|
Matt wrote:
> Also from time to time, you will see me not cast a
> vote to purposely keep a player from receiving 100%.
> I am still quite peeved that Ahrend Nagel got 100%
> when IMO all other HOF pitchers (Lopresto, Gindler,
> Tan, Albertini and Castellon), as well as a few of the
> guys still on the ballot, were better than him.
> And the only other player to receive 100% was
> Murphy, who deserved it.
I'm not a huge fan of that. :/
I can see when one gets down to the toss-up candidates going with one who's about to fall off in favor of someone you know you can get a chance with next year. But if you look at the candidates and think that this guy is one of the five best players on the ballot who's not in, and there are *more* than five guys that you think are worthy of going in, then one really should include those top five guys and set aside the stuff about 100%, First Ballot, I Hate The Yankees, or jdw vs. Mets Feud Part VI.
Is Nagel a HOFer?
I think we all would agree "yes" to that narrow question.
Was he one of the best guys on the ballot?
Other than the overlooked Dark Horse and (to me) Jed Burke and Pat Seifried, "yes". I like Will Miller a lot, and he had a wonderful career and had those three big records, but those OPS just aren't *dominant* at his peak, and over his career in the context of playing in the 20s to mid-30s, they aren't Woody Woodson material. Did I vote for Will the first time out? Of course. Largely because I don't worry about the 100% concept. Will was worthy of going in, I didn't have any questions about him, and he was one of the ten best on the ballot (and I rarely if ever use 10 anyway).
I think Nagel's 2-1-3-5-2-2 in ERA, 2-1-1-7-1-1 in Wins and 1-1-1-2-2-2 in WHIP from 1924-29 is the stuff of dominance. He supported it with a boatload of IP (1-1-x-3-2-4), with the one year outside the Top Ten due to some injury not in his profile that cost him 5 starts. Do the five POY in six years overrate him? Like Pops with the four straight BOY, Nagel may not have deserved all five POY. But he was right there in all five seasons that he won it. It generally is the Koufax Core of a candidacy.
> Heck, Will friggin' Miller was inducted the same
> year as Nagel & had 4000 hits, over 2000 R
> and 900 SB and got just 88.89% !!
Will got in. Other than Woody and Murph, there really are no players that we can complain *loudly* about not getting 100%. And one of them got 100%. I think we're better off (i) highlighting the Dark Horse who are being forgotten _and_ putting the breaks on people like Haggan who may have gone in easy if some of us didn't worry vocally about it than (ii) complaining about those who should go on and *did* go in.
> Fournier
I know that lots of people like him. I just can't get past this:
OPS Leaderboard Appearances
1910 - .828 - 8th
1912 - .828 - 8th
1916 - .796 - 7th
> Tumbridge - 9 GG's, 6 pennants, 4 WS wins
> & 243 HR's just can't be allowed to fall off
> the ballot
BA Leaderboard Appearances
- None
OBP Leaderboard Appearances
- None
SLG Leaderboard Appearances
1931 - .486 - 6th
OPS Leaderboard Appearances
- None
Lifetime of .274/.340/.438/.778.
Here's a Versus:
.274/.340/.438/.778 vs. .317/.355/.439/.794
The first was a Gold Glove 1B in a hitters era while the second was a Gold Glove SS in a hitters era. They were teammates on every championship team of the Yankes between 1925-38 when they both retired. Oddly enough, the SS' best finish in SLG was the same as the 1B. He also had two Top 10 BA and one Top 10 OBP finishes.
Did anyone ever think Tumbridge was a better player than Clarence Bazart? Maybe for a season here or there, but who would have been easier to shake the tree to replace?
> Glass - same here. Maybe not a HOF'er, but
> not a one-time balloter either.
On one hand you have Cowboy, on the other hand you have Fenner. It doesn't add up, Matt. :/
Votes for Glass and Tumbridge are *to me* like people voting for Larry Bowa or even Davey Lopes. Heck, I liked Lopes a heck of a lot. But neither has any business as vote worthy candidates. I can *understand* people voting for Steve Garvey. I wouldn't, and I'd argue strong against voting for him. But I know what people are looking at, and there are things that one can point to. I mean... these guys aren't even Paul O'Neill level, and Paul is a mediocre HOF candidate.
> Palmer - not ready to let him fall off yet
I think Palmer would be a wonderful candidate for the Vet Committee to explore. I think won could find that while he and Fenner were both with the Phills as fulltime starters that there closer in quality than people might think. That said, I don't think it's possible to say that Palmer was *better* or really even, for his career and even peak, Fenner's equal.
Again, I think a great Vet Committe discussion could be over Toby. He's a far better pitcher than Fargo and Haggan. We really need to be advocating *great* candidates, and advocating extreme caution for *not great* candidates. I mean... I'd listen to a good piece on Ray Brown. He's a guy I could be convinced to vote for *now* if someone wants to do the leg work. I'm not even one who plays quid pro vote - I'll vote for Ray if you vote for Jed. Just make a really solid case for him because I generally like what I see in his profile.
Sorry for the long post and rant.
John
|