Need to be famous for "Hall of Fame"? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Need to be famous for "Hall of Fame"?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Need to be dominating to make the Hall?

Poll ended at Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:39 pm

Yes
10
42%
No
14
58%
 
Total votes : 24

Postby Tavish » Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:18 pm

BronXBombers51 wrote:
davidmarver wrote:
The Hall of Fame wrote:6. Automatic Elections — No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.

Oh...you mean 500 homeruns and 3000 hits?

Sorry, but that's not a HOF player right there, using the HOF checklist.


I think they meant 1 year accomplishments (.400 BA, perfect game, 4+ homeruns in a game, 20 strikeouts in a game, 30 wins in a season, 400 strikeouts in a season, etc.)

You can't get elected on one year of doing something like that. You need longevity is what I interpret that as. 3000 hits and 500 homeruns don't fit that bill. They are career achievments, not 1 year accomplishments.

I interpret it the completely opposite. No automatic inductions means no automatic inductions. There is no magic number that means you are automatically a HoFer. There are of course the magic numbers that voters drool over (3000 H, 500 HR, 300 W, 3000 K) but the players still must be voted in, not just given a ticket when they retire.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11071
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby BronXBombers51 » Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:56 pm

Tavish wrote:
BronXBombers51 wrote:
davidmarver wrote:
The Hall of Fame wrote:6. Automatic Elections — No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.

Oh...you mean 500 homeruns and 3000 hits?

Sorry, but that's not a HOF player right there, using the HOF checklist.


I think they meant 1 year accomplishments (.400 BA, perfect game, 4+ homeruns in a game, 20 strikeouts in a game, 30 wins in a season, 400 strikeouts in a season, etc.)

You can't get elected on one year of doing something like that. You need longevity is what I interpret that as. 3000 hits and 500 homeruns don't fit that bill. They are career achievments, not 1 year accomplishments.

I interpret it the completely opposite. No automatic inductions means no automatic inductions. There is no magic number that means you are automatically a HoFer. There are of course the magic numbers that voters drool over (3000 H, 500 HR, 300 W, 3000 K) but the players still must be voted in, not just given a ticket when they retire.


Maybe you're right. The examples threw me off. They specified 1 season when talking about a .400 average, and mentioned a perfect game. I took that as you can't be voted in because of 1 outstanding acheivment. You're interpretation is probably right though.
25
BronXBombers51
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 11949
(Past Year: 54)
Joined: 8 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Need to be famous for "Hall of Fame"?

Postby TheYanks04 » Thu Aug 04, 2005 7:03 pm

bellings wrote:This doesn't deal specifically with Palmerio, but we can use him as an example. Doesn't the name "Hall of Fame" imply that the members should be famous? If that is required, I don't know that Palmerio fits the bill (well, maybe after the substance abuse bust, but that is more infamous that famous.)

During his career, how many times has a pitcher though "oh crap, here come Raffy"? How many times has batter thought, "I better not hit it over there, he's a vacuum"?

If it came down to Palmerio and Pedro Martínez, and there was only one spot left, I would give it to Pedro. Absolutely no contest. You need to be dominating at least at some point during your career to make the Hall.



You neither need to be dominating, nor need to be all that good in some instances. Being known and popular with the Baseball Writers is an absolute must for anyone on the fringe.

The classic examples of this I like to use are:

a. Would Ozzie Smith and his 650 OPS (on turf to a great extent too) be in the HOF if he had the personality of Barry Bonds and did not host TWIB and do backflips before games?
A: NO.

b. Would Jim Rice be in the HOF if he had the personality of Kirby Puckett and was not viewed as an a**hole by the media?
A: YES.

c. Would Kirby Puckett be in the HOF if he had the personailty of Jim Rice?
A: NO.

d. Would Bill Mazeroski be in the HOF if he did not hit that one HR?
A: NO.
TheYanks04
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero


Posts: 9531
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Need to be famous for "Hall of Fame"?

Postby DK » Thu Aug 04, 2005 7:56 pm

TheYanks04 wrote:
bellings wrote:This doesn't deal specifically with Palmerio, but we can use him as an example. Doesn't the name "Hall of Fame" imply that the members should be famous? If that is required, I don't know that Palmerio fits the bill (well, maybe after the substance abuse bust, but that is more infamous that famous.)

During his career, how many times has a pitcher though "oh crap, here come Raffy"? How many times has batter thought, "I better not hit it over there, he's a vacuum"?

If it came down to Palmerio and Pedro Martínez, and there was only one spot left, I would give it to Pedro. Absolutely no contest. You need to be dominating at least at some point during your career to make the Hall.



You neither need to be dominating, nor need to be all that good in some instances. Being known and popular with the Baseball Writers is an absolute must for anyone on the fringe.

The classic examples of this I like to use are:

a. Would Ozzie Smith and his 650 OPS (on turf to a great extent too) be in the HOF if he had the personality of Barry Bonds and did not host TWIB and do backflips before games?
A: NO.

b. Would Jim Rice be in the HOF if he had the personality of Kirby Puckett and was not viewed as an a**hole by the media?
A: YES.

c. Would Kirby Puckett be in the HOF if he had the personailty of Jim Rice?
A: NO.

d. Would Bill Mazeroski be in the HOF if he did not hit that one HR?
A: NO.


