Yup, that's it. Gossage was one of the first of his breed -- a real relief specialist. Still this was before closers started working only the ninth inning of games in which their team is leading.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Baseball Hall of Fame
- Thread starter mcmav37
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yup, that's it. Gossage was one of the first of his breed -- a real relief specialist. Still this was before closers started working only the ninth inning of games in which their team is leading.
I still would like to see Mattingly get in. How does he not have more votes then McGwire.
As great as Mattingly was, he just wasn't great for very long. He was good for several more years before having to retire way too soon. There are quite a few non-HOF players like him who were great for a little while or were very good but not for long enough. Gil Hodges is another player who was very good, but apparently not good enough for long enough. Going by the numbers though, Rice has a much better case for the Hall than Mattingly, putting up very good offense for about a decade. I've always really liked Mattingly. You can't NOT like him.
That's a good point. Starters are so much more valuable than relievers, but people are quibbling over Gossage more than Blyleven. One can make the argument that Blyleven really wasn't much better than, say, Tommy John or Jim Kaat. John and Kaat are in that same group of pitchers who played forever and racked up pretty good numbers, but didn't have many great years, didn't get many Cy Young votes, and no one remembers as dominant during any stretch of their careers. On the other hand, Blyleven played for some weak teams on which he was often the unappreciated ace, so he's probably a bit better than his numbers.
I remember a fascinating chapter in the Bill James book, "What Ever Happened to the Hall of Fame", in which he debated whether Don Drysdale belongs in the Hall or not. He came up with convincing arguments either way. One of the "against" arguments was that his career numbers are almost exactly like those of Milt Pappas, who no one ever really thought of as being HOF material.
The arguments never end!
I know Mattingly probably will never make the hall but compare him to some of the players that are using steroids. I would say he was a better role model and suffered through the pain of his injuries better then they do now. Imagine if he used steroids how good his numbers would have been then I bet he would of been in the HOF already. The fact that Mark McGwire got more votes is a disgrace.
I say lets judge a player by their actions on and off the field and put those players that actually loved the game in the hall.
If it wasn't for Mattingly I might not follow baseball today. I would rather see the true talented players in wether the numbers agree or not.
I say lets judge a player by their actions on and off the field and put those players that actually loved the game in the hall.
If it wasn't for Mattingly I might not follow baseball today. I would rather see the true talented players in wether the numbers agree or not.
Here's how the hall describes enshrinement:
"Exceptional careers" and "significant achievements" can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Obviously, titanic numbers qualify. But there's definitely room for interpretation.
In regard to Rice...The problem is, 1987 and 1988 were unremarkable, 1989 was atrocious. Without those three seasons, he actually looks a little bit better. He'd still have 351 home runs, a .303 career batting average, he'd still have that "feared hitter" label, and people could talk about how if he decided to play until he was 40, he'd have over 500 home runs and 3200 hits. Seems like if he had a few more seasons,he'd be in already. I believe next year is his last year of eligibility..
http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/museum/mission.jsp
"Exceptional careers" and "significant achievements" can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Obviously, titanic numbers qualify. But there's definitely room for interpretation.
In regard to Rice...The problem is, 1987 and 1988 were unremarkable, 1989 was atrocious. Without those three seasons, he actually looks a little bit better. He'd still have 351 home runs, a .303 career batting average, he'd still have that "feared hitter" label, and people could talk about how if he decided to play until he was 40, he'd have over 500 home runs and 3200 hits. Seems like if he had a few more seasons,he'd be in already. I believe next year is his last year of eligibility..
I think an argument can be made for Tommy John, but the longevity thing was more of an issue with him because he had some great years in the middle of his career (late 70s), but not much before and after.
Blyleven, on the other hand, was really consistent. Aside from the problem of playing for some awful teams which you bring up, he was always a low-ERA, high-K kind of guy. The guyg got Cy Young votes as late as '89, which is pretty impressive since he was 38 at the time. And you can't use the longevity argument to keep a Mattingly out and use the exact opposite view on longevity with Blyleven!
I think Mattingly's short career should be treated like Koufax. I'm a Red Sox fan and I still can acknowledge how amazing his mid 80s streak was. There hasn't been a triple crown threat like him until Alex Rodriguez, and now maybe Albert Pujols. He was having 30 HR, 100 RBI .330 AVG seasons when it really meant something.
Rice was a monster, though. He shouldn't be punished for leaving the game when his vision started to go. Would it have been better if he kicked around for a few more years to pad his numbers DHing in shame? He had 11 seasons as one of the best 2 or 3 hitters in the AL, period, and a few of those as the single best hitter in the game.
If he isn't voted in next year, I'm 100% sure the veteran's committee will vote him in eventually. But it would be nice if he did it without their help...
