Your Hall of Fame Snub - Page 3

ctorg · 10-16-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lastplaneout

I would be all for putting Julio Franco on the ballot with the assumption that he could never garner the votes to actually get in. What he's done is pretty amazing, just not hall-worthy.

The thing, to me, is that his stats are definitely not hall-worthy (although they're certainly not bad). It's just that I think his contribution is beyond stats and beyond anything recorded in his record. I think if he plays at the age of 50 and can still put up decent numbers, that right there is a hall-worthy accomplishment, even if his stats are lacking.

It's a different perception I have of the Hall compared to most people, I know, but that's how I'd like to see it.

Gastric ReFlux · 10-16-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctorg

The thing, to me, is that his stats are definitely not hall-worthy (although they're certainly not bad). It's just that I think his contribution is beyond stats and beyond anything recorded in his record. I think if he plays at the age of 50 and can still put up decent numbers, that right there is a hall-worthy accomplishment, even if his stats are lacking.

It's a different perception I have of the Hall compared to most people, I know, but that's how I'd like to see it.

I agree with an idea of thinking that it's not all about numbers.

Syd Thrift · 10-16-2006, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Professional baseball's first great player, Ross Barnes.

Tiny career from a player whose effectiveness pretty much evaporated when baseball eliminated the "fair-foul hit", which was where you'd strike the ball in such a way it bounced on fair territory and then spun foul. Nowadays, of course, that's just a foul ball, but back in Barnes' day it wasn't and he got a *lot* of play off of that. Contemporary writers were of the opinion that he got a lot of cheap hits.

He's kind of interesting to OOTPers in that he's the kind of guy you see in leagues you start yourself with good half-careers because they're already 28 or so when the league begins. I know I don't generally put those guys into my Hall unless they actually accumulate HOF-worthy stats.

Syd Thrift · 10-16-2006, 12:06 PM

dola,

Of course, Barnes was 21 when the National Association was formed, so he's not *exactly* like those guys you see in your own fictional leagues. Still, you're talking about a guy who had basically 6 really good years, only one of which came in the actual National League. He's got a better case for it than Dale Murphy (although counting-stats wise, he's got nothing because of the shortened schedules of the day), but still IMO ought to be on the outside looking in.

CBL-Commish · 10-16-2006, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Professional baseball's first great player, Ross Barnes.

I always thought baseball's first great player was Jim Creighton.

CBL-Commish · 10-16-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

He's kind of interesting to OOTPers in that he's the kind of guy you see in leagues you start yourself with good half-careers because they're already 28 or so when the league begins. I know I don't generally put those guys into my Hall unless they actually accumulate HOF-worthy stats.

It's not their fault there weren't any major leagues until they were relatively old. They were likely still among the best players in the world, there just wasn't a highly organized professional league for them to play in. I'd like to see guys like Barnes, Creighton, Long Levi Meyerle and others given more consideration by the Hall.

Curve Ball Dave · 10-16-2006, 02:20 PM

Blyleven is a no brainer and should get in before anyone else.

Santo was the best all round third basemen of his era and deserves entry. Jim Rice deserves to be in too.

Lastplaneout · 10-16-2006, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctorg

The thing, to me, is that his stats are definitely not hall-worthy (although they're certainly not bad). It's just that I think his contribution is beyond stats and beyond anything recorded in his record. I think if he plays at the age of 50 and can still put up decent numbers, that right there is a hall-worthy accomplishment, even if his stats are lacking.

It's a different perception I have of the Hall compared to most people, I know, but that's how I'd like to see it.

I've always thought that the HOF nomination is an honor in and of itself and could be used to recognize those players that didn't achieve greatness, but still did something really special. Jim Abbot, Julio Franco, Jesse Orosco, etc.

Lastplaneout · 10-16-2006, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Jim Rice deserves to be in too.

I'm a BoSox fan and I honestly can't see why Jim Rice is considered such a glaring omission. He peaked, fell fast, and was generally one-dimensional. I'd put Dale Murphy in miles ahead of Rice.

Prodigal Son · 10-16-2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gastric ReFlux

I agree with an idea of thinking that it's not all about numbers.

"

I've always said it's not called the Hall of WARP, and I like the idea of being more open to non-performance measures of evaulation. Even had Cal Ripken, Jr. been an average player stats-wise, I would have supported him getting in the Hall. Personal character is a big part of the reason I pull for Murph to get in.

