The last 1936 refusenik passed away several years ago, but there has not been a candidate of megastar marquee value in recent years to see if there has been a shift in the 100 percent wind.

Cal Ripken, Jr. wasn't "a candidate of megastar marquee value"? Really?

I can't think of a real compelling case against Tony Gwynn either.

I can't think of a real compelling case against Tony Gwynn either.

Or Tim Raines for that matter. Did he get elected unanimously? Oh wait...

I can't think of a real compelling case against Tony Gwynn either.

weird accent.

Cal Ripken, Jr. wasn't "a candidate of megastar marquee value"? Really?

He placed his streak above the team.

I can't think of a real compelling case against Tony Gwynn either.

No power for a RFer.

To re-emphasize Eraser-X's point: if you were to poll, say, Hall of Merit voters with the question "Which one of Tim Raines and Tony Gywnn was more valuable and a better HoF/HoM candidate?" the results would not be unanimous in either direction. The difference between their values may be smaller than the errors in the evaluation system you are using. Cowbow Popup in #4 gives one talking point to be used against Gwynn, but it really boils down to the case for Gwynn, which is batting average. And Raines reached a very similar value replacing some of those hits with walks.

I can't think of a real compelling case against Tony Gwynn either.

weird accent.

Squeaky voice, currently fat.

can't think of a real compelling case against Tony Gwynn either.

weird accent.

Squeaky voice, currently fat.

His son is not a great player. Cecil Fielder produces better ballplayer offspring.

can't think of a real compelling case against Tony Gwynn either.

weird accent.

Squeaky voice, currently fat.

His son is not a great player. Cecil Fielder produces better ballplayer offspring.

No rings. Conveniently retired during "Steroid Era".

This is fun. Why not Tom Seaver?

Pitched for the Mets?

Unable to identify pitches when broadcasting games -- calls into question whether he had any clue what he was doing on the mound.

When did Lederer get Conlin to come around on Bert?

Seaver's career ERA+ is a pedestrian 127, which is only two points higher than Mike Timlin's.

He is also tied or below: Sal Maglie, Sparky Lyle, Doug Jones, Roberto Hernandez, and Dan Quisenberry, and of those players only Lyle lasted more than one year on the HOF ballot.

Seaver ... gave up 380 HR. That's more than Orlando Cepeda or Tony Perez hit. Tom Seaver turned the average batter into an HoF hitter!

Also he was babied in the era of the 4-man rotation, never starting more than 36 games. Not once did he lead the league in IP. Only once did he manage even 20 complete games. Only one more shutout than Bert Blyleven. If he hadn't played for those powerhouse Mets teams, he'd have never won so many games.

Alright smart guys, somebody do Willie Mays.

Alright smart guys, somebody do Willie Mays

Come on, did you actually see the 1973 World Series? :)

What date are the election results announced?

Alright smart guys, somebody do Willie Mays.

Showboat.

Edit: Also, obvious "Greeny" user. No one could have danced off first base the way he did for a 154 game season with out some help from the pharmacist.

As I recall some writers were holding it against guys who went on strike. Namely, if you ever went on strike they were never going to vote for you, thus submitting a blank ballot every year. It would explain the no 100% guys, and how no one has hit 100% a year or two after getting on the ballot (ie: guys who decided someone like Carlton Fisk isn't a first ballot guy but was obviously a HOF'er thus should've voted for him in year 2).

I suspect more than one voter also picks just one name each time, thus limiting it more (ie: no one but Rickey this year) while others keep guys on once they get on thus hitting the 10 limit (could understand a ballot with Trammell, Dawson, Murphy, Parker, Raines, Rice, McGwire, Blyleven, Morris, and John right now and that fills in 10 slots thus nowhere to put Rickey - could add in Lee Smith, and Don Mattingly even to hit an even dozen). Heck, I'd bet some go for no more than one per position thus if they feel they have to vote Rice in this year they would go 'Rickey has 14 years left, why not give Rice a vote in his last shot'.

Now, I didn't say any of these were good methods, just that it is easy to see a voter using them.

