1992 Ballot

Rollie Fingers
Sam McDowell
Tony Oliva
Vada Pinson
Pete Rose (as a player)
Tom Seaver

- Vida Blue is not getting a vote, at least not yet. But 1971 has got to be one of the 10 most dominating pitching seasons ever.

- I will vote for Pete Rose 15 times.

- I still think he's a classic compiler, but I'll jump on the Pinson bandwagon. The guy had good black ink #'s, great gray ink #'s, and played on some great teams.

1992 ballot :
Sal Bando
Norm Cash
Bobby Grich
Thurman Munson
Tony Oliva
Amos Otis
Vada Pinson
Pete Rose
Tom Seaver
Reggie Smith

Bobby Grich should be an absolute slam dunk. He had seven seasons of 9.2 WARP3 or above, was a superlative defender, and had a career OPS+ of 125. James rates him the 12th best second baseman of all time.

Even though I agree with you about Pinson, I suggest you should seriously discount black and grey ink, because they completely ignore park effects.

1992 ballot
Dave Bancroft
Sal Bando
Norm Cash
Bobby Grich
Pete Rose
Tom Seaver
Ken Singleton

I agree with Tudor . . . Grich is an absolute slam dunk. His exclusion from the real Hall, while not quite at the level of ridiculousness as Santo's or Blyleven's exclusion, is an argument for re-thinking who gets to vote on these things.

I've decided to vote for Rose, even though I couldn't vote for Jackson, principally because Rose's (proven and admitted) rules violations took place after his playing career was over. Besides, I'm sick of standing on this principle; let Rose into the real Hall for all I care -- I just don't want him ever to have a job in major-league baseball again.

Welcome back, URI. Apparently the Yankees signed Damon.

Sal Bando
Bobby Grich
Jim Hunter
Tony Oliva
Amos Otis
Vada Pinson
Pete Rose
Tom Seaver
Reggie Smith

* The 1972-74 Oakland A's were the only non-Yankee team to win three straight championships. They could not have done so with only one Hall of Fame player, I do not believe.

* Grich, Seaver and Rose are easy picks

Tom Seaver - gimme
Catfish Hunter
Bobby Grich

Pete Rose can fuck himself.

Rollie Fingers
George Foster (1 vote for 1 season)
Catfish Hunter
Tony Perez
Tom Seaver


Would have voted for Vida if not for doggie's comments. My memories of him are much better than the realities

Rollie Fingers
Bobby Grich
Catfish Hunter
Tony Oliva
Tom Seaver

I strongly urge withholding a vote for Rose this year, if for no other reason than to deny him status as a first ballot HOFer. Pete, just (fully) admit that you f'd up and move on!

Dave Bancroft
Cesar Cedeno
Bobby Grich
Catfish Hunter
Thurman Munson
Tony Oliva
Vada Pinson
Tom Seaver
Ken Singleton
Reggie Smith

I want to go with Grich, but my experience with Jim Wynn tells me not to jump on that bandwagon just yet. You want to sell him, Tudor?

I'm also waiting on Perez. I need to know he's not an accumulator.

Adding Cedeno, because I love line-drive hitters and because I think he was probably better than Wynn, but he's definitely below Pinson and Oliva in the line drive department.

Still gotta work on the sales pitch for Bancroft ...

No Joe Jackson, No Pete Rose. Never, ever, ever.

Bobby Grich.

The thing about Grich is that he did everything you could possibly do on a baseball field, and he did them all well. While Jim Rice provides plenty of grist for his proponents (power, big offensive seasons) and detractors (defense, on-base skills, several off years), Grich basically had no holes in his game and never had a bad year. In a way, this hurts Grich. If he traded 40 walks a year for 10 home runs, he'd be (1) a worse player, and (2) in the Hall of Fame. If he cashed in his tremendous defensive game for 20 singles a year, he'd be (1) a worse player, and (2) in the Hall of Fame. If he traded four excellent seasons for two MVP years and two average seasons, he'd be (1) a worse player, and (2) in the Hall of Fame.

Grich was a Gold Glove infielder, hit with power, walked a lot, was one of the best base runners of his era.

Grich was the best player, comfortably the best player, on three playoff teams--the 1973-74 Orioles, and the 1979 Angels. Don Baylor won the 1979 MVP, but this was ludicrous. You've got one guy hitting .296/.371/.530, and another hitting .294/.365/.537, only one is a DH/OF, and the other is a great defensive infielder. Who the hell you gonna take?

Grich was the best defensive second baseman of his era, was the second best hitter (after Morgan). He came up as a shortstop and moved to second when the Orioles dealt Dave Johnson to the Braves. He played his entire career in two terrible hitters parks, keeping his numbers down somewhat.

Earl Weaver, the best manager of his time, said that Grich was second only to Frank Robinson as a player he managed. When the Orioles were stung by a series of Free Agent defections in the 1970s, Grich was the guy Weaver lobbied the hardest to keep. On the flip side, in the first re-entry draft in 1976, the Yankees made Grich their highest priority, but he decided to sign with his hometown team. The Yankees turned to Reggie Jackson only after Grich had turned them down.