I'd rather have Murph and Julio Franco in the Hall than Mark McGwire and Albert Belle, that's for damned sure.

dodgersfanatic · 10-16-2006, 10:41 PM

Isnt Tony Gwynn eligible this year he did have 3141 hits, also harold baines and rickey henderson when he becomes eligible

dodgersfanatic · 10-16-2006, 10:51 PM

and andre dawson too that makes me mad

Syd Thrift · 10-17-2006, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

It's not their fault there weren't any major leagues until they were relatively old. They were likely still among the best players in the world, there just wasn't a highly organized professional league for them to play in. I'd like to see guys like Barnes, Creighton, Long Levi Meyerle and others given more consideration by the Hall.

Your point is made with Creighton and Dickey Pearce (who you didn't mention but I will), but again, that's not Barnes. I thought he was one of those mid-career guys as well but in fact he was born just in time to have a long big-league career. The fact that he didn't is due in large part to the fact that his game was predicated on a loophole that was closed the first chance the association turned into a league and was able to hammer things out. Take away the fair-foul hit, Barnes is just an average player. He's worth a plaque but not a seat.

darkhorse · 10-17-2006, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Professional baseball's first great player, Ross Barnes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

I always thought baseball's first great player was Jim Creighton.

.

darkhorse · 10-17-2006, 11:01 AM

dola,

Creighton may have been paid, but he did not play in a professional league.

darkhorse · 10-17-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Tiny career from a player whose effectiveness pretty much evaporated when baseball eliminated the "fair-foul hit", which was where you'd strike the ball in such a way it bounced on fair territory and then spun foul. Nowadays, of course, that's just a foul ball, but back in Barnes' day it wasn't and he got a *lot* of play off of that. Contemporary writers were of the opinion that he got a lot of cheap hits.

Injury ended Barnes effectiveness. He hit with a great deal more than average power. Not the sign of someone winning through bunting. Like most great players, he was smart and used the rules to his advantage.

darkhorse · 10-17-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Still, you're talking about a guy who had basically 6 really good years, only one of which came in the actual National League.

The only difference between the National Association of 1871-1875 and the National League of 1876 was who was in charge. The players were now vassals to the new ownership.

Luis_Rivera · 10-17-2006, 01:23 PM

There's now wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much Andre Dawson in this thread

Syd Thrift · 10-17-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Injury ended Barnes effectiveness. He hit with a great deal more than average power. Not the sign of someone winning through bunting. Like most great players, he was smart and used the rules to his advantage.

So? Injury ended Tony Oliva's effectiveness as well. Is Tony Oliva in the Hall?

Luis_Rivera · 10-17-2006, 01:30 PM

I don't understand how a guy whose career was effectively over by age 27 can be considered a "snub" for the hall. Also, I wouldn't say that either the National Association or the NL in 1876 were exactly "major" leagues. That's not to say that guys shouldn't be considered for the hall if their careers were entirely in the 1870's... but their performance needs to be discounted.

10-16-2006, 02:20 PM	#47
Curve Ball Dave Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 2,386	Blyleven is a no brainer and should get in before anyone else. Santo was the best all round third basemen of his era and deserves entry. Jim Rice deserves to be in too. __________________ "Hitting is timing. Pitching is upsetting timing"-Warren Spahn.

10-16-2006, 10:41 PM	#51
dodgersfanatic Bat Boy Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 15	Isnt Tony Gwynn eligible this year he did have 3141 hits, also harold baines and rickey henderson when he becomes eligible Last edited by dodgersfanatic; 10-16-2006 at 10:49 PM.

10-16-2006, 10:51 PM	#52
dodgersfanatic Bat Boy Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 15	and andre dawson too that makes me mad

10-17-2006, 11:01 AM	#55
darkhorse Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: fort worth, tx Posts: 10,850	dola, Creighton may have been paid, but he did not play in a professional league.

10-17-2006, 01:23 PM	#58
Luis_Rivera Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 4,177	There's now wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much Andre Dawson in this thread

10-17-2006, 01:30 PM	#60
Luis_Rivera Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 4,177	I don't understand how a guy whose career was effectively over by age 27 can be considered a "snub" for the hall. Also, I wouldn't say that either the National Association or the NL in 1876 were exactly "major" leagues. That's not to say that guys shouldn't be considered for the hall if their careers were entirely in the 1870's... but their performance needs to be discounted.