Printable View
The other day, the players that will appear on the Veterans Committee's ballot this offseason for induction into the Hall of Fame were revealed.
Which players would you vote YES for?
Bucky Walters
Joe Gordon
Mickey Vernon
Vern Stephens
Allie Reynolds
Deacon White
Bill Dahlen
Sherry Magee
Carl Mays
Wes Ferrell
I'd definitely vote yes for Joe Gordon, Vern Stephens, Deacon White, and Bill Dahlen. I lean towards yes on Sherry Magee and Wes Ferrell. The others, no.
The VC kinda bugs me... it's almost as if it's their job to make sure every great but not incredible baseball player who ever played gets in. The VC is going to be putting players like Mike Lowell into the Hall in 60 years.
That said, I'd vote no on everyone here except Magee. While I'm not up in arms that he isn't in the Hall, he was among the top run producers of his era, consistently, and had a few monster seasons.
What I don't get about the VC is why a guy like Bill Dahlen could be repeatedly overlooked for decades, then, whaddayaknow, one day he's suddenly worthy of the Hall.
It's also difficult for me to understand the merit of these players beyond their numbers, so perhaps there's something I'm overlooking.
Dale Murphy and Jim Rice are far more worthy than all these guys.
The rules were recently changed now, although I'd agree that the VC hasn't done a good job. They should be there to put guys in that were overlooked or inaccurately judged by the BBWAA. Instead, they put in guys they like.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
I think Dahlen was always worthy of the Hall. The reason he's been overlooked is because, in general, guys from that time period don't get the same attention as more recent guys do. The writers just didn't understand that time period, for one, and for two, the record books weren't well kept until far after Dahlen was off the ballot.Quote:
What I don't get about the VC is why a guy like Bill Dahlen could be repeatedly overlooked for decades, then, whaddayaknow, one day he's suddenly worthy of the Hall.
I don't think so. As I said, I'd vote in Gordon, Stephens, White, and Dahlen. White was a 19th century star, with great offense from behind the plate, as well as an innovater of the catcher position. Dahlen was one of the top shortstops of his time, offensively and defensively. Gordon and Stephens both were great offensive performers at up-the-middle positions, and were among the top performers at their positions for their careers.Quote:
Dale Murphy and Jim Rice are far more worthy than all these guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
thats my vote mays MAYBE and daglen probalby not. hard to say with those pre 1900 guys. i mean there werent as many games but its not like hte was cap anson ya know?
That makes sense. It's hard for anyone to understand that time period without extensive research. I barely understand it. I know the names and I've seen the numbers, but beyond that, my knowledge of what was going on back then is limited to the idea I've constructed based on names and numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I tend to want to lean towards slight edges to players from more modern eras of baseball, after the innovations and adjustments were made that caused the game to be more evolved, more difficult, more athletic, and require greater skill than the average player back then had. That said, innovators do have a place, and the greatest players from that era still have a place in the Hall, in my opinion. Reading up on White a little more just now (in what time I have while neglecting my job), I can understand why you'd vote him in.Quote:
I don't think so. As I said, I'd vote in Gordon, Stephens, White, and Dahlen. White was a 19th century star, with great offense from behind the plate, as well as an innovater of the catcher position. Dahlen was one of the top shortstops of his time, offensively and defensively. Gordon and Stephens both were great offensive performers at up-the-middle positions, and were among the top performers at their positions for their careers.
The players on this list from the mid century (Gordon and Stephens, for instance), I'm still not sure put together Hall-worthy careers, regardless of position. These are guys that I'd put in the infamous Jim Rice category. Stephens possibly ahead of Rice. I think he's the guy I'd be most likely to support on this list (other than Magee). White too, maybe.
Stephens was kind of a proto Ernie Banks/Cal Ripken Jr. type, but unlike his "successors" he didn't quite reach the level of greatness, the totals, or frankly, the immortal fame, that I'd require in a HOFer.
SPARKY LYLE AND RON GUIDRY!!!!!!!!!
So sorry...they're not on the list.....write in candidate!
Heh, there's no write-ins on the VC ;) It's for pre-1943 players.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD
I know....can't a man dream....hello IRRATIONAL Yankees Fan here!
Yawn... wouldn't vote any of these guys in until Hodges gets his rightful spot in the HOF.
I KNOW! And where's Lance Johnson, Jon Matlack, Todd Pratt, and Benny Agbayani?Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD
THEY MUST BE WRITTEN IN :p
I'd vote Yes for Joe Gordon, Allie Reynolds, Carl Mays and Wes FerrellQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I'm always unsure about Hodges, but if I were forced to make a vote on him, I'd say yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Hodges is a guy that I'd put in the same class as Rice/Murphy (ie. I'd vote "no").
Until Hodges gets in? So, these guys only belong in the Hall of Fame IF another player is in? I never once understood that opinion. If they belong in the Hall, they belong in the Hall.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
No one should go into the HOF until Pete Rose goes in!!!!! ;):rolleyes:
AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by RickD
oh boy
I am going to unplug for the day MetsGuy agreed with me....I need a cup of coffee.....:p
Just...just take it easy, Rick. Relax. Maybe read a book or something, and try and get that heart rate down. We don't need you stroking out on us, not over this! Slow that breathing...everything is going to be okay! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by RickD
I'm back....went for a walk and read my latest issue of Yankees magazine.....that was a close one!:p
Walters. No. Not even close IMO.
Gordon. No. Over-rated.
Vernon. Maybe. Didn't have the power you really want at first, but definately a good player.
Stephens. Maybe. Under-rated, and more worthy than his contemporary and opposite number Rizzuto, but being more worthy than Rizzuto in and of itself isn't enough to make anybody worthy of the Hall, and putting him in might move him from under-rated to over-rated.
Reynolds. No. Was really good for a few years, but not at a dominant enough level to offset having a relatively short career.
White. Yes, but I'm not as enthusiastic about him as HGM seems to be.
Dahlen. Yes. Probably the best choice on the ballot.
Magee. No, but looking at his numbers, he's closer than I thought.
Mays. No. Mays was no doubt a good pitcher, but not a clear HoFera pretty unsavory character, and while I put a lot more weight on performance than character, it becomes more of a factor when the player is borderline anyway.
Ferrell. Maybe. His numbers aren't that weak in context of his era and teams, but they're not that great, either. More deserving than his brother, who's already in.
BTW, on a side note:I understand the opinion, though I wouldn't characterize quite that way. Rather, I'd suggest that, ideally, we should induct the most deserving candidates first. So, logically, if we were to apply that test strictly and if we feel that, say 4 of these guys are deserving, but that Hodges is more deserving, then it makes sense to delay putting them in until Hodges is in. On the other hand, while I understand the opinion, I don't think we should be too strict in applying it, because it often happens, as it does with this ballot, we don't always have the option to induct the player we might think is most deserving.Quote:
So, these guys only belong in the Hall of Fame IF another player is in? I never once understood that opinion. If they belong in the Hall, they belong in the Hall.