Ron Santo - Hall of Famer!

[rocket]

So, with Santo in, who's the most deserving eligible candidate?

 

I'm thinking Alan Trammell has to be up there.

 

Trammell has the greatest disconnect between his vote totals and where he should be. Without looking too much into it, I'd say Raines or Bagwell.

 

If Tim Raines or Jeff Bagwell are HOF I want a refund. Alan Trammell was a great SS but was not even the best of his era. Glad Ronny is in. Really sucks that they found a way the year he died. Not surprising, though. I have predicted this for a long time. People suck. Nothing new.

 

lol

[El Duderino]

tim raines not being in the hall of fame is pretty ridiculous. Bagwell seems to be guilty by association at this point, because I'm pretty sure he's never been mentioned with roids.

[TruffleShuffle]

Alan Trammell was a great SS but was not even the best of his era.

 

mickey mantle wasn't the best CF of his era, should he not have been considered for the hall of fame?

 

There are a lot of people that do not belong in the HOF. Mantle is not one of them.

 

the point is that not being "the best of his era" is a really foolish thing to count against a player.

[Conky]

Alan Trammell was a great SS but was not even the best of his era.

 

mickey mantle wasn't the best CF of his era, should he not have been considered for the hall of fame?

 

There are a lot of people that do not belong in the HOF. Mantle is not one of them.

 

the point is that not being "the best of his era" is a really foolish thing to count against a player.

 

The point is that the HOF is way too inclusive as is. The post was sarcastic in nature and half joking, hence the "money back" comment at the beginning. In all seriousness, the selection process is certainly very arbitrary and not based on any set criteria. That being said, the knock on Santo for many years was that he was not the best of his era. Hence the comment about Trammell in a Santo thread.

 

Raines/ Bagwell/ Trammell may all get in one day, and were all great players (as I said), but they don't strike me as true HOF types. Just my opinion.

[TruffleShuffle]

why is the HOF "way too inclusive"? i think there's only like 15 third basemen in the hall, and they've been playing baseball for almost 140 years. an average of one third basemen or two shortstops every decade doesn't seem like a ridiculously loose set of criteria. it's not like every guy who has a good five-year spell is being enshrined.

[Backtobanks]

I agree that the HOF is too inclusive, but it's hard to say players are great but not HOF types. With all of the different eras (segregation era, dead-ball era, steroid era, etc.) it's hard to determine what truly is a "HOF type". Obviously you can't use comparative statistics from different era. Look at all of the discussion about the MVP award (does it mean most valuable player or best player). I think the voting should be that the top 3 vote getters get in each year. A case could be made for any of players like Raines, Larkin, Lee Smith, Jack Morris, Edgar Martinez, Trammell, Mattingly, Bagwell, or Larry Walker.

[seanimal]

I agree that the HOF is too inclusive, but it's hard to say players are great but not HOF types. With all of the different eras (segregation era, dead-ball era, steroid era, etc.) it's hard to determine what truly is a "HOF type". Obviously you can't use comparative statistics from different era. Look at all of the discussion about the MVP award (does it mean most valuable player or best player). I think the voting should be that the top 3 vote getters get in each year. A case could be made for any of players like Raines, Larkin, Lee Smith, Jack Morris, Edgar Martinez, Trammell, Mattingly, Bagwell, or Larry Walker.

 

don't call the hall too inclusive and then set some horribly inclusive and arbitrary standard for entrance

[Conky]

That is the whole problem. The process is completely arbitrary. The other problem is who does the voting, as has been discussed widely many times. Hopefully something can be done to incorporate stats and other comparative tools in years to come. As it stands, there are people that probably belong in that are not, and others that are in that shouldn't be. To me, the HOF should be about the best players of all time, not X number of 3B every so many years, or other indiscriminate metrics.

 

It is a fun discussion, though because people have such wildly varying opinions on who are the best players and worthy of enshrinement. We've all been doing this since we were kids. I doubt it ends any time soon.

[TruffleShuffle]

To me, the HOF should be about the best players of all time, not X number of 3B every so many years, or other indiscriminate metrics.

 

that's all well and good, but who is to say who the "best players of all time" are? we all agree that babe ruth, ted williams, cy young, etc are hall-worthy. but how where do you cut off? let's say ron santo is the 12th-best third baseman of all time. that means he's better than 99.9% of all third basemen who have made the major leagues, which is pretty damn great and quite obviously qualifies him as one of the best players of all time at his position, but he's also not as good as mike schmidt, a-rod, eddie mathews, chipper jones, etc. does he make your hall of fame?

 

and i sure as hell hope there's not a push to make stats a qualifier for the hall of fame, lest we end up with 42 year olds hanging on to bump up their warp3 by another half point to reach Hall standards.

[Backtobanks]

I agree that the HOF is too inclusive, but it's hard to say players are great but not HOF types. With all of the different eras (segregation era, dead-ball era, steroid era, etc.) it's hard to determine what truly is a "HOF type". Obviously you can't use comparative statistics from different era. Look at all of the discussion about the MVP award (does it mean most valuable player or best player). I think the voting should be that the top 3 vote getters get in each year. A case could be made for any of players like Raines, Larkin, Lee Smith, Jack Morris, Edgar Martinez, Trammell, Mattingly, Bagwell, or Larry Walker.

 

don't call the hall too inclusive and then set some horribly inclusive and arbitrary standard for entrance

 

Sorry, too much NY's celebration. I meant to say that the HOF is too exclusive.

[javy knows my name]

I agree that the HOF is too inclusive, but it's hard to say players are great but not HOF types. With all of the different eras (segregation era, dead-ball era, steroid era, etc.) it's hard to determine what truly is a "HOF type". Obviously you can't use comparative statistics from different era. Look at all of the discussion about the MVP award (does it mean most valuable player or best player). I think the voting should be that the top 3 vote getters get in each year. A case could be made for any of players like Raines, Larkin, Lee Smith, Jack Morris, Edgar Martinez, Trammell, Mattingly, Bagwell, or Larry Walker.

 

don't call the hall too inclusive and then set some horribly inclusive and arbitrary standard for entrance

 

Sorry, too much NY's celebration. I meant to say that the HOF is too exclusive.

 

I think you are quite possibly the only person in the entire world who believes that

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think you are quite possibly the only person in the entire world who believes that

 

He's certainly not. The majority of baseball fans may get off on being withholding, but there's a sizable minority who think the HOF should be a bit bigger.

[Rob]

Yeah, I'm absolutely a Big HOF guy.

[erik316wttn]

I think you are quite possibly the only person in the entire world who believes that

 

He's certainly not. The majority of baseball fans may get off on being withholding, but there's a sizable minority who think the HOF should be a bit bigger.

 

I don't necessarily think the HOF should be a bit bigger, but there are certainly a few guys who have no business at all being in there (Rabbit Maranville, I'm looking in your direction). If you swapped out a few of those guys with Raines, etc I think it would be ok.

[javy knows my name]

I think you are quite possibly the only person in the entire world who believes that

 

He's certainly not. The majority of baseball fans may get off on being withholding, but there's a sizable minority who think the HOF should be a bit bigger.

 

I don't necessarily think the HOF should be a bit bigger, but there are certainly a few guys who have no business at all being in there (Rabbit Maranville, I'm looking in your direction). If you swapped out a few of those guys with Raines, etc I think it would be ok.

 

This sounds like a JoeChat response minus the parenthetical.

 

Really have never heard arguments for the HOF to be more inclusive. Consider my eyes opened.