By In Stuff

New Mays HOF (Part II)

Well, I hope you knew that this is a multi-step process.

So first step — as some of you figured out — was to put together a Hall of Fame strictly using Wins Above Average along with a few exceptions.  The point was to go down WAA until there was a reasonable gap … and stop there.

For instance, at catcher, it goes like this:

  1. Johnny Bench, 46.5 WAA
  2. Gary Carter, 39.8
  3. Mike Piazza, 35.7
  4. Carlton Fisk, 35.1
  5. Yogi Berra, 34.0
  6. Ivan Rodriguez, 33.1
  7. Bill Dickey, 31.6

And then the line — and next is Gabby Hartnett at 29.6, followed by Mickey Cochrane, Gene Tenace, Joe Mauer and Thurman Munson among others.

So I have those seven on the list. And then, my personal exception, Roy Campanella, because he was a star in the Negro Leagues (he played his first Negro Leagues games when he was 15!) and he won three MVP awards and, of course, his career ended young.

I did this throughout — other exceptions included Hank Greenberg and Bob Feller, who lost a lot of time for the war, Sandy Koufax for his spectacular peak, Jackie Robinson for obvious reasons, etc. I wanted to keep the exceptions down but I also didn’t want to leave too many obvious holes in this first version of the Hall of Fame.

Now, step two — here’s the next version of the Willie Mays Hall of Fame.  This time, I added and subtracted various players based on an entirely different system (again, I would expect you to figure it out). There are 121 players in this version. Think of this the way you think of an eye doctor putting different lenses over your eyes and saying “Better? Worse? Same?” Again, comment away on the bottom.

What do you think of this version of the Willie Mays Hall of Fame?* Too lenient? Too strict? Who do you want in? Who do you want out?

*Oh, and we will get back to Negro Leaguers and 19th Century Players in a bit so ignore those for now.

* * *


At catcher (9): Johnny Bench, Gary Carter, Mike Piazza, Carlton Fisk, Yogi Berra, Bill Dickey, Roy Campanella … adding Gabby Hartnett and Mickey Cochrane.

(This would leave out six Twentieth Century Hall of Famers: Ernie Lombardi, Roger Bresnahan, Rick Ferrell, and Ray Schalk)

* * *

At first base (10): Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Hank Greenberg … adding George Sisler, Harmon Killebrew, Willie McCovey, Eddie Murray and Tony Perez. 

(This would leave out five players: Johnny Mize [in first version], Frank Chance, Orlando Cepeda, Jim Bottomley and George Kelly).

* * *

At second base (11): Rogers Hornsby, Eddie Collins, Joe Morgan, Nap Lajoie, Rod Carew, Jackie Robinson … adding Frankie Frisch, Charlie Gehringer, Ryne Sandberg, Robbie Alomar and Craig Biggio.

(This would leave out eight players:  Joe Gordon, Bobby Doerr, Billy Herman, Johnny Evers, Tony Lazzeri, Nellie Fox, Red Schoendienst and Bill Mazeroski).

* * *

At shortstop (11): Honus Wagner, Cal Ripken,  Barry Larkin, Lou Boudreau, Ozzie Smith, Luke Appling, Ernie Banks … adding Robin Yount, Joe Cronin, Rabbit Maranville, Luis Aparicio.

(This would leave out seven players: Arky Vaughan [in first version], Joe Tinker, Bobby Wallace, Joe Sewell, Dave Bancroft, George Davis and Phil Rizzuto … Alan Trammell and Alex Rodriguez are also removed).

* * *

At third base (7): Mike Schmidt, Eddie Matthews, Wade Boggs, George Brett, Brooks Robinson, Paul Molitor … adding Pie Traynor

(This would leave out five players: Home Run Baker, Ron Santo, George Kell, Jimmy Collins and Freddy Lindstrom … removing Chipper Jones for now).

* * *

In leftfield (11): Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Rickey Henderson and Carl Yastrzemski … adding Al Simmons, Joe Medwick, Ralph Kiner, Lou Brock, Billy Williams, Willie Stargel and Jim Rice.

(This would leave out five players: Goose Goslin, Zack Wheat, Fred Clarke, Heinie Manush, Chick Hafey … Barry Bonds is also removed).

* * *

In centerfield (9): Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Mickey Mantle, Duke Snider, Joe DiMaggio, Ken Griffey and Kirby Puckett, Andre Dawson.

(This would leave out eight players: Larry Doby, Richie Ashburn, Earl Averill, Hack Wilson, Max Carey, Edd Roush, Earle Combs and Lloyd Waner).

* * *

In rightfield (12): Babe Ruth, Henry Aaron, Frank Robinson, Mel Ott, Roberto Clemente, Al Kaline … adding Wee Willie Keeler, Harry Heilmann, Paul Waner, Reggie Jackson, Dave Winfield, Tony Gwynn.