The Yankees wanted Grich as a shortstop (they had Randolph), and Martin thought that Grich would be the best defensive shortstop in the league. In fact, the Angels signed Grich to play SS as well, but he hurt himself that off-season (moving an air conditioner), and was injured most of his first season in Anaheim. After the 1977 season, the Angels traded Remy to the Red Sox and moved Grich back to second base.

Grich is not a borderline candidate. He might have been the best player in the American League in the 1970s, certainly in the Top 5.

1992 ballot:
Norm Cash
Catfish Hunter
Bill Mazeroski
Sam McDowell
Tom Seaver
Rollie Fingers
Amos Otis

Thanks, Lahoud. I added him.

I have read the arguments for Grich.

I am not convinced.

In 17 years:

The Bad (or at least not HoF worthy)

never scored 100 runs.
hit over 30 doubles twice
hit over 20 hrs twice
(ONE year he hit 30 HRs and 30 doubles. Certainly a nice year)
hit over 100 RBIs once (same as his 30/30 year)
never stole over 17 bases (he did this twice) 104 total
he Struck out over 100 times 3 times.
he hit a career .266 (over .300 Twice, once with 30 ABs, hit over .290 2 other times)
1833 total hits (107/year)
Closest MI Comps? Jay Bell and Bret Boone


The Good
5.31 RC
Career OPS of 125
Played with Descent MI defense (although he did have over 20 errors 3 times)
4 GG
6 time All star
BB over 80 times 7 diffrent seasons
.371 career OBP


He may have been good or even very good. He may have been a great piece to have on your team. He may have done everything pretty well. He may even have been the best second baseman in the AL in the 70s.

Lahoud: He shouldnt have had to "trade Singles for runs or Walks for Homers" He should HAVE them.

His Power was AVG.....MI be damned.
His GGs also came with errors.
Being one of the best Base runners of his Era should translate to more then 6 steals a year or 60 Runs scored per year.
Having one or two great years on teams that go to the playoffs shouldnt mean enshrinement.

In my opinion being good or Very Good isnt quite enough. You have to be great.
Being a nice Piece to the team isnt enough. You have to be THE Piece.
Doing "every thing" (although we have said he didnt steal bases nor hit for avg) well isnt enough. You have to do somethings wonderfully.( and yes some guys do things SO well thats all they have to do...Isnt that right Balanger and Mcgwire?) You have to seperate your self. He didnt.
And being the best of a mediocre lot does not entitle you to HoF enshrinement.

He does not compare to Sandburg, Alomar or Biggio. Arguements could be made that Whitaker was also better.

Randolph is comparable, and an argument could be made better IMHO.

Even including the "MI Bump" he rates on the scale as Very good.

No Great.

Not a HoFer.

1992 Ballot

Rose
Seaver


Surely a board that has weekly Vegas threads, an epic Porn thread, drinks more alcohol per capita then Siberia and appreciates Stats isnt going to keep out Rose.

Yea he is a dickhead. I hate the guy "personally" but he is one of the greates hitters ever.

All bakahump's arguments against Grich ignore the time and place in which he played. He was a very good hitter for any player, and a great hitter for a middle infielder.

Who cares if he hit .266? The game is more complicated than that. He did so much more on offense to overcome that, and he did so in too tremendously difficult parks. Surely we can do better at this point than reciting his counting stats?

He had an EQA of .289, compared with .287 for Rice and I think that's right. He was a better offensive player than Rice, all things considered.

He was not a good player that was a part of good teams. He was the best player on his team most of his career, and he was on good teams. He was the best player on three playoff teams--Pete Rose and Jim Rice, for example, were never the best player on a playoff team.

He is not comparable to Jay Bell. He is comparable to Charlie Gehringer. Please, can we at least agree on the important of the context of the player's era and park?


Do you have any idea at all what point I was making? I am saying if he traded in some of his unappreciated skills for some less important skills he would be in the Hall of Fame. If he hit .300, with a lower OBP and less power, you'd be singing his praises in this thread. He was as good a hitter as Pete Rose, though his statistics are spread out into some of the less sexy (but no less important) areas.

Comparing him to Rice is a non starter for me anyway.

Rice doesnt belong either.


As I mentioned counting stats are not the end all be all. But they do need to be considered and his are not impressive.

I think my point stands:

He shouldnt have to trade in Undervalued skills for "Overvalued" skills. He should be impressive enough on his own with both.
For istance if he hit .300 AND had his career OBP (Or even higher....imagine if he hit .300 and kept his walk rate high) you probably have a HoFer.

I will grant that offense in the 70's is not Offense of the 80-2005s. And he played in some tough parks. Evidenced by me saying his OPS+ (which as you know accounts for both) was impressive.

I will also say that to me his years in the seventies where unimpressive numerically. Also his seasons in the 80s helped with things like winshares. They also helped his counting numbers.

So which is it? Should he be hailed for his work in the offensively challanged 70's as one of the best?
If so his numbers in the 80s have to be looked at sideways when considered to be merely avg when compared to his contemparies.

I once more say this:
"Just because a player plays at a "weak" position or was the best player for a weak team, or played during a weak period doesnt mean he is automatically one of the best players ever". To me there is no qouta for Decade or position or team.

