I also think longevity is too heavily rewarded. Who GAF if a guy held on way past his prime to get to 3000 hits? For me, a HOFer is someone who was the best at their position in their prime.

Dale Murphy, b2b MVPs, 4 seasons in a row to win GG and SS in CF!

He fell off fast at age 31 and was basically done at 34...but if instead he had played a decade of mediocre baseball lets say averaging 100 hits and 10 HR and ended up with 3000 hits and 500 HR instead of 2111 and 398 does that make him more of a HOFer?

Because his prime bonafides are above reproach and if he had 3K hits hes in without doubt. Probably in no doubt with 500 HR too...but by keeping him out the hamstercock sportswriters are telling us that the difference between HOF and not is a bunch of mediocre baseball in your late 30s.

And he was about the nicest dude in baseball. Didn't drink or smoke and certainly didn't juice.

HOF is dumb.

Harry Dunne said:

---

I also think longevity is too heavily rewarded. Who GAF if a guy held on way past his prime to get to 3000 hits? For me, a HOFer is someone who was the best at their position in their prime.

Dale Murphy, b2b MVPs, 4 seasons in a row to win GG and SS in CF!

He fell off fast at age 31 and was basically done at 34...but if instead he had played a decade of mediocre baseball lets say averaging 100 hits and 10 HR and ended up with 3000 hits and 500 HR instead of 2111 and 398 does that make him more of a HOFer?

Because his prime bonafides are above reproach and if he had 3K hits hes in without doubt. Probably in no doubt with 500 HR too...but by keeping him out the hamstercock sportswriters are telling us that the difference between HOF and not is a bunch of mediocre baseball in your late 30s.

And he was about the nicest dude in baseball. Didn't drink or smoke and certainly didn't juice.

HOF is dumb.

---

Agree. It's important, but it's probably weighed too much. That is why the dorks over at baseball prospectus (now at FanGraphs) developed the JAWs metric. It balances career and 7 year peak WAR & career WAR,

Dale Murphy is ahead of 16 HOFers in WAR7 and ranked 27th all time in CF for JAWs. That is probably still borderline, but better than 37th all time in CF WAR.

It sounds like you're describing Andruw Jones as well in the 3rd paragraph.

Good info, thanks.

I'm also being a hypocrite because even though Murphy played on mostly mediocre teams I watched a ton of them as a kid thanks to TBS, so I am heavily biased.

Harry Dunne said:

---

Rolen's career was better. Bell's 5-year prime was better.

https://baseballegg.com/all-time-player-rankings/baseballs-greatest-third-basemen-of-all-time/

Bell took a while to become a good hitter and then he fell off quick after his prime. His first 6 years he had a .710 OPS. In 6 full seasons...and then his last 5 seasons he had a .725 OPS. Stud during his prime though.

It's funny though because I think of a washed up Buddy Bell flopping around playing terrible 3b the Astros and there's no way in hell that guy is a HOFer but then you start looking at his career and he's basically Brooks Robinson who played not quite as long and for crap teams instead of a dynasty.

---

I'll give you another name - Jim Sundberg. Not everybody can be Bench/Berra/Pudge, or even Piazza/Fisk.

But he won 6 straight GG, and caught 155 games the year before that streak started.

HOF? No. But he had a heck of a run.

The Cardinals media (radio/TV/newspaper) members lobbied hard last year for Keith Hernandez to make the HOF. He was clearly one of the best defensive first basemen ever, and their argument is that if you apply modern metrics to his offensive numbers, you'll see that he was more valuable offensively than was realized at the time. I'm not a metrics guy and don't have an opinion on that assertion.

They obviously were pushing hard for Rolen as well, but you'd never hear the arguments articulated to the degree they were for K.H.. It came across (to me, at least) more as homerism.

94chem said:

---

Buddy Bell was better than Scott Rolen (#25 all-time dWAR). Rolen is #45.

Bell had 6 straight GG between 1979-84. Bell had over 2500 hits. Bell had a 66 WAR. Rolen is 70. That's a wash.

Rolen had more HR. So what. Everybody does today. Bell hit 206 at a position that traditionally is not for power hitters.

---

I made this same argument about Rolen versus Bell (and Graig Nettles) for several years, and I won't act like I don't think it's a valid point of view, BUT:

Rolen's wins against average value is 44, which was not only the highest amongst eligible 3rd basemen not in the Hall but the highest for any eligible player not in the Hall except for informally blackballed players (Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, Curt Schillng).

As I noted above, that ranks 7th among 3rd basemen and is well clear of Nettles (#15, 32.8) and Bell (#17, 32.6)

We can quibble, but the fact that Bell only got 1.5% of the vote his first year and fell off the ballot tells you how crude the metrics were. 300 wins, 3000 hits, 500 HR, 3000 K's... it's fine if these always remain automatic tickets. After all, baseball has always been a game of numbers. But newer metrics are needed too. I wonder if any of the old writers who watched Bell play ever had this gnawing feeling that they were missing something. 'Cause when I was a kid, I always thought "that dude is a HoFer." Never had a thought like that about Harold Baines for sure.

Even among long-time Rangers fans, I wonder how many know that Buddy Bell was a way better player than Michael Young?

Hmmm #MLBHallOfFame you have some “splainin” to do. @DaleMurphy3 numbers are better than #ScottRolen pic.twitter.com/huIjP9OsDY

— Brian D (@BriannAtl35) January 25, 2023

I'm going to start up the Mark Grace HOF campaign!

Again, Murphy was the best player in the league back to back and the best CF at least five years straight.

He was the best offensive and defensive centerfielder in the 80s. Kirby Puckett is in that conversation but everyone else is a far distant 3rd.

Forget about the rest of it, that alone should punch your ticket.

Murphy was best player in baseball for five years. Then he was good for a bit. And he was terrible other than that. His decline was drastic.

Dark Parker was one of my favorite players. His career arc is similar. He also got dinged by cocaine scandal

AgRyan04 said:

---

The dumbest part is the number of years a guy is on the ballot.

There is a 5 year waiting period after retriement....and at that point, he either is or he is not. No player has ever improved his career achievements between his first year on the ballot to his third year on the ballot.

It should be a one and done.

---

What about a year where there are many deserving candidates? There is a limit on how many players you can vote for on one ballot.

Honestly, the cap is stupid too

Parker should be in the Hall of Fame with or without cocaine.

but he's one of the players that WAR hates...despite his tremendous counting numbers and career accolades.

his 5-year stretch from 1975 to 1979 was one of the best all-time in the division era. Then he had 2 great seasons with the Reds in 1984 & 1985.

won 2 batting titles
won the NL MVP in 1978

finished 2nd for the MVP in 1985. Finished 3rd for the MVP in 1975 & 1977