I think Conlin is merely arguing that Henderson is probably the most deserving of 100 percent voting since the last of the refuseniks passed away (which likely came after Seaver and Mays' inductions). And he certainly seems more inner-circle worthy than Cal, Tony or Rock.

That one's easy. Mays couldn't get the job done when it really mattered. His teams could have won four titles had he not hit an alarmingly bad .239/.308/.282 in the World Series. His most memorable WS moments were falling down in the outfield as a Met and tracking down a fly ball at the Polo Grounds as a Giant. Big whoop.

Clearly worse than Jack Morris in WS memories, and Morris isn't in yet (but will be soon!)

Hmm... George Brett. Why not him? Lets go with 'injured too often'. After all, hitting 337-397-627 in the playoffs with many memorable moments and 292-355-583 in the All-Star game so can't hold clutch against him I'd think (he was the scariest hitter in the 80's imo). Snuck in a Gold Glove so the defense can't be fought. Won an MVP and should've had a second in 1985.

Strike and injuries are the only things I could see any voter having against Brett.

Plus his vicious attack on the umpires...signs of roid rage and at least a serious black mark on his character.

George Brett:

Fewer MVPs than Juan Gonzalez and tied in AL 3B silver sluggers with Troy Glaus. His most famous baseball moment is losing his temper on the baseball field - just like Jose Offerman.

Cal Ripken Jr:

1) Refused to play in a game at the end of 1998. How can the Hall elect somebody who obviously hated baseball?

2) Use of "Jr" in his name obviously means he paled in relevance compared to his father.

George Brett is easy: only 4 seasons with 100+ RBI or 100+ runs, only one season with 100+ RBI and 100+ runs, only 2 seasons with 200+ hits.

Mickey Mantle: Over 100 RBI only 4 times.

Alcoholic.

Made "Safe at Home."

Babe Ruth:

Corked Bat.

Greedy, not knowing his place.

Likes women and liquor (illegal drug in era)

Not playing the right way, just hits homeruns.

Showboat.

What date are the election results announced?

January 12.

-- MWE

George Brett: Bat Doctorer!

George Brett: Bat Doctorer!

And since we know he doctored his bat, it's not much of a leap to assume that he also used PEDs. REVOKE!



The sad part is I've actually seen this argument (not for Brett, but for others). In print. From a writer. Who gets paid to write about these things.

I suppose the contrapositive thread would be the one discussing why folks like Jim Deshaies were worthy of HOF votes.

Deshaies actually deserves the HOF, or rather the Ford Frick (or whatever they call the announcer's award)- at least he will when he's been doing it long enough.

Guys who get a token vote are votes from guys who liked them and know they're not going to get in anyway, so they send them a "thanks for the memories." It's harmless.

Jose Macias: played more positions than defensive whizzes Ozzie Smith, Brooks Robinson, Bill Mazeroski and Greg Maddux COMBINED.

In 1999 he slugged 1.000 - higher than Bonds, Mays, Aaron, or Ruth ever achieved.

By the way, I just want to say this:

Mr. Conlin:

If you are reading this thread, I would like to personally thank you for NOT voting for Nolan Ryan on the first ballot.

What's sad to me is that other than people who won't vote for Rickey just to maintain the whole no-100%-inductees "tradition," there are people who just plain don't realize that he deserves mention with players like Mays and Mantle and whatnott. There are really only five words you need to summarize Rickey's case - most runs in baseball history.

I suppose the contrapositive thread would be the one discussing why folks like Jim Deshaies were worthy of HOF votes.

9-23-86. I mean, if we can elect Bill Mazeroski for just one at-bat, surely we have to recognize Deshaies' 2.6 innings of brilliance. Didn't have his first full season as a regular until age 26. If we add Cold War credit to the beginning of his career--say, conservatively speaking, 1500 innings of 180 era+ pitching--we get the 3,000 inning, 135era+ pitcher we all recognize--comparable to Three-Finger Brown and Whitey Ford.

The case for Clay Bellinger? One word: WINNER. His teams won the World Series three out of every four seasons he played in the majors. He provided defensive value everywhere on the diamond except for pitcher and catcher. He stole bases at just under an 80% clip for his career. He struck out fewer times than the legendary contact hitter Joe Sewell.

Mays:

Only top 10 in singles twice
25th all-time in GDP
Didn't make the AS team one year
Only once played every game in a season
Putting his own gaudy stats first, he used to play 2 AS games a year
Did not have 7 top 10 MVP finishes over a 12 year span*
Threw like a girl

And of course ...

Was only the 3rd best CF in New York City alone

Shooting fish in a barrel

* he had 11 :-)

Mays: Was traded straight up for Charlie Williams.

The case for Clay Bellinger? One word: WINNER. His teams won the World Series three out of every four seasons he played in the majors.

What active player has appeared in the most World Series? My gut is telling me it's Pettitte.

I think that's just the chili.

Is there an argument to be made for Neifi Perez?

He was the most feared defensive replacement of his time. Don't get me started on Lenny Harris.

Neifi has more black ink than Hall of Fame shortstops Joe Tinker, Bobby Wallace, Dave Bancroft, Travis Jackson, and Phil Rizzuto combined.

Mays:

Only top 10 in singles twice
25th all-time in GDP
Didn't make the AS team one year
Only once played every game in a season
Putting his own gaudy stats first, he used to play 2 AS games a year
Did not have 7 top 10 MVP finishes over a 12 year span*
Threw like a girl

Dick Young had a line about that when Willie wasn't elected unanimously--"these guys wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ; after all, he dropped the cross three times"

Hmm... George Brett. Why not him?

Cheater, of course.

I know that Royals fans and Lee MacPhail like to pretend that he's not, but that doesn't change the fact that he is.

There are really only five words you need to summarize Rickey's case - most runs in baseball history.

That's not really true.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm of the opinion that you'd have to be either stupid, ignorant, insane, or probably some combination thereof to think anything except "Rickey Henderson is an inner circle Hall of Famer", but "most runs in baseball history", in and of itself, doesn't really make for a foolproof argument.

Witness Pete Rose. Even ignoring the obvious off-field stuff, it's not entirely clear that he's really deserving of the Hall. And he's got the most hits in baseball history.

To be explicit, I'm not saying "On the other hand, it is clear that he is not deserving of it." It basically boils down to how much you value the fact that his career was very long. That's not particularly important to me, but I wouldn't argue terribly if someone said it were.

Even ignoring the obvious off-field stuff, it's not entirely clear that he's really deserving of the Hall. And he's got the most hits in baseball history.

I have never seen this argument advanced before.

I have never seen this argument advanced before.

A corner outfielder/first baseman with a 118 career OPS+. It's pretty easy to see how a peak voter could be dissuaded.

Even ignoring the obvious off-field stuff, it's not entirely clear that he's really deserving of the Hall. And he's got the most hits in baseball history.I have never seen this argument advanced before.

Really?

The man has a lifetime OPS+ of 118. And that's for someone whose most common positions were first base and left field. First base by a healthy margin, actually.

And for all the vaunted hustle, his SB/CS ratio is below breakeven. That is, he cost his team runs by trying to steal bases.

He was briefly an excellent player. He was a very good player for a fair amount of time, and a good player for a long time. And a crappy player for a fair amount of time, too.

So, again, I think it depends upon how much you value the fact that his career was long. Because other than that, it simply wasn't that great.

A corner outfielder/first baseman with a 118 career OPS+. It's pretty easy to see how a peak voter could be dissuaded.

Why would a peak voter care about a career rate stat?

So, again, I think it depends upon how much you value the fact that his career was long. Because other than that, it simply wasn't that great.

Would you agree that's equivalent to saying Hank Aaron's stature depends on how much you value home runs?