To me he isnt a HoFer.

If you want to have a "Decade of the 70s HoF".....then you probably have to enshrine him. In the context of being "One of the greatest players ever" you dont.

"Nice little players" are not HoFers.

Grich isn't a nice little player though. He was a legitimately great player.

And I think you are still missing Lahoud's point about the transfer of skills.

He is saying that because his skills were undervalued and subtle, he is not in the Hall of Fame. If he traded some on base and slug for more BA and home runs, then he would be in the Hall of Fame. It's an argument of perception, not value.

Ever since being a lurker, this was the thread I most wanted to participate in when becoming a member. So- I'm new, I'm not 100% certain if joining the balloting here steps on toes or obfuscates the wonderful voting process you've set up, so if any of that is the case, please do let me know and I'll go back to simply enjoying the reading of the thread.

If I can hop in along with you all, I'd like to start with my 1992 ballot:

Sal Bando
Bobby Grich
Jim Hunter
Tony Oliva
Amos Otis
Vada Pinson
Tom Seaver
Reggie Smith

-I've long thought the same about Grich as has been well-stated here by Lahoud and others- excited I can use my first ballot to cast a vote for him.

-I was on the fence for a while about Hunter, but much of this thread pushed me onto the "yes" side.

I'll be voting for Rose, but I sort of like the idea of keeping him from "first ballot" status. Not sure why, but it makes sense to me.

Welcome aboard, John. It's great to have some new faces/names join in.

Welcome John...

The only thing, and this is a very minor quibble, is that I ask that you alpha your list in the future...it makes it easier for me to compile the votes.

Other than that, you didn't do anything that would step on anything or obfuscate something.

Done- edited and alpha'ed.

This is good too, I hate obfuscating

Legitimate to you and Lahoud

And the point that I am probably doing a bad job of presenting is "Excuses shouldnt have to be made" to CONVINCE people someone is HoF.

Did anyone need to convince you about Seavers credentials? Or Honus Wagners? Or Gerhigs?

We could take pretty much any player, especially one who is good or very good like Grich and Rice, and say "But if he had turned 10 x into 10 Y per year he would be in the Hall." Thats because those Y numbers would suddenly become impressive. And you suddenly wouldnt need convincing.

I understand that Lahoud is saying Grichs numbers are less impressive only because (unitiated) people "see them" as less impressive. Lahoud is arguing that they are still impressive despite being counter popular opinion.

I am saying they are what they are. Not impressive enough.

Whether you think BBs have alot of value or going from 1st to 3rd on a single is HoF worthy.....the REST of his resume just doesnt seem to scream Elite to me.

As I have said repeatedly my votes go to players who scream elite.

Bobby Grich SCREAMS Very good.

Baka, I am convinced that you are dead wrong about Grich. I respect that you have a very high standard, and that you vote only for players like Seaver and Rose whom you consider all-time greats. Grich belongs in this category.

As for the others who did not vote for Grich: how do you justify omitting Grich and voting for the likes of Fingers, Pinson, McDowell, Hunter, Perez, and Mazeroski, all of whom were vastly inferior? Tony Perez is a joke as a Hall of Famer: the fourth best player on his team, if that, who was lucky enough to be in a spot where he could accumulate RBI. And Mazeroski could not hold Grich's jockstrap; his slight defensive edge over Grich was worth way less than 10% of Grich's 125-84 edge in OPS+.

You are inventing a Hall of Fame that has never existed. No one is saying that Grich is Honus Wagner or Lou Gehrig. But the Hall of Fame is not made up of guys like Gehrig and Wagner, its made up of those guys, yes, plus Tony Perez and Robin Yount and Duke Snider and Kirby Puckett. Grich is in that discussion. He is not one of the best 50 players who ever played the game, but he is comfortably above the bar set for the Hall of Fame. He is not just better than the controversial guys, he's better than a lot of the guys in the Hall.

As evidence of this, let's look at OPS+. Compared to the 16 HOFers who played 2B more than any other position, Grich's 125 OPS+ is bested by only five: Hornsby (175), Lajoie (150), Collins (141), Robinson (132) and Morgan (132).

Now, for some of bakahump's objections:
Given that runs are era, team, and batting order dependent, the 100 run threshold is pretty meaningless. In four of Grich's 17 years, no AL player scored 100 runs, and in three more, only one player did.

Which is meaningful why? Reggie Jackson ( the all-time K leader) exceeded 100 Ks 18 times. Willie Stargell did it 13 times. Mike Schmidt (12), Tony Perez (10), Lou Brock (9), Mickey Mantle (8), Harmon Killebrew (7), Eddie Mathews (5), and Willie McCovey (5) all had more 100 K seasons than Grich.

Lifetime SLG: .424. AL Park-Adjusted SLG for those years: .384. Only four HOF 2Bs have more lifetime HRs than Grich's 224.

And yet among HOF 2Bs, only Ryne Sandberg (.989) and Nellie Fox (.984) bested his .983 lifetime Fielding Pct (Jackie Robinson and Bill Mazeroski also had a .983 FPCT).

