He was a very good player, really without a true weakness. In his early years, he even had better than average speed.

Hall of Famers - Catchers

Might as well go to the horse's mouth. Try this.

Great minds think alike, Craig.

Pitchers are 23.6% of the Hall. That does not seem unreasonable.

The only active pitchers outside of Clemens, Maddux and Johnson whom I have heard people seriously say are HOFers are Glavine -- which is correct -- and Pedro, which if not correct, will be soon. The other big issue is retired pitchers, and particulalry Blyleven, who also deserve enshrinement.

If anyone has said that about Smoltz, Schilling and Mussina, they should not be treated seriously. But there careers are not yet over.

As to being in the top 60 -- If that is the standard, there are clearly pitchers in the Hall who do not belong.

Rube Marquard -- Career ERA+ of 103, 53.2% career winning percentage

"Maybe C and 3B just happened to have fewer amazing talents than other positions.

Thoughts?"

I have long believed that there have been fewer truly great players at 3B than at the other positions because of the midway point that 3B occupies in the defensive spectrum ... the great hitters (McGwire, Giambi, Thome, Jimmie Foxx, Orlando Cepeda, Jack Clark) are moved to OF or 1B to focus on their hitting, and the great fielders (Ripken, Sandberg, Wagner) are moved to middle infield to take advantage of their gloves. Third base remains the provisional position, the stopping off point in mid-career, where you can squeeze another bat into the lineup (Bobby Bonilla, Pedro Guerrero, Albert Pujols) or another glove (Scott Brosius, Clete Boyer, Billy Cox), but rarely is the best athlete on a team ever the third baseman, and rarely does a great player play his full career at third.

I think your points about catchers are well-taken, Brad. It's a very difficult position, and a very punishing one. Again, rarely will a team invest its best athlete in that position, especially not for long. The list of great players who've been moved away from catcher is a long one (Biggio, Dale Murphy, Gil Hodges, Jimmie Foxx again). Probably more defensive-oriented catchers deserve to be in the HOF than are there, but there's no law that says every position must be equally represented, and probably there are good reasons why they aren't.

Koufax after his 2nd career no-hitter May 11,1963 an 8-0 whitewashing of the (sorry Steve) S.F.Giants..."Matter of fact I only shook Roseboro off once,saying 'Let's go with the same pitch and get this no-hit thing over with', Roseboro did a great job of calling for the proper pitches." (only 112 were needed)

Roseboro batting 7th went 2-4.

For what it's worth, Roseboro is also the author, with Bill Libby, of one of the better baseball autobiographies ever published, Glory Days With the Dodgers. It's a very frank, no-holds-barred look back at his career. Unfortunately, it's been out of print for a long time and is pretty hard to find unless you get lucky at a used book store.

Steve,

I think catching is different from third base. Your point about how third may be a transitional position is a good one, and may have merit. I don't think that's true of catching, where the issue is that it destroys its practitioners. The position is critically important (games would take a lot longer if the pitcher had to retrieve the ball at the backstop every time) and it is not like any of the other spots; it is plausible to look at a third baseman and say, "It's a lot like being a shortstop, but he isn't good enough," but the same is not true behind the plate.

Catchers need to be evaluated against other catchers. Overall, they may not be able to create as many wins as players at other positions, but the ability to withstand that grind is a feat of its own.

Catchers need to be evaluated against other catchers. Overall, they may not be able to create as many wins as players at other positions, but the ability to withstand that grind is a feat of its own.

Good point. Each position has the same value, IMO. If you put Sosa or Barry at catcher, there would be no way that they could play as many games as they have (or have the same production).

They may not be able to create as many wins as Bonds or Sosa, but a catcher can create more wins than the average player at his position (as compared to other positions). That has to be factored in.

The LA Times obit quoted Roseboro as admitting that he threw the ball at Marichal's head, provoking the infamous fight.

Steve T. mentioned this in a thread a while ago, and someone questioned it. Just thought I'd point it out here.

"The LA Times obit quoted Roseboro as admitting that he threw the ball at Marichal's head, provoking the infamous fight."

Which not in the slightest way justifies Marichal's reaction, which Marichal has always acknowleged.

Somebody on SABR-L once claimed that Marichal had terrible allergy problems, and had just begun taking a new and experimental allergy medication when the incident occurred. Supposedly his blowup at Roseboro was a reaction to the medicine. Not sure how reliable this is, but it's interesting if true.

Among active pitchers, Kevin Brown might have a shot, though it all hinges on him having at least one more healthy season to get over 200 wins.

I also remain unconvinced that David Cone is done-done. He was still solid in 2001, and I could see him coming back for one more go-round in the right situation. He's already a fringe candidate, even without the big 200.

Oh yeah, still haven't found that damn stress fracture Marichal biography. I'm starting to wonder if it was a memory implanted by aliens...

"Oh yeah, still haven't found that damn stress fracture Marichal biography. I'm starting to wonder if it was a memory implanted by aliens..."

Actually, that had been my assumption all along, but I didn't want to be so blunt as to suggest it ... :-)

Other people have pointed out that Marichal was upset over political turmoil in the Dominican Republic.

I looked into the story about the allergy medication and I never found any reference to it other than that one posting on SABR-L.