Jackie Robinson

- only hit 137 major league homers in his career, fewer than Rico Carty, J.T. Snow, Jeff Conine Gene Woodling, and Wally Moon
- was in the top 4 in MVP voting only once
- barely creeped over 1,500 hits for his career
- hit .234 in the World Series- no wonder the Dodgers kept losing to the Yankees of Gene Woodling
- drove in 100 runs in a season only once

Summary: it was a short career, and there wasn't much of a peak there...

Would you agree that's equivalent to saying Hank Aaron's stature depends on how much you value home runs?

In some extremely vague sense, sure, maybe. But Hank Aaron's home runs did a lot more to help his team win than Pete Rose's insistence on continuing to play did.

That was a nice, snarky response of yours. Congratulations. But really, look at Pete Rose's stats, and then try to explain to me why he's better than, say, Bobby Bonilla or Paul O'Neill, in any sense except for "insisted on playing longer".

The man has a lifetime OPS+ of 118. And that's for someone whose most common positions were first base and left field. First base by a healthy margin, actually.

Pete Rose didn't become a firstbaseman until he was 38 years old. Through his age 37 season (1978), Pete Rose was a 2B/3B/LF/RF in more-or-less equal parts with a career OPS+ of 126, 3,164 hits, 1,657 runs scored, an MVP award (plus a 2nd, 2 4ths, a 5th, a 6th, and a 7th), a Rookie-of-the-Year award, 2 Gold Gloves, 11 All-Star appearances, 3 batting titles, an OBP crown (with 5 top 3's), he'd played in 4 World Series, winning two of them.

His top-10 comparables on BB-Ref thru age 37 are Paul Molitor, Robin Yount, Rod Carew, Frankie Frisch, Lou Brock, Tim Raines, Paul Waner, Roberto Clemente, Charlie Gehringer, and Craig Biggio.

You really want to argue that's not a Hall-of-Famer?

The fact that Rose "insisted on playing longer" isn't what makes him a HOFer.

He was an above league average hitter through age 40. Those last four seasons are totally meaningless.

He made 17 all star teams and finished in the top 10 in MVP voting 10 times. Of course, this is all compiled over time (IOW it's longevity). I can't distinguish Rose from somebody like Brady Anderson without making reference to longevity.

That was a nice, snarky response of yours. Congratulations.

I'm not being snarky, it was sincere.

value = rate stats/time

It's hard for me to see how eliminating time from consideration is any less non-sensical than taking away Aaron's homers.

Pete Rose didn't become a firstbaseman until he was 38 years old.

So?

Then he became a first baseman, played there for the plurality of his career, and in the process gained the record in question, while, frankly, hurting his team for the better part of a decade. Do you not think that that is relevant in a discussion of whether or not the fact that he holds that record, in and of itself, indicates that he is beyond question worthy of the Hall of Fame?

You really want to argue that's not a Hall-of-Famer?

Meh. I never said that he wasn't.

Do you not think that that is relevant in a discussion of whether or not the fact that he holds that record, in and of itself, indicates that he is beyond question worthy of the Hall of Fame?

Is Pete Rose more valuable than every player who has fewer hits than him in major-league history? No, of course not. Just like Hank Aaron is not more valuable than every player who has fewer home runs than him and Rickey Henderson is not more valuable than every player who has scored fewer runs than him. But Pete Rose got his record by being very durable and very good for a very long time and yes that, in and of itself, indicates that he is beyond question worthy of the Hall of Fame (absent the gambling, of course; don't get me wrong, I think Pete Rose is an ####### who is deservedly banned from both MLB and the Hall of Fame).

He was an above league average hitter through age 40.

And Paul O'Neill was one through age 38. Were those extra two years what put Rose over the top, such that he's unquestionably deservant of the Hall, while nobody outside of the hardest of hardcore Yankee fans complains about the fact that O'Neill got virtually no votes?

Those last four seasons are totally meaningless.

They most certainly are not, with respect to the fact that he owns this record which people seem to be arguing means he's an unquestionable Hall of Famer in and of itself.

They most certainly are not, with respect to the fact that he owns this record which people seem to be arguing means he's an unquestionable Hall of Famer in and of itself.

Pete Rose earned his Hall-of-Fame credentials by getting 3,697 hits through age 40 (and all of his other stats as well, of course). Pete Rose was able to break Ty Cobb's hit record because he was able to accumulate 3,697 hits through age 40. The record isn't what pushed him over the HOF threshold - just as the runs record isn't what pushed Rickey over the threshold - the point is that you can't accumulate 4,256 major-league hits or score 2,295 major-league runs without putting together a HOF-worthy career in the process.

They most certainly are not, with respect to the fact that he owns this record which people seem to be arguing means he's an unquestionable Hall of Famer in and of itself.

Who?

I took issue with the following statement.

Even ignoring the obvious off-field stuff, it's not entirely clear that he's really deserving of the Hall. And he's got the most hits in baseball history.

You're either moving the goalposts or you haven't decided what your thoughts mean. I suggest you consider your writings more carefully in the future.

the point is that you can't accumulate 4,256 major-league hits or score 2,295 major-league runs without putting together a HOF-worthy career in the process.

No, that's the claim. You're saying it is so because it is so.

His rate stats simply were not fantastic. Name some other "no question" Hall of Famers. Compare how much Rose actually helped his team to how much they did. It's simply not remotely close.

Again, if you want to say that the longevity of his career, together with the fact that he was good to very good for a lot of it, makes him a Hall of Famer, that's actually fine with me. But I find the idea that it makes him without doubt one is a bit silly.

You're either moving the goalposts or you haven't decided what your thoughts mean.

Yeah, OK. Let's review:

(1) Claim: "Most runs in baseball history" is, in and of itself, demonstrative of a no doubt HOF career.

(2) Response: Not really; Pete Rose has the most hits in baseball history, and it's not entirely clear that he's deserving of the Hall. Not saying he's not, but it's not "no doubt", and the fact that he has the most hits in baseball history doesn't make it so.

And now I'm "moving the goalposts" (or haven't decided what my thoughts mean) because I'm still saying he's not a no doubter, and still saying the fact that he has the most hits doesn't make him a no doubter?

OK. Good night.

His rate stats simply were not fantastic. Name some other "no question" Hall of Famers. Compare how much Rose actually helped his team to how much they did. It's simply not remotely close.

As Pops says, I'm not sure you're thinking through your argument here. His career rate stats are underwhelming because he stuck around and played a while as a crappy 40-some-year-old guy. But why would you use his career rate stats to evaluate his peak performance? Look at his peak performance.

From 1968 - 1978, Pete Rose had OPS+'s of (in chronological order) 152, 158, 125, 130, 134, 138, 118, 132, and 141. In that time span, he never played fewer than 149 games (he played over 160 6 times), which led to his league ranking in runs created for these seasons being (again, in chronological order) 1, 2, 7, 10, 5, 5, 8, 3, 2, 8, and 8. That's 11 straight top 10s. For some comparisons, Roberto Clemente finished top 10 in runs created 5 times in his career; Cal Ripken did 4 times; Tony Gwynn, 6 times; Rickey Henderson, 9 times; Rod Carew, 6 times; Joe Morgan, 6 times.(*)

I'm not seeing the lack of a Hall-of-Fame peak/prime here.

(*) Both Carew and Morgan's 6 were consecutive and were almost all top 3's - they clearly had better peaks than Pete Rose. The rest of these guys, not so clear.

Pete Rose has the most hits in baseball history, and it's not entirely clear that he's deserving of the Hall.

No, it is clear to anyone with more than three functioning brain cells that he is deserving of the Hall. Aside from the peak that Kiko mentions, there is the fact that Pete Rose was a lead-off/top-of-the-order hitter (10,700 PA batting first, 3,620 PA batting second; less than 1,600 for the rest), whose job was to get on base for the big boppers in the line-up. From 1965 to 1982, a period of 18 years, he was never out of the top ten in Times on Base, with 9 firsts and 5 seconds in there.

That is a remarkable achievement.

