General Forum

I've said it before and I will say it again.  DON MATTINGLY FOR THE HALL OF FAME!!!!!  Put me down for Donnie Baseball every single time.

Somebody had mentioned earlier that if Trammell had played in a big market, he'd already be in the HOF.  The opposite is true of Mattingly.  If he had played in Detroit, he wouldn't even get a whiff.  He was a great player for four years, but that just isn't long enough to warrent HOF consideration IMHO.

The problem with that argument for me is always Sandy Koufax, who was a great player for five years, maybe six, if you stretch the definition. Roy Campanella had six great years -- and no others. I think Mattingly was a great player for six years. Now, I know that Koufax was THE pitcher for five years, and Mattingly was "only" a top five or so player for his years, but the argument that someone had a short but brilliant career, so doesn't belong in the HOF, doesn't quite cut it.  

Don't get me wrong, I'm on the fence on every single one of these candidates. Wouldn't be offended at the admission of any one of them; wouldn't be upset at the exclusion of any one of them. I keep wavering on just about every one, and could make viable arguments on both sides of all. And I lean towards an exclusive HOF. There are already lots of players in there who are questionable -- Tinker, Evers, Chance, Mazeroski, Rice, Hunter, on and on it could go -- don't get me (more) started. And yet the veterans committees should do SOMEthing....

What are the criteria? Was he an all-time great? (many examples of these, clearly) Did he dominate the sport for a good chunk (5 years? 8? 10? I dunno) of his career? (Koufax. Campanella) Was he top one or two at his position for a good chunk of his career? (Dawson, Rice) Did he do something that significantly altered the sport as a player (Sutter is an example of someone who's in. Wills helped reintroduce stolen bases and should get serious consideration.) Did he accumulate so many solid years to have numbers that are among the all-time best? (Blyleven, Perry, Biggio?) And does it just FEEL right? All of these things come into play. How to balance them all is where the rubber hits the road.

If I look back at these guys just in the context of "were they the greats of that generation, the players who I thought, "whoa, he's one of the very best of all-time,'" I think of Mattingly, Murphy, Morris, Parker. I don't think Simmons, Trammell, Garvey, Tiant and John. That's just me. And if you start to look at sabermetrics, the answer looks different. JAWS? WAR? Trammell and Simmons look pretty good, depending what you use.

Oh, how I love these arguments. So much more pleasant than the real world arguments we're faced with all the time. But now I have to go back to making real decisions. Sigh.

v3

griffey423 wrote:

Somebody had mentioned earlier that if Trammell had played in a big market, he'd already be in the HOF.  The opposite is true of Mattingly.  If he had played in Detroit, he wouldn't even get a whiff.  He was a great player for four years, but that just isn't long enough to warrent HOF consideration IMHO.

There's a reason these guys didn't get in during the 15 years post playing that they were initially eligible.  That said, I wouldn't be upset to see Mattingly and Murphy get in, considering their high impact even in a short time frame.  I agree that Miller should already be in.  And my fourth vote would go to Simmons, simply because as a catcher he has a higher career WAR than any other Cardinals catcher including Molina, who to me feels like a first or second ballot HOFer when he does retire.

I have always collected all but Tiant, Parker and Simmons cards because I thought the rest had a good chance of getting in the HOF.  I even collected the two mentioned in another post, Whitaker and Evans.  Though I will not argue whether Miller should be in or not, I wish he didnot takevotes fromplayers.  He (and all those who did not play or manage) should be considered in a separate panel.

Totally agree on the separate votes for non-players point, Sandy. Could be the same panel, just have three non-player nominees, who get voted on separately. Having (a deserving) Miller in there will just fraction the votes more so no one gets in. Thus, my Last Topps Card of Every HOFer with a Topps Card display will have nothing but new cards from the 1972 Santo to 2018...

v3 

Great list of borderline players.  Just to clarify, committee members are actually allow up to 4 votes.

That’s our third clarification on that in this thread, so we’re good. 

I wonder what a better system would be. Maybe just let the committee vote up or down on everyone with no limit. Still wouldn’t get anyone voted in, but at least there’d be a chance. 

V3

It should always be hard to get in.  We already have a system in place to honor very good players. It's called the All-Star Game.  None of these guys are "sure things" to me.  They're borderline, and I'm fine with the current system in place for borderline players.  It should be added that this committee is not made up of writers, so their opinions could wildly vary from how the writers voted for these same guys.