2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

It seems that certain players have been elected because of one high point in their careers. Here's a following list of potential candidates. Post whether or not you feel they would still be elected without the benefit of these merits. If it depends on the mentality of the election era (i.e. no one looked at OPS+ in 1963), be sure to mention it. Feel free to add your own.

Would these players have been inducted if...

Dizzy Dean- Doesn't win 30 games for a historic 1934 Cardinal team? What if he doesn't have his broadcasting career?

Catfish Hunter- Pitches with the same efficiency, but doesn't win as many games with the early '70s Athletics dynasty? What if he isn't a huge success in the year following his free agency signing (1975)?

Jack Chesbro- Doesn't win 41 games in 1904?

Hack Wilson- Doesn't drive in 191 runs in 1930?

Chuck Klein- Spends his 1928-1933 peak instead in a pitcher-friendly park?

Rube Marquard- Doesn't win 20 games three consecutive times with the 1911-1913 Giants?

Bill Mazeroski- Strikes out in the ninth of Game 7?

Phil Rizzuto- Doesn't play for the Dynasty Yankees? What if he doesn't have a broadcasting career?

Joe Gordon- Doesn't win the 1942 MVP? What if he doesn't play for the Yankees?

As I said, feel free to add your own, but don't make it a game of "would this guy have made it if he hit .200 or was a terrible defender?" Obviously any player can be reduced to little leaguer if we go that route. Try to use more defining accomplishments.

 

Dizzy Dean probably gets in, assuming that he still is the MVP in 1934. He was the runner-up the next two seasons. It's a short peak but it's a really nice peak. I can see the argument against of course.

Catfish Hunter probably gets in. The hypothetical is how many fewer games does he win. He had five straight 20-win seasons bookended by 18 and 17. Voters like that sort of thing.

Jack Chesbro doesn't get in. The 41-win season is the whole reason he is in, since it is 20 PERCENT of his wins.

Hack Wilson probably gets in. Considering his time I could see voters still electing him.

Chuck Klein Probably doesn't get in. Especially if he ends up getting compared to Hack Wilson on the ballot.

Rube Marquard. Doesn't get in, although he'd be interesting because of playing on five pennant winners, but no series winner.

Bill Mazeroski Almost certain not to get in, although it's possible the Vet Committee would have eventually inducted him

Phil Rizzuto If he's not a Yankee, then no. But he was, so I'd say probably. He was a reason they were dynastic. He'd get in without the broadcasting.

Joe Gordon eventually makes it. For a second baseman to be in the top 10 in the MVP voting, considering the era, his peers and the production from the position, probably.

 

I would point out that for the first half of the 20th century, the phrase "hall of fame" meant just that: The player did something worthy of everlasting fame.

For instance, when White Sox rookie Charlie Robertson threw his perfect game in 1922, numerous stories then and for years afterward said he had "entered the hall of fame." It took a decade or two after the museum in Cooperstown was built before the consensus evolved into a different definition: greatest of the great.

So the selections of players like Jack Chesbro and Hack Wilson are consistent with what a lot of people thought "hall of fame" meant back then, even though they'd never be elected today.

 

Wilson's no excuse. The vets picked him in 1979.

Chesbro I will buy for that reason. The Hall was barely more than a decade old when the Vets put him in. There were really only 50 years of baseball history to go on at that point.

 

I've mentioned this on Hall of Fame threads in the past, but if you were an All-Star-type player for the New York Giants in the 1920s or the St. Louis Cardinals in the 1930s, you stood a good chance of getting into Cooperstown. Frankie Frisch was Veterans Committee chairman from 1967 until his death in a car accident in 1973, and basically saw to it that a bunch of his old teammates got into the Hall of Fame.

1968 — Joe Medwick — played for the Cardinals in the 1930s

1970 — Jesse Haines — played for the Cardinals in the 1930s

1971 — Dave Bancroft — played for the Giants in the 1920s

1971 — Chick Hafey — played for the Cardinals in the 1930s

1971 — Rube Marquard — played for the Giants in the 1920s

1972 — Ross Youngs — played for the Giants in the 1920s

1973 — George Kelley — played for the Giants in the 1920s

1974 — Jim Bottomley — played for the Cardinals in the 1930s (Frisch died in 1973, but I'm sure he had pushed for Bottomley in previous meetings)

 

Medwick wasn't a Veterans pick.

But the point stands on all the rest, except for maybe Bottomley, who would have been a borderline Veterans pick regardless.

The other six shouldn't be in and are among the worst 15 Vets picks all-time.

 

Thanks for the correction. Medwick was a bad choice, too. He was essentially the Al Oliver of his day (a doubles hitter who had a couple of big RBI years), and no one's trying to get Oliver into Cooperstown.

 

Say huh? Medwick was an MVP/Triple Crown winner and had three other finishes in the top seven. Career BA of .324 (Oliver's was .303). Six years in a row with 190 or more hits. Ten-time All-Star.

I don't consider myself a baseball historian, but that seems like a Hall of Famer.

 

He played in a wildly inflated offensive era. Medwick was no different in his time than Todd Helton was 10 years ago. And his career tailed off due to injury just as quickly (Medwick was hit in the head and nearly killed in 1940).

 

We must've missed Al Oliver's Triple Crown.

 

Also to toss in, Marquard was a terrible pick, but he actually pitched for the Giants in the 1910s and was never a Frisch teammate.

 

That being said, Al Oliver only lasting one year on the HOF ballot is a travesty. I'm not saying he should have gotten in, but getting 4.3 percent of the vote is pretty tough to explain.