You mean like Tony Perez?He was paraded around like a mascot by the Big Red Machine for his last years in Cinci.It's a shame that Rice's last year was absolutely abysmal. No doubt the veteran's committe will vote him in,but this is the way to go in...
And I don't agree that it was his atittude toward the media/writers that is keeping him out. He played in Boston during a tough time..I remember sitting in Fenway in the late 70's..Some of the things that the fans yelled at him when he it into one of his signature 6-4-3 DP's were horrible...
I don't think I'm being inconsistent on this one. I was saying that Mattingly didn't have enough great seasons to get elected to the HOF. If a player has a short career but enough dominating seasons, he can get elected a la Koufax. If he has a lot of very, very good seasons, he can get elected a la Eddie Murray. My point was that Blyleven didn't fall into either category. One could argue that if Puckett is in, then Mattingly should be too, since their career numbers were very similar.
And besides, I didn't say that I wouldn't vote for Mattingly or Blyleven. I was saying why I thought he hadn't been elected yet. To be honest, I think there are too many HOFers already and that the standards should be higher.
I understand your argument; when I said "you" I meant "one," not you specifically - sorry about that!
I understand your argument; when I said "you" I meant "one," not you specifically - sorry about that!
No prob, I just didn't want everyone to think I was anti-Donnie Baseball, since I'm definitely not.
Ricky Henderson and Jim Rice going to the hall in 09.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090112&content_id=3740171&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
Some of those players eligible for 2008 were absolute ****. I don't even believe they were average players, or at least for most of their careers.
I see Todd Stottlemyer on the list. He was a pitcher for the Blue Jays who had a really average career, except 1 or 2 seasons.
I see Todd Stottlemyer on the list. He was a pitcher for the Blue Jays who had a really average career, except 1 or 2 seasons.
Do they have to have a certain number of names on the list if they are good or not. What classifies being on the ballot. I guess all you need is to be retired for 5 years or is there more to it?
This is to become eligible. There is a selection committee that chooses the names placed on the ballot.
What are the qualifications that they look at, I'm sure some on the ballot have no business being there and others that are not on that should be.
I still think Blyleven should be in.
And Fred McGriff had some great numbers over his career. He's a perfect example of how arbitrary HOF stats are - he hit 493 home runs. If he's hit 500, he's be a first ballot hall of famer. Because he hit 7 less (seven!) he didn't get voted in. Stupid.
I think the two things he had going for him were:
1. Speed. He was fast in his early days, and racked up over 300 SBs in his career.
2. Fielding. He was a great center fielder when he was younger.
If you remove these two factors, he wasn't much different than the million Kent Hrbek type players that get passed on.
Also, a 49 home run, 137 RBI season his first year in big market Chicago probably didn't hurt. Those were amazing numbers for the late 80s.
McGriff is a tough one. On the one hand, he was never a dominant player ... just a good/great, steady player. Looking at the numbers, he's close, but the steroid era has really devalued the HR. 493 HRs back in the 80's would be a no-brainer unless the guy is a Kingman-type. But now with everyone and their supplier hitting 500 HR's, McGriff falls through the cracks. But in the end, I think McGriff is not an HOFer (although I do think he'll get in).
Personally, I'm stunned by Alomar missing it. Perhaps it was how his career ended that turned off some voters. He just fell off a cliff after coming to the Mets. I'm sure he's in next year.
I didn't really see Blyleven, so I can't say one way or the other. But personally, I don't think Raines or Trammel are HOFers. Personally, I don't think Dawson is one either.
I agree with you, but Dawson was much more than a 22 year player. He was a 400+ HR guy with tremendous speed ... at least until his knees blew up. He was an incredible fielder with a cannon arm. He had that monster year in 1987 with the Cubs. He had a great nickname. He was a nice guy.
To me, the criteria for HOF is simple. I ask myself, is "so-and-so" a true HOFer? If I have to think about it for more than 5 minutes, then he's not. MVP and CyYoung Awards helf. As do World Series titles and All Star appearances. Being dominant for a decent stretch (around 5 consective years) is key. Defensive prowess at key positions are important.
With that said, there are many players in the HOF right now that I believe shouldn't be.
Anyways, there would be many years of no inductees if I were in charge
His 1987 season was awesome, but you have to remember that 1987 was a "juicy-ball" season. McGwire also had 49 HR's and there were lots of guys that year with 35+ HRs.
I agree with a lot of what you say here. Usually when I refer to someone as deserving of the HOF in this thread, I mean it more based on who's already in there than what I personally think. If I was starting the HOF from scratch, Fred McGriff, Andre Dawson and Jim Rice wouldn't even be in the running. Forget Blyleven, too, someone who I've often times said I think should be in. He should only be in the Hall as it currently stands, a tribute to above averageness, not a true Hall of Fame for the best of the best.
And yes, defense is all too often completely overlooked.