(This would leave out seven players: Sam Crawford, Enos Slaughter, Elmer Flick, Chuck Klein, Ross Youngs, Sam Rice and Harry Hooper … Larry Walker is also removed). 

* * *

Right-handed starters (27): Walter Johnson, Pete Alexander, Tom Seaver, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Christy Mathewson, Bob Feller, Bob Gibson, Cy Young,  Bert Blyleven and Phil Niekro … adding Nolan Ryan, Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, Robin Roberts, John Smoltz, Juan Marichal, Red Ruffing, Jim Palmer, Catfish Hunter, Bob Lemon, Early Wynn, Dizzy Dean, Don Sutton, Don Drysdale. 

(This would leave out 14 pitchers:  Dazzy Vance, Ed Walsh, Stan Coveleski, Three-Finger Brown, Red Faber, Jim Bunning, Ted Lyons, Vic Willis, Addie Joss, Joe McGinnity, Waite Hoyt, Chief Bender, Burleigh Grimes, Jesse Haines … removing Roger Clemens and Curt Schilling),

* * *

Left-handed starters (10): Lefty Grove, Randy Johnson, Eddie Plank, Warren Spahn, Sandy Koufax, Steve Carlton, Tom Glavine, Carl Hubbell … adding Whitey Ford and Herb Pennock.

(This would leave out four pitchers: Hal Newhouser, Rube Waddell, Eppa Rixey, Lefty Gomez).

* * *

Relief pitchers (4): Hoyt Wilhelm, Goose Gossage … adding Dennis Eckersley, Bruce Sutter and Rollie Fingers.

(This would leave out zero Hall of Fame pitchers but would remove Billy Wagner and Mariano Rivera for now).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

101 Responses to New Mays HOF (Part II)

  1. Chad says:

    I like the 2nd one…but why are we doing this exercise?

    • invitro says:

      It seems to be partly looking at various systems of player ranking, through the eyes of the Brilliant Readers, hopefully bypassing some of the obvious big-time bias that are now present whenever certain people read “WAA” and “BBWAA” and “VC” and other acronyms. Figuring out the previous one was a bit tough for me, but this one seems obvious… until you see that a lot of BR’s don’t immediately see it, and so we get a quick WAA-versus-(this system) comparison, from perhaps fresh eyes. I think it’s a pretty nifty idea by Joe if that’s part of what it is.

    • Richard says:

      Perhaps to show that no single system – be it voting, statistical criteria, etc. – is going to be “perfect” and satisfy everyone.

      For some real fun, where you CANNOT bring statistics into it, how about a Hall of Fame for non-players? Certainly there are executives, officials, and other people who have made enough of a contribution to the game to be worthy of honor (e.g. Bill James, Marvin Miller, Roger Angell).

  2. Richard Aronson says:

    For what it’s worth, nobody left off this list bothers me as much as the lack of Eddie Murray and Nolan Ryan did on the last list, nor do any of the new inclusions bother me as much as leaving those two off. There are still a few players that I don’t think belong in a Willie Mays HOF (yes, I’m looking at you, Don Drysdale) and of the ones removed, Chipper Jones probably bothers me the most. Okay, the steroid guys (Bonds and Clemens) also bother me, but then again they chose to use steroids, in the same way the Pete Rose chose to bet on baseball. So overall, I like this list quite a bit more.

  3. Paul says:

    All elected by the BBWAA? Knocking out veteran’s committee guys? Only explanation for including Rabbit!

    • Scott says:

      I’m pretty sure that Duke Snider was elected by the BBWAA and confirmed it at Baseball Reference. That led me to think that it was players who were elected by the BBWAA based upon the current standard (ten years), but then Jim Rice would be removed.

      I’m leaning towards the exclusion of Snider was more of an oversight by Joe.

  4. Tadas Osmolskis says:

    Given that you’ve stated that steroids are not being considered in making the picks, whatever system you’re using which explicitly leaves out Barry Bonds Jr. and Roger Clemens is not a good system to use.

    • anonymous says:

      It’s clearly time-dependent (“leaves out Mariano Rivera for now”) so I would imagine that’s the kind of thing that could change in the future.

      Specifically, I’m pretty sure it’s about people who were elected by the writers rather than the Veterans Committee, or something along those lines, so it would be hard to find a way to adjudicate that in favor of Bonds and Clemens. The point of the argument, presumably, being whether the Veterans Committee inductees add more than they take away from the Hall.

      (Personally, I think the Veterans Committee guys should be in, but I’m a big-hall person to start with, and therefore not the person this argument is aimed at in the first place).

  5. Ross says:

    No Derek Jeter? Willie Mays would adore Jeter!

