Guys who should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame

LakeErie wrote:

McGriff was a bad defensive first basemen. Carter and Ripken were elite defenders at premium positions. Only considering a couple offensive stats is so limiting! As others have correctly pointed out, you don't know sh1t

Meh.

Ripken was a GOOD defensive player.

Schilling was actually NOT a good defensive pitcher. Jim Kaat won 16 gold gloves AND had more wins than Schilling 283-216, and he's NOT in the Hall of Fame. Schilling won ZERO gold gloves.

If Jim Kaat isn't in, Schilling shouldn't be in.

LakeErie wrote:

McGriff was a bad defensive first basemen. Carter and Ripken were elite defenders at premium positions. Only considering a couple offensive stats is so limiting! As others have correctly pointed out, you don't know sh1t

Clearly, using Carter as a comparison is laughable. He's an 11-time all-star, with 324 home runs (only four catchers have more) and superb defensive statistics, and is a slam dunk Hall of Famer. By Baseball Reference's JAWS calculation, which averages career and peak value, he's the #2 catcher all-time behind Johnny Bench.

Okay Flagpole let's compare Carter and McGriff. Gary Carter's career WAR is 70.1. McGriff's is 52.6. Carter played a more difficult position and a good hitting catcher is more valuable than an equally good first basemen, which explains why his WAR is higher. He was also good at his position, McGriff was not. So I conclude Carter is slightly better than McGriff.

McGriff is a borderline case in my opinion. If he got to the magic 500 barrier that probably would have pushed him over the line.

Hardloper wrote:

Okay Flagpole let's compare Carter and McGriff. Gary Carter's career WAR is 70.1. McGriff's is 52.6. Carter played a more difficult position and a good hitting catcher is more valuable than an equally good first basemen, which explains why his WAR is higher. He was also good at his position, McGriff was not. So I conclude Carter is slightly better than McGriff.

McGriff is a borderline case in my opinion. If he got to the magic 500 barrier that probably would have pushed him over the line.

493 home runs is a hell of a lot. More than Bagwell, and he's in. More hits, more home runs, more RBIs than Bagwell. As someone else said, if the strike didn't happen, he would have had 500 HRs.

I love Tony Perez, but Perez had fewer HRs and a lower batting average than McGriff.

Gary Carter happened to be one of the best catchers when he played during a time when there were few great catchers. Meh. He wasn't so good behind the plate that his comparatively worse stats than McGriff say he should be in and McGriff out. In one of Gary Carter's All-Star seasons, he hit 11 HRs and batted .242. In another one, he hit .235.

Stop posting. You're embarrassing yourself.

Steve Finley

I agree. If McGriff would have hit 7 more HR's, we wouldn't be having this conversation. He would have probably ended up in the 520's. I wish the voters would realize this.

LakeErie wrote:

Schilling is one of the best 5-10 pitchers of the past 40 years, that deserves a plaque in that baseball museum.

No he isn't clearly a top 10 pitcher of the past 40 years. Most rankings have him in that 10-20 range depending on who you are counting. There are some guys with basically no flaws (see like Randy Johnson or Greg Maddux), a few with minor (would have been nice for pedro to have 250 wins) but then you get off into judgement land. Curt was a very, very good pitcher for a long time but he was never the man the way a guy like Pedro was and he didn't rack up wins the way say Glavine did.

Realistically he is in if he wasn't a total prick. And not just because your a conservative, it doesn't mean you have to be a prick.

Yeah...that's the thing, it wouldn't have been a question. Career stats matter in baseball. 1550 RBIs is a LOT. 493 HRs is a lot...more than a lot of power hitters who are in.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

LakeErie wrote:

Schilling is one of the best 5-10 pitchers of the past 40 years, that deserves a plaque in that baseball museum.

No he isn't clearly a top 10 pitcher of the past 40 years. Most rankings have him in that 10-20 range depending on who you are counting. There are some guys with basically no flaws (see like Randy Johnson or Greg Maddux), a few with minor (would have been nice for pedro to have 250 wins) but then you get off into judgement land. Curt was a very, very good pitcher for a long time but he was never the man the way a guy like Pedro was and he didn't rack up wins the way say Glavine did.

Realistically he is in if he wasn't a total prick. And not just because your a conservative, it doesn't mean you have to be a prick.

The first paragraph is 100% CORRECT! Pedro Martinez only had 3 more wins than Schilling, 46 fewer loses though, but his 2.93 ERA is stellar, and he WON THREE CY YOUNG AWARDS!

Regarding your second paragraph, I think it is possible Schilling would be in already not if he just weren't a prick, but if he were a truly nice and giving person, or he overcame some big personal tragedy or something like that. If he were just a neutral guy with those stats, I don't think he gets in, and I don't think he deserves to get in based only on his stats alone.

