- Thread starter
- #1
I find this a much more interesting discussion than who should be in. When it comes to who deserves election, I think the best yardstick is the group of players already selected. Over the decades, with different methods of voting, some choices were made that are, frankly, odd in 2016. Yet, there they are. It then becomes a fair question to ask,"Pie Traynor is in the Hall, Brooks Robinson is in the Hall, and Mike Schmidt is in the Hall, and Brooks and Schmidt were so much better than Traynor, and Ron Santo was pretty comparable to the latter two, so why isn't Santo in the Hall?" And so, over the years, Santo eventually earned enough support to get in. The tragedy was that he didn't live to see it.
There is a great gulf in quality between Traynor and Schmidt/Robinson, IMHO. Yes, you can put it down to the fact that 3Bs in the 30s were not like 3Bs in the 60s and later. It wasn't an "offensive position," and it seemed to be the place where you put shortstops with big arms who weren't quite as mobile as you want them to be. As 1920s 3Bs go, Traynor is as good as it gets. And he was good. a .320 lifetime hitter, very consistent, unless you think a drop from .366 to .298 is inconsistent. Only 58 homers in a golden age of hitting, but some guys just naturally hit line drives. No MVP awards, but finished in the top 10 six times. I've never seen film of him, if it exists, but I recall reading that he was a very good fielder, although the meager stats on BR peg him at about average within his leagues. All around, a career I think anyone reading these boards would love to have had. But he doesn't resonate today. I'm sure even in Pittsburgh very few people talk about the glory days when Traynor patrolled the hot corner or whatever. If you could eject someone from the Hall, or at least group people into higher or lower echelons, I think Traynor would be on everyone's list as a lower echelon guy. Not really a reflection on him, per se, but he just had the misfortune of playing a position that would be redefined in later generations.
Given all the metrics, yardsticks, and comps people use today, who do you think would not merit election? For those who favor a smaller Hall (and not those people who think the Hall should be like 20 guys, or have the opinion that if someone wasn't as good a hitter as Ted Williams he's not a HOFer), where is the line?
There is a great gulf in quality between Traynor and Schmidt/Robinson, IMHO. Yes, you can put it down to the fact that 3Bs in the 30s were not like 3Bs in the 60s and later. It wasn't an "offensive position," and it seemed to be the place where you put shortstops with big arms who weren't quite as mobile as you want them to be. As 1920s 3Bs go, Traynor is as good as it gets. And he was good. a .320 lifetime hitter, very consistent, unless you think a drop from .366 to .298 is inconsistent. Only 58 homers in a golden age of hitting, but some guys just naturally hit line drives. No MVP awards, but finished in the top 10 six times. I've never seen film of him, if it exists, but I recall reading that he was a very good fielder, although the meager stats on BR peg him at about average within his leagues. All around, a career I think anyone reading these boards would love to have had. But he doesn't resonate today. I'm sure even in Pittsburgh very few people talk about the glory days when Traynor patrolled the hot corner or whatever. If you could eject someone from the Hall, or at least group people into higher or lower echelons, I think Traynor would be on everyone's list as a lower echelon guy. Not really a reflection on him, per se, but he just had the misfortune of playing a position that would be redefined in later generations.
Given all the metrics, yardsticks, and comps people use today, who do you think would not merit election? For those who favor a smaller Hall (and not those people who think the Hall should be like 20 guys, or have the opinion that if someone wasn't as good a hitter as Ted Williams he's not a HOFer), where is the line?