  6. Josh says:

    On the surface, I like it with one exception: Put in the players who haven’t been voted in. I’m not a fan of any HOF that omits Bonds. He was just too much better than everyone else he played with and against.

  7. Fireball Fred says:

    I actually like this one (#2) a little better – appears to reflect regular-process elections. Everyone agrees, I think, that the pre-reform Veterans’ Committee process was badly flawed.

  8. Jamie says:

    Just the BBWA vote?
    This Hall stinks too, maybe worse than the previous. All those relievers. And some glaring snubs like Vaughn and many of the more recent players. Also making it as a RHP seems to be pretty random.

  9. Ross H. says:

    Willie Mays version 2 definitely > Willie Mays version 1 for me. Brings a lot more stories of baseball to the HOF.
    I don’t yet have a strong opinion on real HOF vs. WM v2.

    • Ross H. says:

      To clarify a bit after reading other comments: I hear others not liking this because of some worse less fair, more arbitrary) omissions, and totally agree. WM HOF 1 was more fair, better criteria than WM HOF 2, but 2 is nice because fewer omissions. I guess I’m letting my “big hall” side show and outweigh the less fair method behind #2.

  10. invitro says:

    This is the Murray Chass HoF. It’s not horrible, but it pales compared to the WAA HoF.

  11. Scott says:

    This one has fewer omissions, I think, than the first one. But the omissions it has seem more egregious (Bonds being the most obvious, but some others as well).

    I’m generally a “big hall” guy, but given the choice between yesterday’s and today’s, I’ll take yesterday’s more rigid standards. Any Hall that includes Rabbit Maranville and Pie Traynor while excluding Bonds, Trammell, A-Rod, etc. has some serious issues, imo.

  12. Keith says:

    Apparently Herb Pennock is in and his alter ego Herb Pennock (H is silent) is out?

  13. Jamie says:

    This list shows how horribly under represented the players from the mid 70s to the late 80s are. The inclusion of players like Traynor and Maranville while excluding Trammel, Whitaker and Raines is just inexplicable especially when you consider that Andrew Dawson and Jim Rice did make it while being less deserving.
    Then the pitching gets ridiculous including the likes of Ford, Hunter and Palmer while excluding Stieb, Gooden and Saberhagen is silly. All while building the case for Morris who wasn’t worthy. Those first 6 guys all had comparable careers according to WAR and 5 of the 6 had at least 1 WS championship. And the one who doesn’t (Stieb) had the highest WAR.
    Just for fun explain how Koufax had a different career than Gooden. They just reversed the career arcs.

    • invitro says:

      Stieb, Gooden, and Saberhagen weren’t born winners like ol’ Catfish and the underwear model, let alone Mister Intimidation Jack Morris.

      Gooden really can’t match Koufax’s 11-7-8-10 WAR run. His best response is 6-12-4-4. I looked at this one yesterday. I’m pretty sure Koufax’s is the best four-year run for any pitcher since 1900. But the reversed career arcs gives me an idea. Maybe Sandy was a Pacino-like cocaine snorter starting in middle school, until giving it up before the 1961 season. But without the coke, he couldn’t handle the pain of pitching for long, and had to give up baseball, or else go back to the snow. It would explain a lot.

      • Ed says:

        Pedro from 97-2000 beats Koufax. 9-7-10-12.

      • Ed says:

        And Randy Johnson went 9-8-10-11 from 99-02.

      • Jamie says:

        Randy Johnson’s 4 years from 99-02 is 9-8-10-11. Pedro 97-00 is 9-7-10-12.

      • Simon says:

        Some deadball pitchers beat that run by Koufax too:
        Rube Waddell 10-9-10-9 (1902-1905)
        Pete Alexander 8-11-11-9 (1914-1917)
        Walter Johnson 13-15-12-11 (1912-1915), the best four years in a TEN YEAR RUN of 11-8-13-15-12-11-10-7-10-10.

        Special 2nd place award to Juan Marichal who picked those same four 1963-1966 years to go 8-6-10-9 #overshadowed

        Those Koufax years look insane, but context neutral stats (like WAR) don’t love him as much as the raw numbers do. While his ERA for those years was 1.86 – wow – his ballpark-and-context-adjusted ERA+ over those four years was “only” 172. Dodger Stadium in the 60’s was a crazy place with a crazy mound. I’d take him anywhere – Koufax was great – but he benefited from that crazy ballpark. Check out his home/away splits for those years (ERA):
        1.38 / 2.31
        0.85 / 2.93
        1.38 / 2.72
        1.52 / 1.96

    • Sonny says:

      Jim Palmer very clearly has a better case than Stieb, Gooden, or Saberhagen.

      Agree Hunter being in is a joke.

