stats only confirmed the impression I had. But baseball is a game of statistics (taken way to far in my mind) and it always will be.

Wow! This was a treat to read. I think that, (I haven't seen any of these people play,) that Baines should stay, but the rest could go. Wilson did have the one fluke so i think they would be resistant letting him go. As for getting in, I think that Hodges and McGriff a should be let in. Players I think you forgot to let in? Don Mattingly, no one said Tony Oliva at all, and Keith Hernandez.

I'm a Braves fan, so I'll definitely going to be putting in a word for by Braves...beware of bias!

I agree with Dale Murphy, but (possibly more enticing), how about Andruw Jones? He had a 3.69 WARPS, an .823 average OPS, and an 111 average OPS+ (in 17 seasons). He only hit 26 homers a year, but a total of 434, with 1289 RBI.

I never saw them play, but will throw them out there in hopes someone older than me did.  But my dad always said Ken Boyer and Bill White should have been HOF'ers.  Thoughts?

--Kent

Don Mattingly deserves to be in all day long! 

If you followed the Tigers in the late 1970's through the 1980's you might ask why Whitaker did not get into the Hall of Fame along with Trammell. They are considered one of the best DP combos of all time.

First, love the post. I thrive on this type of stuff. That said, if I answer fully, I'll be here all day. But I've got to respond in some way. 

Second, while I love stats and numbers and accumulating and spikes of greatness, etc., I also feel there's a pretty strong place for the eyeball test. Every year I get the complete Topps set. Every year, I spend literally hours going through the stats on the back of every card. And every year, I see WAR that just doesn't make sense. I'm not gonna take the time to go find an example now, but I know that I just saw a card where a guy had more homers, a higher OPS, higher batting average and played more in one year than in the year before. Yet, his WAR was lower in the seemingly better year. I know it's a complicated tool and there are carefully reviewed stats involved, looked at by professionals. But it is by no means perfect. I see pretty darn good seasons where the player has a .1 WAR. There's no way you'll convince me that the average minor leaguer could step into those shoes and be just as good. It's a useful tool, but greatly flawed.

Third, there's overall contribution to the game. So I'm not terribly offended by someone with 20 years of very goodness getting in. That guy's contributed a ton. Tommy John is an excellent example. He contributed in many ways and should be there. 

Fourth, I agree that if you include Shoeless Joe, you've got to include Charlie Hustle. We can all debate the merits of letting them in because of their off-field issues. But if we're throwing that out, they both go in. 

As for individual players: 

I can't argue much against your exclusions. I disagree with the Hack Wilson call. And I worry about some of your characterizations. His "fluke" 191 RBI season came directly after a 159 RBI season. His "dropp[ing] off the face of the earth" included an 123 RBI season in which he hit .297 two years later. He had six fantastic seasons in a short career. Sandy Koufax had 5 (maybe 6) fantastic seasons in an equally short career....Just sayin'.

Without going back to look at every stat, and even being a die-hard Cubs fan, Joe Tinker and Johnny Evers are questionable honorees. Even Frank Chance is on the edge. And there's Luis Aparicio, Red Schoendienst, Bob Lemon, PeeWee Reese, George Kell, Catfish Hunter, Phil Rizzuto, Nellie Fox, and ohmygoodness, Bill Mazeroski.

As for omissions, I don't disagree with your candidates too much. Jim Wynn just never stood out as one of the best. Never led the league in a major category, never finished above 5th in MVP voting. .250 career hitter, fewer than 300 homers, fewer than 1000 RBIs in a long career. Actually played the majority of his career after the year of the pitcher. Never hit above .282. Just no.  

Others to add? Old-timers (an aside, I'm befuddled by people who won't offer opinions about people they didn't see play; this whole thread is based on stats...): Ed Reulbach: .632 winning percentage; 2.28 ERA (18th all-time). Only guy to throw two shutouts in one day. Tony Mullane, Bob Caruthers, Pete Browning, Jim McCormack, Jimmy Ryan. 

More modern (most of whom I've seen play): Mark Grace (most hits of anyone in the 90s); Lou Whitaker (by the skin of his teeth); Stan Hack; Dave Concepcion (if we're leaving all those other middle-infielders in...); Vada Pinson; Dick Allen (better than Wynn); Dwight Evans; Ken Boyer; Tommy John; Tony Oliva; Steve Garvey; Don Mattingly; Harvey Kuenn. 

Ok, must stop now. Thank you again for this thread. 

v3

Even though he only played 12 years and was not liked by the media or players Albert Belle should be in the hall of fame, he was never linked to PEDs as well.

I'm currently working on an update to this post, which will be posted separately and will be posted at around 8pm NY Standard time. (I hope, I'm only 6 players into the update.)

Thank you everyone for their opinions.

Also @Vvvergeer, thank you for your comment especially.

I'll have to concede that Jimmy Wynn is not a Hall of Fame talent. I did more research and just said - no, this guy is not a Hall of Famer. A great player, yes. A Hall of Famer, heck no.

As to Hack Wilson, I meant that his production dropped off substantially. To go from 190 RBI to at best 120 is a bit of a steep drop, no? Him getting a 156 RBI year the year before doesn't mean that 1930 wasn't a fluke. It was. But he does belong in the Hall. I admit I dropped the ball on that one.

And, since I'm doing everyone's suggestions (Never again....) yours alone took me 2 hours to research and write out.

I hope to see everyone at the updated post.