The Atlanta Braves had three pitchers on their team better than him.

i know baseball wrote:

Steve Finley

Solid career. 2548 hits 304 HRs, .271 batting average. Only two All-Star game selections.

Screams guy on the outside looking in to me. Just not quite good enough.

Flagpole wrote:

The first paragraph is 100% CORRECT! Pedro Martinez only had 3 more wins than Schilling, 46 fewer loses though, but his 2.93 ERA is stellar, and he WON THREE CY YOUNG AWARDS!

Regarding your second paragraph, I think it is possible Schilling would be in already not if he just weren't a prick, but if he were a truly nice and giving person, or he overcame some big personal tragedy or something like that. If he were just a neutral guy with those stats, I don't think he gets in, and I don't think he deserves to get in based only on his stats alone.

The Atlanta Braves had three pitchers on their team better than him.

A bland Curt Schilling is Roy Hallaway or Mike Mussina. He would be in. Heck he could have probably done 95% of his immature behavior and still gotten in. The dude came up 16 votes short. There are probably 16 journalists who voted for him in 2016 but not afterwards because of his support for lynching of journalists. People can overlook at lot of stuff but thinking murdering of these peoples coworkers is awesome isn't going to sit well.

On pure baseball alone you can argue a bit if he is in or out as he isn't some no brainer like Maddux. How exclusive the hall should be is one of those eternal debates. But recently history and the vote totals suggest he should have gotten in. But things like suggesting mudering of journalists or supporting insurrection against the United States are things that don't sit too well with pretty much any crowd and it definitely colors how you look at him

The games changed radically in the 50s and 60s. Pitching, stealing bases, fake moves, etc. No resemblance to the pre-60s. There should be 2 Halls of Fames. Pre-1960 and post 1960.

Flagpole wrote:

i know baseball wrote:

Steve Finley

Solid career. 2548 hits 304 HRs, .271 batting average. Only two All-Star game selections.

Screams guy on the outside looking in to me. Just not quite good enough.

If Steve is "just not quite good enough" , what does that make Bobby Abreu -- Willie Mays?

Flagpole wrote:

LakeErie wrote:

McGriff was a bad defensive first basemen. Carter and Ripken were elite defenders at premium positions. Only considering a couple offensive stats is so limiting! As others have correctly pointed out, you don't know sh1t

Meh.

Ripken was a GOOD defensive player.

Schilling was actually NOT a good defensive pitcher. Jim Kaat won 16 gold gloves AND had more wins than Schilling 283-216, and he's NOT in the Hall of Fame. Schilling won ZERO gold gloves.

If Jim Kaat isn't in, Schilling shouldn't be in.

Fielding prowess not much of a factor for pitchers.

The Unkle wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Meh.

Ripken was a GOOD defensive player.

Schilling was actually NOT a good defensive pitcher. Jim Kaat won 16 gold gloves AND had more wins than Schilling 283-216, and he's NOT in the Hall of Fame. Schilling won ZERO gold gloves.

If Jim Kaat isn't in, Schilling shouldn't be in.

Fielding prowess not much of a factor for pitchers.

Jim Kaat also had more losses than Schilling has win. The dude pitched forever but only had 3 all star appearences to Schillings 6. Guys like him and Tommy John are always rough as they were rarely great in their career but they were definitely very good for a long, long, time....

I wouldn't have voted Halladay in, but he DID win two Cy Young Awards. Mike Mussina had 270 wins, and that is way better than Schilling had. Mussina is on the fence for me, but he was better than Schilling. I'd leave him in and say Schilling can stay out.

The Unkle wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Meh.

Ripken was a GOOD defensive player.

Schilling was actually NOT a good defensive pitcher. Jim Kaat won 16 gold gloves AND had more wins than Schilling 283-216, and he's NOT in the Hall of Fame. Schilling won ZERO gold gloves.

If Jim Kaat isn't in, Schilling shouldn't be in.

Fielding prowess not much of a factor for pitchers.

I agree, but Kaat also had 283 wins to go with that insane number of gold gloves. Kaat was better than Schilling, and if he's not in, Schilling can't be in.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

Fielding prowess not much of a factor for pitchers.

Jim Kaat also had more losses than Schilling has win. The dude pitched forever but only had 3 all star appearences to Schillings 6. Guys like him and Tommy John are always rough as they were rarely great in their career but they were definitely very good for a long, long, time....

I don't disagree with you. I'm not angling to put Kaat in. I'm just saying that if he's not in with 283 wins AND all those Gold Gloves (16!), then Schilling can get into the Hall of Fame if he buys a ticket.