Frankly, in this case, the hit record is a "red herring", in the same manner that Cal Ripken's consecutive game streak is. Cal Ripken belongs in the Hall of Fame, not because of the streak, but because he was a truly excellent fielding short stop for a very long time, who also hit for remarkable power (especially for the time) for a short stop.

Pete Rose, if he had not been a dirt bag, would belong in the Hall, not because he is the "Hit King", but because he is one of the greatest lead-off hitters of all time. As late as 1981, he was still garnering MVP votes. He was more than worthy of the Hall long before he approached the record.

Basically, he's a bit lower than Tim Raines with about 50% more career length. That's more than enough to get in.

the point is that you can't accumulate 4,256 major-league hits or score 2,295 major-league runs without putting together a HOF-worthy career in the process.

Precisely right. Moreover, I would also go a step further: it is unthinkable that a player could accumulate 4256 hits or 2295 runs without putting togehter a HOF-worthy peak at some point along the way, since that is at least a sub-point of the issue being debated here about Rose (if not the actual matter under discussion). There just aren't enough seasons in a career -- even one the length of Rose's, and not with the decline that is inevitable at the end of those years, as was the case with Rose -- to NOT have a ton of hits in some of those years. And the nature of the game is such that you can't score that many runs if you aren't getting on base a whole hell of a lot in that number of years. And if you're getting that many hits, and getting on base that much, you're having peak seasons worthy of a HOFer. Do the math.

Which -- voila -- Kiko and Srul show did, in fact happen with Rose. Don't let your hostility to Rose's off-field conduct affect your perception of his on-field performance. He was right there with Morgan and Bench as Hall-worthy Reds of the 70s.

Don't let your hostility to Rose's off-field conduct affect your perception of his on-field performance.

How about hostility to his haircut?

To stand on the shoulders of other posters and put some numbers on it, from 1968-1978:

Rose had a 133 OPS+. Of players who played 1200+ games over that span (endpoints I know), he's tied with Bonds and Yaz, behind Powell and Singleton, substantially behind Carew, Morgan, Reggie Smith, McCovey, Jackson and Stargell (surprisingly the leader). So tied for 8th overall. He was 4th in OBP.

If you look at runs created 1968-1978 Pete Rose is ...

first.

He's first by 135 runs over Morgan.

That's 12 runs a year.

That's a win a year.

Now the main reason for that is durability -- he played 258 more games than Morgan over that span. Give Morgan those extra games and he'd probably pull ahead of Rose ... who'd be second (the horrors!). Carew is also about 250 games behind and he might squeak past Rose.

Crappy peak.

Now, while I'm in here, let's admit that RC may not be the greatest tool. #1 from 1998-2008 is AROD. #2 is Todd Helton. Raise your hand if you saw that one coming.

I have to say, willcarrollsux has thoroughly beclowned himself in this thread.

Late to the show, I know.

Willie Mays hit 239 / 308 / 282 in four World Series, and 247 / 323 / 337 overall in the postseason.

You're late to the show *and* you owe me a coke.

I of course agree with the general feeling here that Rose is an easy Hall of Famer. However, I also think that from the perspective of a pure peak voter he is not a slam-dunk candidate. On the typical HOM definition of "peak" as a player's top three non-consecutive years, Rose's peak, according to Dan R's WARP, he was worth 6.8, 6.4, and 6.2. That is a very good peak--three high all star/low MVP calibre seasons--but is hardly the stuff of legends. I THINK it is one of the top 140 or so of all time, but I am not sure, and would be quite surprised if it were in the top 100. Thus, I could easily seem someone who cared only about something like a three year peak as being much less sure of Rose's credentials. Personally, I think considering ONLY a narrow peak is not the right methodology--it does not make sense to me to just throw out all of those additional seasons where Rose was playing at a near MVP level--but there are people who do so, and for them Rose would be a much less automatic choice.

The man has a lifetime OPS+ of 118. And that's for someone whose most common positions were first base and left field. First base by a healthy margin, actually.

He had his most value in right field, however. That's why he's with the right fielders in the HoM.

Oh, the man was a no-doubt HOFer (not to mention a no-doubt jerk).