Guys who should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame

Flagpole wrote:

Remember my criteria here though...if Gary Carter is in...

This is where your criteria may be misguided. Maybe Gary Carter should not be in and as a previous poster said, "raise the bar a little."

Someone thought Shilling should be in because he had the 17th most wins during his era? 17th? Should we award Olympic medals for 17th?

The glut of "really good" but not "among the very best that ever played" in the hall has opened the gates for a plethora of shaky admissions. We can't go backward and remove people. But MLB prospers by the attention among the cities of these inductees and is happy to keep the door swinging.

Either way, I'm still not takin' Keith to the airport!

I was a little leaguer when Brooks Robinson played 3rd base for the Orioles. His nickname at the time was the human vacuum cleaner. He was called that because nothing got past him. He often caught line drives in foul territory. Everyone who wasn't in the know at the time about amphetamines thought he had cat like reflexes.

But now we live in a different era. We know now what we didn't know then. Should he be removed from the hall of fame? Or should he remain because everyone else at the time was taking the same drugs that he was?

Not trying to start an argument just looking for other's thoughts.

Ponce de Leone wrote:

Do we then remove all the current HOFers and records from the amphetamine era? Those industrial strength greenies had a huge effect on the game for over a decade (especially given the lifestyle many of the players lived back then)

A More Accurate Answer wrote:

Barry Bonds cheated. Lance Armstrong’s titles were removed. It’s how it works.

Hundreds of baseball players cheated. Ditto on the pro bicylcists.

The powers that be scape-goat few of them to take the heat off.

Rougned Odor for the Boxing Hall of Fame lol

Ponce de Leone wrote:

As a start how about we have players and managers decide who’s in rather than writers

That's how we ended up with Harold Baines induction.

JerryS wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Remember my criteria here though...if Gary Carter is in...

This is where your criteria may be misguided. Maybe Gary Carter should not be in and as a previous poster said, "raise the bar a little."

Someone thought Shilling should be in because he had the 17th most wins during his era? 17th? Should we award Olympic medals for 17th?

The glut of "really good" but not "among the very best that ever played" in the hall has opened the gates for a plethora of shaky admissions. We can't go backward and remove people. But MLB prospers by the attention among the cities of these inductees and is happy to keep the door swinging.

Either way, I'm still not takin' Keith to the airport!

The criteria might be misguided, BUT Gary Carter is still in the Hall of Fame. Sometimes people see something like that and they say things like, "[person's name] has the most X of anyone not in the Hall of Fame." I'm not even saying that. Fred McGriff was a better player than Gary Carter...he just was. Gary Carter should be the low bar, and now no one worse than him should get in. Fred McGriff was better.

You're way off base brother.

1. Wins above replacement (WAR) IS a career stat and the best one to look at. By that measure he's easily in.

2. Wins is an inferior stat that depends heavily on luck, but even so, 214 wins is a lot. It's more than ANY active player except Verlander (a first ballot HOFer).

3. These career stats are in-season only and don't even include his legendary World Series performances.

StevePrefonDead wrote:

Ponce de Leone wrote:

As a start how about we have players and managers decide who’s in rather than writers

That's how we ended up with Harold Baines induction.

Good call. Harold Baines was very very good for a long time. Career stats do matter, and had he gotten 134 more hits to get to 3,000, I'd say he should have gotten in. To me, he was the perfect one to be just outside looking in (along with Schilling), BUT the Veterans (now Eras) Committee voted him in. Never had 200 hits in a season. Never hit 30 HRs or more in a season. Only top 10 in MVP voting ONCE, and that was 9th. Designated hitter mainly. Oh well.

Hardloper wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Rightly or wrongly (I say rightly), career stats are the biggest factor in determining who gets in. I'm not denying that he might have gotten in already if he didn't have such boorish opinions, but if his stats were good enough, that wouldn't have kept him out. He's borderline maximum, and I say he falls to the OUT side.

JUUUUUUST a bit outside!

You're way off base brother.

1. Wins above replacement (WAR) IS a career stat and the best one to look at. By that measure he's easily in.

2. Wins is an inferior stat that depends heavily on luck, but even so, 214 wins is a lot. It's more than ANY active player except Verlander (a first ballot HOFer).

3. These career stats are in-season only and don't even include his legendary World Series performances.

We'll just have to disagree, brother.

Stoppit Smith wrote:

Rougned Odor for the Boxing Hall of Fame lol

Truth!

That post to me just solidifies that he shouldn't be in.

silverbug wrote:

Did anyone say Darryl Strawberry? If not, Darryl Strawberry.

Cocaine killed his career. He did nothing even remotely good after age 29. 335 HRs and only 1000 RBIs to go with a .259 batting average just isn't good enough.

correctamundo wrote:

Pete Rose is pretty famous

This topic is always Charlie Hustle bait

Dickslapper wrote:

Curt Schilling 216-146

Catfish Hunter 224-166

Catfish is in and Schilling is not. Yeah that makes sense...

Hunter had more wins, a better ERA, a Cy Young Award that Schilling did not have, more All Star game selections, and he did all that despite being done by age 33 while Schilling went on until age 40.

Hunter barely got in. Someone worse should not get in.

Jambo Cabao wrote:

Roger Maris

Maury Wills

I say both belong in the Hall of the Very Good. Stats over a career just aren't good enough. Maris had two great seasons, and just one good one besides those two.

Scott Ferrall wrote:

correctamundo wrote:

Pete Rose is pretty famous

This topic is always Charlie Hustle bait

Yeah, I should have said in the initial post not to consider Rose and steroid users.

Flagpole you are way too invested in Schilling not getting in. Your politics, which I generally share, are clouding your judgment on him. Do better.

Of course, who knows what the Hall really looks for.

Ron Santo made it into the Hall posthumously almost 40 years after he retired.

For the many categories he excelled in, it should have been much sooner.

I will be grateful to Schilling for the joy he gave me in 04. He brought toughness to a team that lost in a brutal fashion in 03. The bloody sock was real and he was something to behold.

That said, at the time and now, I never considered him a HOFer. He also belongs in the Hall of Very Good.

I don't think anyone has mentioned Luis Tiant who was also one of the best in his day. His stats resemble Schilling's and he played on some BAD teams. I'd prefer El Tiant in a game 7 situation over many others who are in or considered. I'd love to see him in the HOF but can appreciate the Hall of Very Good argument.

Catfish got in on a very good PR campaign. He was a big time pitcher on winning teams so that counts for something.

In reading all the names on this thread, I'm not sure there are any people who should be in that aren't other than the unresolved to date Rose and steroid users.