Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Question for the group regarding Hall of Fame eligibility...

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

mchenrycards

Featured Contributor, Vintage Corner, Senior Membe
So I have a question for the group......


With the new veteran committees that have been formed by the Hall of Fame this past weekend, what are the chances of a guy who won 283 games in his career with 180 complete games with over 2400 strike outs and who won 16 gold gloves in his career getting into the Hall in the next four years?


Yes, I am speaking of Jim Kaat and I cannot help wonder if he even has a chance with the numbers he has. And with the rules changes, are there others who have been on the fringe that now have a better shot?


Any thoughts?
 

Mighty Bombjack

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
6,115
12
I think Kaat has a great chance because, in addition to all you mentioned, he stayed in baseball forever. Of course, it all comes down to who, exactly, is on each committee.
 

mchenrycards

Featured Contributor, Vintage Corner, Senior Membe
You are right in that the makeup of the committees will be the telltale sign as to who will be let into the Hall.

So the next obvious questions is, under the new rules.....who has the best shot at enshrinement over the course of the next three+ years? Murphy? Garvey? Trammel and Whitaker? I would love to hear opinions.
 

TNP777

New member
Aug 7, 2008
3,528
1
the 209
Call me a grumpy old man, but none of those guys (with the possible exception of Edgar) strike me as being worth of the Hall of Fame. The HoF is for legendary players, not the Don Suttons and "he was on a really good Yankees team and therefore should be in the HoF" guys.
 

Brewer Andy

Active member
Aug 10, 2008
9,634
21
Call me a grumpy old man, but none of those guys (with the possible exception of Edgar) strike me as being worth of the Hall of Fame. The HoF is for legendary players, not the Don Suttons and "he was on a really good Yankees team and therefore should be in the HoF" guys.

I understand the sentiment but it's far too late for that and have thus changed my opinion. The HOF is not for only the legendary. And Don Sutton's presence has made no one else any less legendary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

TNP777

New member
Aug 7, 2008
3,528
1
the 209
Just because there are already many stat compilers enshrined doesn't (or shouldn't) mean there needs to be more of them. Don Sutton comes to mind simply because he was primarily known as a Dodger, and this Dodgers fan doesn't agree with his inclusion.
 

Austin

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
5,706
41
Dallas, Texas
Don Sutton retired 4th all-time in career strikeouts, and after Ryan, Clemens and Johnson retired, still remains 7th all-time.

He also was Top 5 in Cy Young voting 5 straight years and had season ERAs of 2.08, 2.20 and 2.42.

He led the league in WHiP 4 times and had an incredible 9 shutouts one season.

He also won 324 games, same as Nolan Ryan, but in fewer years.

Sutton was a great pitcher. He didn't just hang around to compile stats. He won 15 games at age 40 and another 15 at age 41. He was a stud.
 

predatorkj

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
11,871
2
Guys, very few players get to any milestone quickly. Punishing them for it is not doing anything for the HOF's legendary like status.
 

DaClyde

Well-known member
Jan 17, 2010
1,614
58
Huntsville, AL
Call me a grumpy old man, but none of those guys (with the possible exception of Edgar) strike me as being worth of the Hall of Fame. The HoF is for legendary players, not the Don Suttons and "he was on a really good Yankees team and therefore should be in the HoF" guys.

But the Hall is clearly not just for "legendary" players or there would only be maybe 50 players in, with precious few added every decade. And these days, legendary status is easily bestowed by the sports media. All they have to do is keep playing the same handful of replays over and over, and telling the same stories about those same players. All ESPN and MLB would need to do is start playing different highlights and telling different stories and all of a sudden Don Sutton, or Tim Raines, becomes a legendary figure in the history of the game. It's all marketing. The Hall is a political body and is still going to elect based in large measure on popularity, and a few other arbitrary factors. If attitudes change, you can bet McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, Palmeiro and the other "greats" of the PED era will see their way into the Hall. The Hall needs people to keep visiting. If they are too strict with their inclusion criteria, the contents of the Hall start to get really old, really fast, and becomes less relevant to each successive generation of fans.
 

joey12508

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
38,465
16,123
Winterfell
So I have a question for the group......