I've had this argument with you about Ozzie and Kirby before, yet you never replied to my post... Although that's not that surprising. You tend to make odd statements with only one piece of evidence supporting them, and bash that into oblivion. Then when the other side is presented, you simply has the same argument over and over again.

Anyway, I'll C&P it here, since I don't want to write it again:

DK wrote:
TheYanks04 wrote:I have had this discussion before, but name the members of the HOF in solely for their glove...who got in with a 658 OPS lifetime? Please. By that logic Bellanger and Campaneris would get in too. Fact is, if it was notfor the fact that the guy was a showman and hosted TWIB an did backflips before games, he would have just been another very good glove, crummy bat SS that would have been noted but not enschrined in the HOF.


Good glove? The man was the best to ever play the game. Smith redefined the position. You are underrating his offense. Smith's job wasn't to hit home runs, or try for extra bases. No shortstop in that era had that as their job (I may be generalizing a bit here). He got on base more than the average player, with an OBP of .337 over the league average of .328. He was a very intelligent player. He made the plays, and had an exceptional strikeout to walk ratio. He never hit for power, but played in an era where shortstops didn't have to hit for power. They had to have good gloves, and Smith was the perfect idea of this image.

I will never say he was a good offensive player. He wasn't. He was a below-average offensive player, but he did get on base an above-average amount. His problem was power, but I've already gone over that.

You have to understand that until the 1990s, not every position had its best defined by the amount of home runs they hit. Most shortstops weren't noted for their ability to hit, players played shortstop because they could field.

It has nothing to do with his showmanship. Statistically, Ozzie stacks up as one of the greatest shortstops ever- again, not for his hitting but for his fielding. His range numbers are truly outstanding- the best of all time. His fielding % is well above average. He was about 500 plays above the average shortstop for his career, if I recall correctly.

Ozzie's HOF Monitor is 142.5. Any number over 100 indicates a likely Hall of Famer.

TheYanks04 wrote:Rizzuto and Reese, who were far better hitters than Smith ever was, were also great defensively and who you could make a good argument for not being in the HOF either. Both did not get in until decades later by the Veteran's committee. Yet Smith gets in without an after thought? And Smith's numbers were turf aided I might add for a good portion of his career.


Rizzuto couldn't hold Ozzie's jock as a defensive player. First of all, Riz played 11 full seasons in his career, Ozzie played 16. He's got longevity going for him. Secondly, Ozzie's offensive impact was about the same as Rizzuto's. Rizzuto had a career OBP of .351, which on the outset looks better than Ozzie's .337, but Rizzuto played in an era where people got on base 34.5% of the time. Rizzuto's OBP is actually worse than Ozzie's, in context. Rizzuto's slugging numbers are better, but not by much. For all practical purposes, they're even in terms of offensive production.

That leaves defense. Rizzuto's range numbers are good but not nearly as outstanding as Ozzie's. Ozzie made almost a full play more per game than the average shortstop. Riz made a full play more than the average shortstop per six or seven games. The difference is monumental in favor of Ozzie. Take into effect the importance weighted on defense at shortstop until the 90s, and it's clear who is better.

Reese has basically the same arguments... He was a better offensive player than Ozzie or Rizzuto, but not nearly as good a defensive player as Ozzie and didn't play as much. Granted, wartime service did cut into Reese and Riz's career, but you can't assume they'd have been any better a player then they were when they got back from the war.

Reese's HOF Monitor is 99.5, Rizzuto's is 87. Remember, Ozzie's is 142.5.

TheYanks04 wrote:Don Mattingly had his career shortened by injury too...his numbers also match Pucketts almost to a tee. Yet Mattingly is not in but Puckett is? Neither belongs in. And if Puckett gets in, why isn't Rice? You can't argue that Puckett was better than Rice?


You ever think that maybe Mattingly deserves to get in? But anyway... There is an argument that Puckett was better than Rice, but I'm not nearly energized enough to make it. Rice was probably a better player, but it's closer than you choose to pretend... Rice played in one of the best hitter's parks in the league which glorified his numbers. Rice is a very good player and probably a Hall of Famer, but it's not as if he was a perennial first-ballot...

TheYanks04 wrote:It all comes down to popularity contests with the writers. You could bet your bottom dollar that if Ozzie Smith was an a**hole with the personality of Albert Belle or Barry Bonds that he would not have gotten in the HOF. You can bet that is Rice was a nice guy like Puckett and not a pain in the a** with the writers, he would be in the HOF.


Eh... I doubt it. There are a ton of pure jerks in the Hall of Fame, and a lot of nice guys who won't ever make it. Taking out any of the biases and going with statistics, Oz is a Hall of Famer. Puckett is most likely a Hall of Famer.
Image
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9533
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

Previous

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact