Which of these pitchers belong in the Hall of Fame?

[DrungoHazewood]

Everyone except Wells, and Wells is as good as a bunch of current HOFers like Waite Hoyt, Jesse Haines, and Herb Pennock. Obviously better than a few of the more questionable Vet's Committee choices.

The only reasons some of these guys won't get in are higher standards being applied to modern players, a misunderstanding of the reasons for pitchers posting different win totals, and wildly different Vet's Committee rules from 30 or 40 years ago.

[66-70-83-??]

Everyone except Wells, and Wells is as good as a bunch of current HOFers like Waite Hoyt, Jesse Haines, and Herb Pennock. Obviously better than a few of the more questionable Vet's Committee choices.

The only reasons some of these guys won't get in are higher standards being applied to modern players, a misunderstanding of the reasons for pitchers posting different win totals, and wildly different Vet's Committee rules from 30 or 40 years ago.

"Higher standards" ? Or just "different standards" as the game has evolved over the years ? I say the latter.

I would agree that some of the veteran committee selections are questionable. That is a different story. And just because they put in an unworthy player doesn't justify voting in others not worthy.

Some of the HOF'ers that were elected in earlier years were worthy according to their peers at that time.

It doesn't matter what their stats look like in comparison to todays players.

Players need to be judged in the historical context of their playing days, not the present.

The HOF is for the greatest players throughout history, not just the greatest players according to todays standards.

And there is another reason some of the previously mentioned players don't get in- because they just aren't good enough.

[66-70-83-??]

I didn't read the thread, and just went with gut instinct. I voted for everyone except Mussina, Brown, and Wells. I consider Brown & Schilling to be in the same category, guys who considered elite pitchers and had postseason success. I just felt Schilling held this distinction for a longer amount of time than Brown did. Wells just doesn't do it for me at all, and Mussina seems like more of a compiler to me. I haven't considered him an elite pitcher since his first few years in Baltimore. He's been consistently good since then. He needs to pull a Don Sutton (300) to get in, IMO.

And that usually is good enough.

I did the same, initially.

I voted the same way.

Mussina and Schilling still have a chance to get over the hump. They are both borderline. Mussina is close enough that I woudn't even bother arguing a case against him. Brown, Wells- no way.

My gut tells me Jack Morris is a HOF'er.

Obviously, my gut is serving me wrong on this one as I seem to be in a distinct minority on Morris. He has gotten more support each year in HOF voting.

The knock is his lifetime ERA. But, he was the ace of three WS teams. Had postseason heroics. Over 250 Wins, lots of CG, SHO, etc.. He passes Bill James HOF Monitor and is a little light in the "black ink" but has a ton of "gray ink". Perhaps the first "big" name pitcher to pitch his entire career in the AL with a DH.

He was a feared pitcher. To me, he was the best pitcher through the 1980's.

Anyone with me on this one ?

[DrungoHazewood]

Some of the HOF'ers that were elected in earlier years were worthy according to their peers at that time.

Doesn't that open the door for weaker players to get in during eras where no one dominated? Or shut the door to players who happened to play during times when their position was exceptionally strong? For example, Duke Snider was only the 3rd-best centerfielder in New York City for much of his career. Raffy was probably better than any first baseman between 1900-1920, but against his peers he was clearly worse than Bagwell, Thomas, and others.

And I know you're a Jack Morris fan, but much of his case rests on him being supposedly "the best starter of the 80s". But that's mainly because the Seaver/Palmer generation was in their late 30s by the time the 80s hit, and the Clemens generation was just getting started by mid-decade.

[66-70-83-??]

Doesn't that open the door for weaker players to get in during eras where no one dominated? Or shut the door to players who happened to play during times when their position was exceptionally strong? For example, Duke Snider was only the 3rd-best centerfielder in New York City for much of his career. Raffy was probably better than any first baseman between 1900-1920, but against his peers he was clearly worse than Bagwell, Thomas, and others.

And I know you're a Jack Morris fan, but much of his case rests on him being supposedly "the best starter of the 80s". But that's mainly because the Seaver/Palmer generation was in their late 30s by the time the 80s hit, and the Clemens generation was just getting started by mid-decade.

So what ?

It is the Hall of "Fame", not the "Hall of the top statistical players of today based on today's standards".

In 1939, the BBWAA voted in George Sisler. Why ? Because he was regarded then as one of the top first basemen to play the game at that point in history, despite only 102 career HR's and a .326 BA.

Are you saying the BBWAA should have had the foresight to see how the game would change and instead of voting in Sisler, said: "Wait, in 70 years, 102 career HR's will not be very good, especially since the 1B position will evolve into a power position. Let's not vote him in".....