With the new veteran committees that have been formed by the Hall of Fame this past weekend, what are the chances of a guy who won 283 games in his career with 180 complete games with over 2400 strike outs and who won 16 gold gloves in his career getting into the Hall in the next four years?


Yes, I am speaking of Jim Kaat and I cannot help wonder if he even has a chance with the numbers he has. And with the rules changes, are there others who have been on the fringe that now have a better shot?


Any thoughts?

Katt should be in IMO check his numbers against Jim Palmer
 

ccouch (Chad)

Member
Aug 8, 2008
444
6
Katt should be in IMO check his numbers against Jim Palmer

Which stats would you suggest we look at? The ones I looked at don't make an argument for Kaat at all. Palmer has him in ERA (2.86 vs. 3.45), WHIP (1.18 vs. 1.26), 20-win seasons (8 vs. 3), K/9 (5 vs. 4.9), CY Young awards (3 vs. 0), CY Young Tops Tens (8 vs. 1), Career WAR (69.4 vs. 45.3), and post-season resume (8-3 vs. 1-3).

Kaat was a better than average pitcher. But he's not a Hall of Famer. I believe the writers got this one right.
 

Mighty Bombjack

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
6,115
12
But the Hall is clearly not just for "legendary" players or there would only be maybe 50 players in, with precious few added every decade. And these days, legendary status is easily bestowed by the sports media. All they have to do is keep playing the same handful of replays over and over, and telling the same stories about those same players. All ESPN and MLB would need to do is start playing different highlights and telling different stories and all of a sudden Don Sutton, or Tim Raines, becomes a legendary figure in the history of the game. It's all marketing. The Hall is a political body and is still going to elect based in large measure on popularity, and a few other arbitrary factors. If attitudes change, you can bet McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, Palmeiro and the other "greats" of the PED era will see their way into the Hall. The Hall needs people to keep visiting. If they are too strict with their inclusion criteria, the contents of the Hall start to get really old, really fast, and becomes less relevant to each successive generation of fans.
Thank you for saying all of this. People forget that the Hall is not directly affiliated with MLB, and further (more to your point) that it is a business. It is fine to think of the Hall as merely a designation of greatness, one that should be more selective, but the Hall is a living institution that needs to maintain interest and the draw of media and visitors. This is why I don't necessarily think that attitudes need to change for PED users to see entrance. If the Hall thinks controversy/updated mores will help the museum overall, they will constitute the "Today's Game Committee" in a way favorable to induction of certain pariahs. Many of us think that was the explicit purpose of reconstituting the veterans committee thus (not necessarily to put PED guys in right away, but to set an easy path for it whenever that is viewed as necessary by the Hall's board).
 

DaClyde

Well-known member
Jan 17, 2010
1,614
58
Huntsville, AL
More to the point, people try to make the specious argument that it is not the "Hall of Very Good", but neither is it the "Hall of Great". It is the Hall of Fame. Fame does not equal great. Fame is mainly a measure of popularity and/or notoriety. Many players were hugely popular in their day, yet are largely unknown to today's fans.

Even so, the arguments all seem to revolve around the actual "induction" of individuals to receive a plaque. The room with the plaques is a relatively minor piece of the actual HOF facility. Loads of people have a presence in the museum, despite not being "in the Hall". Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens are all represented in the museum.

If anything, I wish the Hall of Fame would more fully decouple it's activities from Major League Baseball to allow for the inclusion of amateur and minor leauge inductees where warranted.
 

Mighty Bombjack

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
6,115
12
Good points as well, daclyde. To expand on your point about the facility, not only are there a LOT of Pete Rose items in the hall, but there is (or was when I was last there a couple of years ago) an entire room of the museum dedicated to the controversy of PED use in the 90s and early 2000s. They do not shy away from the actual history of the game, which is good.
 

Members online

Top