Does this mean that players who posted single-digit HR totals during the Dead Ball era are not worthy? Pitchers who can't put up 300 IP in a season shouldn't be considered?

Sorry, but the change in the overall offensive level of the AL in the 80's means that Grich did not all of a sudden get a (implied unfair) boost in win shares.

Wrong again! Grich's OPS+ ('70-'79): 125, ('80-'86): 124

Not a Hall of Fame I would vote for.

The fact that the real hall has genuinely screwed up and let less then desirable (IE not Elite) players in does not mean that our "Fantasy" hall has to as well.

Now you all seem to think that Grich is not "less then Desirable"(Though I am still curious if any of you would rank him as an Elite Ball player). Thats fine. I do.

Elite:1 a singular or plural in construction : the choice part : CREAM <the elite of the entertainment world> b singular or plural in construction : the best of a class <superachievers who dominate the computer elite>

A player who is the 16th Best at his position (by one stat) still does not mean to me that he should automatically warrant inclusion.

I do have high standards. I believe the Hall is for the Elite. Perhaps that excludes some very good or even some semi elite players. I would rather have a HoF with exclusivity then one with inclusivness.

This will be my last post on Grich as I feel that its detracting from the rest of the thread.

I will be dissapointed if he makes it.

I will continue to be a Hard ass, and quite possible be a "Obvious guy" booster, when voting for "our Hall'.

Okay then ... if you are going to be a hardass, and only vote for the obvious choices, with no room for guys who have questionable credentials, here is your HOF:

Walter Johnson
Cy Young
Christy Mathewson
Pete Alexander
Three Finger Brown
Lefty Grove
Carl Hubbell
Warren Spahn
Whitey Ford
Bob Gibson
Jim Palmer
Tom Seaver

Mickey Cochrane
Roy Campanella
Yogi Berra
Johnny Bench

Lou Gehrig
Jimmie Foxx
Hank Greenberg
Willie McCovey

Eddie Collins
Nap Lajoie
Rogers Hornsby
Jackie Robinson
Joe Morgan

Eddie Matthews

Honus Wagner
Joe Cronin
Ernie Banks

Ed Delahanty
Ted Williams
Stan Musial

Ty Cobb
Joe Dimaggio
Mickey Mantle
Willie Mays

Babe Ruth
Sam Crawford
Mel Ott
Henry Aaron
Frank Robinson

VAL,

Was this meant derisively?

I actaully agree with that list. Its the "Bobby Bonds" of the world I cant vote for.

Its obviously a much more "boring" list debate wise then what we have already enshrined.

For the sake of discussion I can understand the multiple posts of support and lobbying that goes on here. It adds to the discussion. I can understand and do enjoy the opinions.

As in life there will be moderates and conservatives. There will be optimist and Pessimists. They will balance each other and eventually come up with some kind of acceptable list to both sides.

My self chosen role has been that of "arch conservative". Sorry if that offends you. But my belief is that those names you listed are pretty much "it". With maybe one guy every year OR SO also being acceptable.

I happen to think this helps balance the scales.

I agree to disagree .......as I have with alot of choices I felt where borderline. However posters smarter then me supported them so I can accept that there must be "something" there.....even if I dont see it.

Yeah, there will be some of those. Take it like Lose's vote for George Foster. It's a homer vote, generally cast once. It happens in hall of fame voting. This time I gave it to Gorman Thomas.

1992 Ballot

Rollie Fingers
Catfish Hunter
Pete Rose
Tom Seaver
Gorman Thomas

I am editing my response because calling you a "cheesehead troll" was an immature overreaction, and I apologize for it.

I don't believe that "it happens all the time" is a valid defense of something pointless. One of the great things about this thread is that there are several very knowledgeable posters here who take this process seriously and as a result our little Hall of Fame effort has resulted in a better Hall than the "real" one in Cooperstown, with its mistaken inductions of the likes of Fingers and Perez and, now, Sutter. Your votes for Milwaukee players are harmless, I suppose, but it would be nice if you and others would actually (as Baka does) state reasons for not voting for players like Grich who are strongly advocated by others. If you do not know much about such a player and do not want to take the effort to learn about him so that you can cast an informed ballot, then perhaps you are not taking this seriously enough.

Well, it wasn't meant derisively, I was just pointing out the pointlessness of having a HOF thread if all we are going to elect are the 41 players for whom no one can argue against. Beyond that, its a slippery slope. I've had my strenous objections to a few players, and pushed strongly for others. Some make it, some don't. You're certainly not the only one who is on the conservative side of the aisle. I'm not going to slam you for being that way, since you are obviously knowledgeable.

I think a lot of the fun of this thread has been our ability to try to rectify the wrongs or slights we believe occurred in past voting. Looking at Delta's list a couple of pages back, I think we've done a fairly good job and its been fun and a good learning experience for us all.

So by all means, continue to make your points. A well-formulated rebuttal is just as welcome as a well-formulated endorsement. There's enough people in the middle ground to listen and vote as they see fit.

1993 Up

1993 ballot
Sal Bando
Bobby Grich
Catfish Hunter
Reggie Jackson
Phil Niekro
Tony Oliva
Amos Otis
Ken Singleton
Reggie Smith
Vada Pinson

I'll admit I am very torn on Jackson.

