Baseball Hall of Fame ballot released

Dave Parker belongs in the Hall of Pretty Good.

1979=lead-pipe HOFer. 1989=not so much.

Ditto for Dale Murphy and, for that matter, Bob Horner.

 

Still no such thing as a Hall of Unquestionably Great

 

ESPN.com's Dave Schoenfeld makes a pretty convincing case for Edgar Martinez:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof10/news/story?id=4755544

 

The part you quoted sounds more like excuse-making if he doesn't make it, saying not enough voters saw him play. Of course, every other player who spent his entire career in one league before interleague play began had the same problem. Sorry, not such a strong argument at all. If anything, a DH is EASIER to evaluate without seeing him because hitting translates into statistics much more easily than fielding does.

At least Schoenfeld admitted he was a fanboy first, because that's exactly how this reads -- a bunch of shaky manipulations of statistics to justify a point of view he had before looking at a single number.

He argues that Paul Molitor only reached 3,000 hits because he played DH, so Martinez shouldn't lose out because he was a DH? Never mind that Molitor never played more than 100 games at DH until 1991, his 14th season in the majors. Martinez only played over 100 games in the field for three seasons. Also, when comparing the two, he dismisses Molitor's base-running skills. Molitor stole over 40 bases four times and at least 30 eight times, finishing his career with 504 steals. Martinez never could run, so it is extremely unfair to try to make the comparison while brushing aside that part of the game.

He argues that Martinez wasn't moved because he couldn't field. If I remember correctly, he was moved because he couldn't stay healthy when he played the field. The reasoning really doesn't matter. It's not a penalty for being a DH. The point is he wasn't contributing with his defense.

He also blames Martinez's relatively weak numbers in the counting categories (hits, HR, RBI, etc.) on the fact that he reached the majors so late. Yeah, it sucks that he didn't get his chance sooner, but that doesn't mean he gets credit for seasons he didn't have.

 

In most cases you shouldn't give credit for seasons he didn't have but Martinez absolutely destroyed Triple-A pitching it was criminal he wasn't in the bigs. It's not like you are assuming he'd be a well below average MLB player if he had been called up three or four years earlier.

 

sorry, no Pythagorean careers allowed, or Don Gullett would be in on the first ballot. Edgar's numbers are not nearly good enough for such a limited position player

 

Andres Galaraga doesn't belong in the HOF but he compares favorable to:

Similar Batters

Orlando Cepeda (940) * HOF
Jim Rice (893) * HOF
Joe Carter (881)
Willie Stargell (862) * HOF
Chili Davis (855)
Fred McGriff (850)
Dale Murphy (844)
Jeff Bagwell (844)
Will Clark (839)
Jason Giambi (837)


He belongs with Parker, Baines, Dawson and Trammell in the Hall of Very Very Good.

Raines deserves to be, 2nd best leadoff man in the last 30+ years, 2nd only to Rickey.

 

Being very good over a long period of time is insufficient for the Hall of Fame. Being very good over a long period of time AND having been an exceptional or dominating player for a respectable stretch of time is close to my definition, FWIW.

Dawson and Parker like Morris and Blyleven, were very good over a long period of time, was there a 6 year stretch where they were the top players in the game?
Not Blyleven.
Parker had a great run from 75-79 and a very good stretch in Cincinnati. But except for '85, he never slugged over .500 the last 12 years of his career.

Dawson had fewer dominating years but was consistently very very good.

OTOH if Dave Winfield is in the Hall, why shouldn't Dawson and Parker?

 

You could start with Winfield's 3110 hits to 2700+ for both Parker and Dawson.

Not to mention more HRs, more RBI, higher BA that Dawson, a little below Parker; higher OBP and higher slugging.

Other than that, they're equal :

 

Never mind Winfield, what about Jim Rice?

Rice: .298-382 HR-1451 RBI-.352 OBP-.502 SLG-58 SBs-1 MVP-3 top 3 MVP finishes-0 GGs
Dawson: .279-438 HR-1591 RBI-.323 OBP-.482 SLG-314 SBs-1 MVP-1 ROY-3 top 3 MVP finishes-8 GGs
Parker: .290-339 HR-1493 RBI-.339 OBP-.471 SLG-154 SBs-1 MVP-4 top 3 MVP finishes-3 GGs

Any short list of worst HOFers ever has to include Rice.

 

Winfield, never an MVP or ROY. led the league once in one catagory, '79 RBI.

Again, certain career numbers are the result of being consistantly very good, like Winfield's 3100+ hits v. 2700+ for Dawson. But Winfield was never a dominating player. Neither Dawson nor Winfield excelled in the post season. They are similar players of similar reputation and accomplishments. Was Winfield better than Dawson? Better enough to make one a HOFer and the other not?

Was Tony Perez such a better player than Parker or Dawson to put him in and keep them out?

Perez, Rice, Dawson, Parker, Stargell, Baines(?) and Winfield all seem to be about the same quality player in overlapping eras, I don't see enough to distinguish Winfield, Perez, Stargell and Rice from Dawson and Parker. Baines lack of defense for 2/3rds of his career diminishes his credentials.

 

I think all of them are pretty weak selections, and I'd prefer a Hall that excluded all of them. Speaking as a Red Sox fan with a statistical bent, the Rice selection was horrible. I'm glad the guy got honored and all, but the Hall continues to lose value each year when you introduce guys like Rice in, since it now opens the door for Parker and Dawson supporters to say, "Why not our guy?"