How do we know that we wouldn't be making the same errors with Mussina or Brown (or whoever) in regards to what the game will look like in 20 or 50 years ?

It is all relative. The top players of each generation will be the players of "fame".

It is only natural that the standards for election evolve as the standards of play evolve.

So, yes- some of today's players (and future) will get left out that have better stats than some players of generations past. Unless we want to change the hall of fame from inducting just the greatest and start including the very good.

We can debate who is worthy or not- but, the BBWAA gets it right the vast majority of the time. Hopefully, they will keep the standards high and continue to elect only the cream of the crop without regard to how they match up to the past inductees. It is only how the players match up to their peers that counts, imo.

[DrungoHazewood]

It is all relative. The top players of each generation will be the players of "fame".

It is only natural that the standards for election evolve as the standards of play evolve.

So, yes- some of today's players (and future) will get left out that have better stats than some players of generations past. Unless we want to change the hall of fame from inducting just the greatest and start including the very good.

Ah yes, the old "This isn't the Hall of Very Good" argument. That was a very valid point through about 1944. In 1945 they inducted Roger Bresnahan, who was only very good compared to his peers. In 1945 they inducted Hughie Jennings, who was great for about four years, and barely adequate otherwise. In 1946 they put in Tinker, Evers and Chance, who were pretty good players compared to their peers. That year they also put in Tommy McCarthy, the Rusty Greer of the 1890s.

When that's the bar, and it was from almost the beginning, it's difficult for me to argue we should be excluding players who aren't just better, who aren't just victims of changing standards, but who are vastly better compared to their peers.

There was only about a nine year run where the Hall of Fame included only truly great players. The minute WWII ended the standards changed from Ruth, Cobb, and Speaker to Chance, McCarthy, and Bresnahan. Notice I've never mentioned raw numbers, or stats here - I'm talking about the accepted practice of inducting players who were the 3rd or 8th or 10th-best players at their position when they were active.

We can debate who is worthy or not- but, the BBWAA gets it right the vast majority of the time. Hopefully, they will keep the standards high and continue to elect only the cream of the crop without regard to how they match up to the past inductees. It is only how the players match up to their peers that counts, imo.

I just disagree. Yes, the BBWAA gets it right most of the time. Most, but not all. Where I disagree is with raising standards appreciably over time - and they are being raised, even when just comparing to BBWAA inductees. There are players who were accepted as excellent when they were playing, players who had MVP-caliber seasons, players who made many All Star teams, who got a tiny fraction of the vote and were quickly dismissed (for example, Alan Trammell). Trammell is roughly an average HOF shortstop, but he's out until Vet's Committee time. Bert Blyleven is better than 75% of HOF pitchers. Out.

I just can't reconcile the fact that merely good players have been elected by the BBWAA since the 40s, but better players are excluded from more recent times.

[Lee_The_Pea]

Everyone but Wells and Brown.

I'm torn on Schilling, but to twist around the traditional "It is the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of Very Good" argument, sometimes a legendary performance or two can push a borderline player over the top.

Same here. It is the Hall of Fame. Fame is something that jumps out at you and is something you do not need to reseach on. Schilling may not have the best stats, but to me he always seemed like a special pitcher sense his Phillies days. The Hall of Fame is about the best and being a champ! How many kids have had dreams of hitting home runs off of Schilling in game 7 of the World Series and how many have had dreams of doing the same against Brown.

[DrungoHazewood]

Same here. It is the Hall of Fame. Fame is something that jumps out at you and is something you do not need to reseach on. Schilling may not have the best stats, but to me he always seemed like a special pitcher sense his Phillies days. The Hall of Fame is about the best and being a champ! How many kids have had dreams of hitting home runs off of Schilling in game 7 of the World Series and how many have had dreams of doing the same against Brown.

That's a nice sentiment, but how often have kids dreamed of striking out George Kell? Or getting a hit off of Vic Willis? Or robbing Phil Rizzuto of the single that would have pushed him over a .275 average for his career?

Going on feelings and ignoring research has resulted in the standards of the Hall being Lloyd Waner and Tommy McCarthy instead of the truly best players of each era. We know better than that today.

[Odenton O]

Same here. It is the Hall of Fame. Fame is something that jumps out at you and is something you do not need to reseach on. Schilling may not have the best stats, but to me he always seemed like a special pitcher sense his Phillies days. The Hall of Fame is about the best and being a champ! How many kids have had dreams of hitting home runs off of Schilling in game 7 of the World Series and how many have had dreams of doing the same against Brown.

Well, that explains how Tinker, Evers, and Chance got in on the strength of a popular poem.