Any help?

Right now I am leaning towards yes. But......

My All A's 1993 ballot:

Rollie Fingers
Catfish Hunter
Reggie Jackson

Oh my God.

563 home runs
444 win shares.

Complete list of OFs since 1950 with more win shares than Reggie:
Bonds (664)
Aaron (643)
Mays (642)
Mantle (565)
Rose (547)
Henderson (535)
F. Robinson (519)
Yastrzemski (488)

Torn on Jackson? Yikes...

I'm not completely sold on Niekro. Long career in which he accumulated a lot of great numbers, but very up and down throughout. I'd appreciate others' views.

From Cy Morong's Win Shares per 225IP: Niekro ranks as 124 with 15.62WS/225IP. That's 375.3WS over 5404.3IP. That's just above Johnny Sain (15.56WS/225IP, 147WS over 2125IP) and 6 spots below Steve Carlton (15.82WS/225IP, 366.9WS over 5217.3IP).

Adjusted all-time, Niekro comes in with a 4.11NRA and a 4.03 DERA. Over his career, there's no real consistancy as to when his defenses helped him and when they hurt him. But in terms of DERA, he's under the all-time adjusted average every season except 2 of his first 3, his last 3, 1970, and 1983.

Niekro rates ok with the bat for a pitcher. Lifetime .148 EQA in over 1500 at-bats. Ran off a streak of good hittings seasons from 1974-1979. RBIs those years: 11/10/12/7/10/12. He peaked at the plate ages 35-40. Dropped down 129 sacrifices and 12 sac flies. He twice hit into 5-4-3 triple plays.

9th in NL MVP voting in 1969. 5 top-10 Cy votes: 1969, 1974, 1978, 1979, 1982. 4th all-time in innnings and games starterd. 10th all-time in Ks. 45 shut-outs put him 29th all-time. 2nd all-time in earned runs, 3rd all-time in HRs allowed and BBs, 4th all-time in wild pitches and hits allowed.

All-time Wild Pitches
1. Nolan Ryan 277
2. Mickey Welch 274
3. Tim Keefe 233
4. Phil Niekro 226
5. Pud Galvin 223
6. Charley Radbourn 217
7. Jim Whitney 214
8. Jack Morris 206
9. Tommy John 187
10. Mark Baldwin 183
Steve Carlton 183
14. Joe Niekro 172

Also earned 5 Gold Gloves. Had a very well respected pick-off move for a righty.

In 1994 Niekro managed the all-women Colorado Silver Bullets baseball team.

Owns the unfortunate record for playing the most seasons (24) without a trip the World Series. His 2 playoff appearances, from The Baseball Page:



Interview with Jeff Marron on ESPN Page 2 (Insider Only). A tidbit:

My Jackson question was simply to get some more feed back on him.

I was hoping someone might discuss the big ass wart on the middle of his face....namely over 2500 k's.

His k/games played is 92%

He wasnt a particularly good fielder. He also Played at a "Right Spectrum defensive Position".
He played for really good teams (Which we have
discussed as nauseam helps numbers like RBI and Runs).

He slugged .490 for his career...... Not really close to the top 100 of all time (Banks at .499 is #100) Interesting for a lefty power hitter who played close to a third of his games in Yankee stadum (and made the most of it Yet he could still only attain .490).

His OBP was a mediocre .356 for his career. ( I dont even know where this ranks but it aint good.)

He is 18th in Games played. Which seems to me Indicates he should probably be 18th in many counting stats.
Yet.....
72nd in hits (Perhaps a diffrent skillset but still 72nd!?)
68th in doubles (Most definatly a "Power" Stat)


He seem to do one thing exceptionally well. Hit HRs Career rank of 10th

and a couple things he accumulated:
In RBIs he was 19th (where someone with 18th most games played should probably be)
XBH 18th (where someone with 18th most games played should probably be)

I am not saying the guy doesnt belong but I sure as heck would say he isnt a Willie Mays/Ty Cobb/Gerhig no brainer. I am saying this is the type of canidate
we should be debating. Not Bobby Bonds and Jim Rice.

Again I butt heads with most of you over simple terminology. I am pretty sure he belongs in the HoF but I wouldnt call him a no brainer.

Nor would I say things like "OH MY GOD!" if someone suggested Jim Rice or Amos otis should get in. I might not buy it but I wouldnt try
to belittle an opinion.

Hey I admit its hard to find things "wrong" with Jackson. Some you may not agree with me that they are "wrong". But instead of looking for "good" things and stopping, it makes sense to me to look for the bad things too when it comes to admittance to the SHoF. Then you can see if the good outweighs the bad. If it does then vote for the guy. If not....

Jackson has some serious credibility. He also has some interesting questions.

Jackson has a lot of credibility.

Simply put...strikeouts mean nothing compared to other outs. The difference between a ground out, pop out, fly out and strikeout is pretty minute. This is something that's been studied pretty ad nauseum.

There are two things you aren't really looking at when dealing with Reggie Jackson. They are:

1. You aren't reading the era/park environment’s right (you did this with Grich too).

I'll have to wait to put together the chart, since I can't do it right now.

2. You are underrating on base, and slugging vis a vis batting average. They are lowish because Reggie's batting average is low. This relates to point one.

You mentioned Ernie Banks. If you isolate the two rates, they look like this:

Jackson: 094/228
Banks: 056/226

This is before adjusting for the fact that Jackson played most of his career in pitcher's parks, and Banks played at Wrigley. Something to note also is that Yankee Stadium was a pretty good HR park for lefties in the late-70s...it depressed other kinds of offense too.

Now if you think that Reggie is borderline because he compares favorably to Banks, then you must have the toughest Hall standards ever, since Banks is a top 7-8 all time shortstop. This is your prerogative, of course, but it's distracting from discussing actual borderline candidates when the shoo-ins are debated.

I'll just address a couple of the points/questions you raise.

Re the strikeouts: As has been discussed almost ad nauseum on this board relative to Mark Bellhorn, a strikeout either costs you 1/100 of a run, or gains you 2/100 of a run (per Eric Van), compared to an average non-K out. Sure, you don't advance the runners, but neither do you hit into a double play. In short, not that big of a deal. Babe Ruth finished either first or second in Ks in 12 seasons of his career.

Re the counting stats: you need to keep in mind his context: extreme pitchers' era at the beginning of his career, extreme pitchers' parks (Oakland, old Memorial, Toilet, Big A) throughout his career. (This same context, in reverse, is one of the main reasons I don't think Hunter is Hall-worthy.)

Finally, keep in mind that his best years were in the obscurity of Oakland, and that by the time he became a household name in 1977, his best years were behind him.

Banks was only mentioned as a "baseline" (the 100th best SLG of alltime) and to illustrate how "badly" (admittedly relative term; relative to the top 100) Jacksons SLG compared.

Banks could have been anyone. Compare him to the 99th Best SLG(er) of all times...or the 98th. Obviously the higher you go the more unfair it is to Jackson. Hell compare him to the 128th of all time. Not a very convincing argument if I say Babe Ruth had a SLG% of 690 which makes Jacksons Pitiful. .690 makes everyone look pitiful in comparison. But using the 100th Guy (who was quite a ways abover Jackson) I was trying to establish that there are at least 100 (and probably more like 150) players with Better or equivelent SLG%. Granted SLG is only one aspect of the whole picture. But for Jackson, who will be elected because he was a "renowned Power Hitter" I thought it was quite interesting he "only" slugged .490

Thats as far as Banks Jackson compare as far as I presented.

I guess I dont see how debating Jackson "distracts" from other borderline canidates. If its really such an affront you can decide not to respond.

Admittedly I dont "buy" the whole "Era" argument that many of you including Bill James champion. It exists I have no doubt but I dont believe it has the impact some of you are implying.


And as far as K's.....they should have been hits or walks or HBP or something. Using the argument that "well they really where the BEST possible outs" seems disengenious at best....even if true. The point is not to make outs....of any kind. And Jackson doesnt seem real good at that.
Anyway.....

Also, keep in mind that Jackson was not a bad defensive player in his prime years. He was a very good, well above average, right fielder for the first half of his career, with a strong and accurate throwing arm. He also played centerfield quite bit for the A's during their big years, including quite prominently and well in the 1973 World Series (when North was hurt). The team had traded Monday after 1971 to make room for Angel Mangual, but when Mangual flamed out, Jackon moved there. Earl Weaver, who knew a thing or two, played Jackson in CF in 1976.

His defensive problems in the second half of his career were largely mental, in my view, a consequence of the mind-f*cking he was getting from Billy Martin, who wanted to embarass Reggie so that he (Billy) could be the top dog, removing him from games, making him a DH, generally jerking him around.

It doesn't matter now, since its true that he had little defensive value once he got to the NY. But the Jackson in Oakland, the good defense, the great base running (perhaps the toughest guy in the league breaking up double plays), the speed, the great hitting--he was some player. He hit over .300 on the road regularly, but hit .240 in Oakland. This was good, the team was winning 2-1 at home anyway, and he was their best player.

Reggie Jackson played in parks that reduced his statistics. They did not reduce his impact--he was the best player on the field most of the time, a great, great, player.

Jackson will be elected because he was a great baseball player. Pigeon-holing him as one dimensional (power) doesn't really mean much.

All I was doing was taking a player you mentioned and compared him, independent of batting average, to Reggie Jackson. You said that they weren't close. Jackson has a 2 point (essentially identical) edge.

You tried to establish something that isn't true though. If you think it is, tease out environment and show me the 100-150 players with higher slugging.



Wasting time talking about slam dunks means that the borderline players don't get as much ink...you mention guys like Jim Rice and Amos Otis. If when Rice becomes eligible, we're talking about Mike Schmidt, than how does that help us build a Hall? Some guys are 3rd-5th circle HOF (using the Simmons example)...Reggie is one of those guys, and you'll be hard pressed to find many people that agree with your "Reggie is borderline (because you are only leaning toward yes)" case.

If it really was an affront to me (it's not), then why wouldn't I respond? So you keep clogging the thread?

I don't think you are clogging the thread, and I’m not offended. Free exchange of ideas and all that. Don't take it personal, Nancy.



Well, I'd like to see what happens when Larry Walker comes aboard. He's got godly numbers. If you want to analyze, you can't waive your hand and say Coors...there is a reason to discount them.

Compared to players in his era...Jackson played in parks that depressed offense about 4%. Those years depressed offense another 5%. The overall environment that Reggie hit in depressed offense 8.3% (adjustment: .917). That's over a American League historic average of 725 runs/162 games. Basically, for every 690 runs that Reggie's teams scored, it had the same value as 725 in a historically neutral context. Thirty-five runs is no small amount. As an aside, the statistical alchamy isn't done yet.

For fun: Reggie's slugging was (adjusted) 28% better than average.
Banks was 23% better. I guess you were right, it's not real close.



That's not what you said though. You cited a statistic, using K's, to show that maybe Reggie Jackson wasn't Hall worthy. Outs are bad, but Reggie's problem was trading weak contact (singles) for power (home runs and the like).

Taking the two rates that you mentioned specifically with Jackson:
Compared to league, his slugging was 28% better than average (BTA?) and his on base was 11% better. All this with a batting average that was only 2% better than league.

You voted for a guy that had a batting average that was 14% BTA. His on base was 13% BTA (meaning his walk rate wasn't nearly as impressive) and his slug was 5% BTA.

I guess what I don't see is that unless you completely throw away environment adjustments, is how you can have trouble voting for a guy like Reggie Jackson when you are voting for guys like Pete Rose.

As an aside: I would vote for Rose as a player. Too bad he had to go and get banned from baseball for betting and that shit.

As a subjective aside to this...I'm working on making a list of the 5 best eligible players that aren't in our Hall by position, and the 3 worst we've enshrined. This is all my opinion, so the grain of salt warning is there. They are in alphabetical order.

I'll just edit this post as I figure them out...

Catcher:
5 best out...
Tom Haller
Thurman Munson
Darrell Porter
Wally Schang
Gene Tenace

3 worst in...
Roger Bresnahan (1944, 9th ballot)
Buck Ewing (1952, 13th ballot)
Ernie Lombardi (1985, resurrected ballot [would have been his 32nd ballot if not for the gap])

First base
5 best out...
Dolph Camilli
Norm Cash
Tony Perez
Boog Powell
Mickey Vernon

3 worst in...
Roger Connor (1950, 5th ballot)
George Sisler (1941, 6th ballot)
Bill Terry (1952, 11th ballot)

Second base
5 best out...
Nelly Fox
Junior Gillium
Bobby Grich
Davy Lopes
Dick McAuliffe

3 worst in...
Bobby Doerr (1959, 3rd ballot)
Larry Doyle (1964, 15th ballot)
Bid McPhee (1961, 6th ballot)

Third base
5 best out...
Sal Bando
Ron Cey
Tommy Leach
Al Rosen
Eddie Yost

3 worst in...
Bob Elliott (1966, 3rd ballot)
Heinie Groh (1963, 13th ballot)
Deacon White (1965, 15th ballot)

Ted Simmons is eligible next year, which will be an interesting discussion.

He'll definately knock Haller out pretty much right away.

He'll never make it. Here is why ...

The 10 or so of us who "built" most of the SoSH Hall of Fame managed to establish, over a period of more than a year, a common understanding of what the "bar" was. We didn't always agree on who the right players were, and we have had some great debates about who was over and who was under, but we managed to establish a recognizable threshold, in my opinion.

I very much support the idea of having more voters, hell, even having 50 or 100 voters. But what I don't want, what I get defensive about, is new voters who want to change the bar. Our Hall of Fame include Heinie Groh, Wally Berger, Vern Stephens, Jack Glasscock. There were lively debates about all of them, and several others, like Dave Bancroft, who did not make it.

If you want to join in, I wish you would read and understand the list of players that have been chosen, and make your selections about who is worthy to join that list. If you come in and don't vote for Bobby Grich ("because he doesn't SCREAM Hall of Famer"), or mull over whether Reggie Jackson is worthy of the Hall of Fame, it suggests to me that you want to change the rules to something different than what we have worked to achieve.

Now, had these voters been around from the beginning, that's fine. We'd have a different Hall today perhaps, but at least it would be somewhat consistent. What we will have instead, I fear, is a very inclusive Hall for the first 100 years of baseball, and then a brand new set of criteria for the past 30 years. Which, in my view, makes for a screwy list.

1993 Ballot:

Sal Bando
Bobby Grich
Jim Hunter
Reggie Jackson
Tony Oliva
Amos Otis
Vada Pinson
Pete Rose
Reggie Smith

I'm not including Niekro on my first ballot. He is a 300 game winner, and so it wasn't easy to leave him off. I think I need to read some ensuing lobbies for Niekro to be "convinced."