I've never figured this out, but more people try to rationalize Marichal's attack than other such events in baseball history. For me, Marichal is just beyond my memory so I have no idea whether or not, his attack on Roseboro was so completely out of character that there had to be another reason for it.

Alan Barra in his new book also asserts that Roseboro was upset over the recent Watts riots in Los Angeles that year and both Roseboro and Marichal were on edge. Barra states that Roseboro was the precipitator of the altercation and made the first move toward Marichal.

"I have no idea whether or not, his attack on Roseboro was so completely out of character that there had to be another reason for it.

Alan Barra in his new book also asserts that Roseboro was upset over the recent Watts riots in Los Angeles that year and both Roseboro and Marichal were on edge. Barra states that Roseboro was the precipitator of the altercation and made the first move toward Marichal."

Certainly attacking someone with a club was completely out of character for Marichal, as it would be for 99.99% of baseball players. Marichal was a high-spirited player, but by no means known for violence.

I guess what I can't figure out is why this one fight draws so much attention, and what is this need to ascribe one particular "cause" for it on either Marichal's or Roseboro's part. They were baseball players, in the heat of a tight pennant race between two teams with a very fierce rivalry. Everyone's adrenaline was pumping fully. They lost their tempers, and began to fight. This has only happened about 87 million other times in baseball history. The one and only thing about this altercation that makes it in any way unusual or notable at all is that Marichal conked Roseboro on the noggin with his bat. That's it. It was a rhubarb, and Marichal lost his head for an instant and used his bat when he "should" have used his fists.

I think it's very regrettable that the obituary of Roseboro, a very fine player and by all accounts a fine gentleman as well, is dominated by this one stupid incident. I suspect that when Marichal passes, the same thing will occur, and it will be just as regrettable.

Steve T.

I entirely agree both that Roseboro's conduct doesn't justify Marichal's use of the bat and that the focus on the incident is unfortunate. I only brought it up because someone questioned you about it earlier.

The Marichal-Roseboro incident is talked about a lot because players don't normally go and hit other players in the heads with bats. Most baseball fights are usually "faux" fights with more posturing and grabbing than hitting.

When someone actually gets hurt, it's unusual.

Put it this way, if I was out on the street and I got into an argument with someone and the other person pulled out a baseball bat and started hitting me in the head with it, the police are going to send the guy with the bat to jail.

If we just arguing in the street and we just push each other a few times and maybe roll around for a bit, the police will break it up and just send us on our way unless someone is hurt.

I agree with the comments posted about 3B possibly being transitional and C moving to other positions. But, I still think that how a person ranks all-time relative to his position should merit discussion. I'm not saying that the hall should lower their standards (there are already enough people that don't deserve to be in there), but since C and 3B are harder to find people with HoF counting stats (400 HR, 1200 RBI, 2000 hits, etc.) I don't think the 10th best 3B in the history of the game should be excluded just because LF is easier to get higher counting stats.

Right. There is a huge difference between 300 homers for a catcher and 300 for a left fielder. The former is terrific, while the latter is OK but nothing special.

Roseboro was a fine defensive catcher and a decent hitter (with speed, at least early in his career). Which brings me to comment on a few earlier posts. Catchers are a unique situation (duh) in that one of the inevitable ramifications of playing the position is that your offense will suffer as will the effective length of your career.

Managers know this, of course, and rarely have a player that would be a star at another position be their catcher, especially for more than a few years. The converse is that players who are catchers for long periods of time were unlikely to be stars at other positions. The point is that there is a self-selection bias at work here. Thus, catchers should be "under-represented" in terms of Hall of Fame and other career achievements.

And I don't automatically buy into the argument that all positions have equal value. You can imagine a game in which the catcher has a lot less value than other players (such as slow pitch softball).

"The Marichal-Roseboro incident is talked about a lot because players don't normally go and hit other players in the heads with bats. Most baseball fights are usually "faux" fights with more posturing and grabbing than hitting.

When someone actually gets hurt, it's unusual."

True enough, but it isn't as though Roseboro was seriously injured. He took stiches in his head, and missed a few games. He didn't have a concussion, didn't go on the DL.

Far more serious injuries have occurred in baseball brawls. Billy Martin slugged Jim Brewer in an on-field fight in 1960, and broke Brewer's jaw, putting him out of action for an extended period. Brewer pressed assault charges against Martin.

I guess you would also have to add that Marichal was a big star at the time and it was during the middle of a heated pennant race.

And there probably wasn't anyone filming Martin and Brewer in 1960.

And I don't automatically buy into the argument that all positions have equal value. You can imagine a game in which the catcher has a lot less value than other players (such as slow pitch softball).

I was only referring to regular baseball.

Here's my problem. If a catcher is 25% better at his position, isn't he roughly the same as a player that is 25% at first base (taking into account the relative quality of players at the two positions by using standard deviation)?

During yesterdays Yankee game,Jim Kaat told an interesting story to his broadcasting partner Rondo Hatton....uhhh I mean Michael Kay, about John Roseboro.It seems that Kaat and Roseboro,as Twin teammates,were sharing a cab after a game when they heard on the radio that Martin Luther King had been assassinated.Kaat said that after a couple of minutes of uneasy silence,Roseboro broke the tension by telling Kaat how he should apply more pressure to his middle finger when throwing his slider in order to give it a sharper break.

The past is weird.