Looking at his 17+ win seasons...
1969 (23-13/ .639) for ATL (93-69/ .574/ 1st NL West)
1974 (20-13/ .606) for ATL (88-74/ .543/ 3rd NL West)
1976 (17-11/ .607) for ATL (70-92/ .432/ 6th NL West)
1978 (19-18/ .513) for ATL (69-93/ .426/ 6th NL West)
1979 (21-20/ .512) for ATL (66-94/ .407/ 6th NL West)
1982 (17-4/ .810) for ATL (89-73/ .549/ 1st NL West)

ERA+ wise, he seems to have had nine seasons of (relative) "dominance," which I've arbitrarily set at 120-

1965 (as s reliever)- 122
1967- 177
1969- 140
1971- 125
1972- 124
1974- 159
1978- 140
1979- 120
1984- 123

Other than these, his ERAs were at or just above/ below league average. That being said, throwing 210 IP at 48 is really impressive. 5400+ IP at a 3.35 ERA (115 ERA+) is very, very valuable, of course, as well.

This is, obviously, some pretty quick and dirty stuff, so I'm anxiously awaiting some more detailed Niekro info.

Wait, Phil Niekro is eligible? Well, whoooops for not including him. This guy is a Hall of Famer.

Phil Niekro pitched more innings than anybody else in the live ball era - 5404 of them. He is tenth on the all-time strikeout list, with 3,342. He won 20 games three times, and probably would have won it 3 or 4 more times if he didn't play for some bad teams. He played for bad teams in a major hitter's park. He led the league in IP four times, and this is a fundamental aspect of his value - even if his ERA+ was only say 120, 300 innings of it means a whole ton of value. His first full season in the majors he led the league in ERA, and he didn't have a bad season until he retired.

He was never in contention for the Cy (in part due to the one year he had lots of wins, Tom Seaver went 25-7 for the Miracle Mets), but he was basically a very good pitcher for 20 years.

Fun with Win Shares: 0, 6, 2, 21, 17, 28, 11, 22, 22, 17, 28, 19, 21, 20, 30, 24, 17, 8, 14, 9, 15, 10, 9, 4. He's in the botton half of pitching HOFers, but Bill James ranks him 26th, above several of the guys we elected, including Tiant (52), Drysdale (33), Bridges (77), Shocker (71), Lemon (48), Newhouser (36), Plank (34), Vance (35), on and on. Basically, under the standards we have established in this exercise, he's a Hall of Famer.

1993 ballot
Dave Bancroft
Sal Bando
Norm Cash
Bobby Grich
Reggie Jackson
Phil Niekro
Pete Rose
Ken Singleton

It looks like Grich is going to make it eventually, so I'll save my lobbying for a more borderline candidate [edit: I lied -- lobbying follows], but I wanted to clarify one thing. Someone (baka?) said that one of the knocks against him was that he made too many errors. He has the 10th best fielding percentage of all time for a second baseman.

Okay, one more thing. For those of you who like the Palmer/Gillette linear weights system, here are the top 10 players in the 1973-87 era, ranked by "overall player wins":

1. Schmidt (78.6)
2. Morgan (67.4)
3. Grich (51.6)
4. Seaver (49.1)
5. Ozzie Smith (45.7)
6. Brett (43.4)
7. Bench (42.5)
8t. Darrell Evans (41.2)
8t. Yount (41.2)
10. Carew (40.3)

The next group includes guys such as Reggie Jackson, Carter, Fisk, Murray, Palmer, Carlton, Trammell, Blyleven, Winfield, and Jenkins.

[another edit: For those of you who don't like era-specific comparisons, Grich comes in #23 ever for non-pitchers (between Mathews and Boggs) and #31 all-time if you include pitchers].

Now, a lot of that total is due to his defense. But taking his batting alone, he falls within one batting "win" of players such as Santo, Bobby Bonds, Tony Perez, Larry Doby and Johnny Bench, and slightly above Jim Rice, Earl Averill, and Ernie Banks.

He also fares well in a win-shares system. I'll do a breakdown of that if need be. (He gets hurt somewhat in the Bill James ranking of players because he was injured in 1977, keeping him from having any single five-year run of dominance, which is important in the James formula. He instead had two four-year runs of dominance: from 1973-76, and again from 1978-81. He was merely "very good" from 1982-85, averaging about 6.2 wins per year under the WARP3 system during that period -- )

I'm not seeing the case against him, even for a "small Hall" voter, unless one's Hall of Fame is to have something like five second-basemen -- Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie, Robinson and Morgan. If there's a second group of five, Grich is in it.

[Yet another edit: That said, I can at least understand why, for example, baka isn't voting for him. He's wrong (with all due respect, of course), but I can understand it. What I can't understand is how we have people voting for Catfish Hunter or Rollie Fingers and not Bobby Grich. That's not to say Catfish or Fingers aren't deserving -- they're in the real Hall, and many people here think they should be, and they may well be right -- but I don't see an argument for a hall that includes Catfish and Fingers but not Grich.]

I'm also not voting for Niekro on my first ballot. One thing I have found is that ERA is a very flawed statistic (and ERA+ more flawed). Niekro had probably the worst residuals of any pitcher in modern baseball. By residuals, I am referring to WPs, PBs, SBs, BKs, ROEs and non-measureable defensive stress. I'm going to try to put those into better context for people, but actually he performed better than he should have given those residuals, and they didn't seem to result in too many more runs. This may have been due to some excellent defensive support, but I don't have all the numbers yet.