      Ford to me is borderline, but postseason heroics and titles probably put him over the top.

  14. invitro says:

    I hope Joe is learning just how many of his brilliant readers absolutely hate WAR or any statistic that wasn’t on the back of their 1962 baseball cards or takes a third-grade edumacation to understand.

    • oilcan23 says:

      That’s not what I’m seeing at all.

      You’re seeing what you want to see.

    • Sonny says:

      I personally don’t hate WAR, but I do hate the arguments that are made that begin and end with WAR. WAR is far from perfect, and can be used as part of an argument to be sure, but I don’t like it as the end-all, be-all. It’s a useful tool, but still has flaws (defense).

      • invitro says:

        Making an argument solely with WAR usually isn’t the best possible argument, but it’s also usually a really, really good argument. If you’re comparing two players to see which had a better year, and one player had at least 1.0 WAR more than the other, then the argument that begins and ends with WAR is a really, really good argument. This is the point of WAR; a lot of people worked really hard to pull together everything that is currently known about baseball value into one number. I think it’s pretty extreme to “hate” this kind of argument; maybe it’s better to say “it’ll do for a quick comparison.”

        In any case, critics of WAR at least have to recognize the hard work that has been done in its creation, and that just saying “I don’t like WAR” or “WAR has flaws” just isn’t good enough. You need to get into the specifics of how WAR is measuring defense or whatever you’re upset with. WAR isn’t something that was pulled out of a hat or created as some guy’s theory about how baseball works; it’s based on real mathematical and scientific methods, and has been tested against real baseball results every way from Sunday.

        So, a question: What do think are the specific flaws that WAR has in regard to its measurement of defense?

          • Bryan says:

            The article is mainly focused on small sample size variance (single year doesn’t mean much) and is basically like complaining that Bryce Harper was an amazing hitter in 2015 and “only” a very good one in 2016 so we are only going to count some of Bryce Harper’s 2015 hits and some of Alex Gordon’s 2014 runs saved because neither might genuinely be that good and there might be a luck element involved.
            Alex Gordon had 27 Rfield in 2014 (measure of how well he plays his position relative to an average player who scores 0) the year of the article and the following years has 7 and 4 Rfield.
            Ben Zobrist is one of the poster boys for defensive value can’t be that high when he had 25 Rfield in 2009 and 29 Rfield in 2011 each leading to a season of 8+ WAR which is “MVP caliber” and he finished 8th and 16th in actual MVP voting. Other than those two seasons Zobrist’s Rfield is +4 for his career.
            But if Bryce Harper never has a season that approaches 2015 again he still hit like that in 2015 and while it’s far easier to measure batting, the principal of defensive metrics is that Zobrist was that lucky/good during those two years even if he never does it again and deserves credit for what happened.

          • Sonny says:

            The problem with defensive statistics is that there are so many calculations, and it’s not uncommon for them to vary wildly.

            Offensive statistics are much more straightforward and trustworthy to me.

            So, yeah, if you want to use WAR as your end all argument, you lose me. The presumption of infallibility of the statistic just because “a lot of people worked hard on it” seems silly to me.

            Your argument about 1 win difference being a very, very, very good argument doesn’t hold water when Sean from B-R himself states that they don’t find a difference of 1-2 wins to be definitive.

          • invitro says:

            ‘The presumption of infallibility of the statistic just because “a lot of people worked hard on it” seems silly to me.’ — I didn’t say I had any presumption of infallibility. I note that that Passan article goes into extreme detail. He doesn’t just say “WAR sucks.” He does the work. His arguments should be listened to. The people who just say “WAR sucks” shouldn’t be.

            “Your argument about 1 win difference being a very, very, very good argument doesn’t hold water when Sean from B-R himself states that they don’t find a difference of 1-2 wins to be definitive.” — OK then, make it a 2 WAR difference if you want. But keep in mind that “really good argument” is quite a weaker statement than “definitive”.

  15. MikeN says:

    You’ve added mostly players I’ve heard of, and still kept out Jeter, so I approve.

    You listed Herb Pennock as added and still out.

  16. Mike says:

    Johnny Mize is a glaring omission. If given credit for WWII time, you could argue he’s the 4th-best first baseman of all time. Even without it, he’s solidly top ten (8th by JAWS). The All-Snub team here:
    C: Roger Bresnahan
    1B: Mize
    2B: Joe Gordon
    SS: Arky Vaughan
    3B: Ron Santo
    LF: Goose Goslin
    CF: Duke Snider
    RF: Sam Crawford
    RHP: Ed Walsh (although Vance is one of my all time favorite players)
    LHP: Hal Newhouser
    RP: meh

    All of them except Bresnahan should be no-doubt, first ballot types. Bresnahan was the best catcher in the first two decades of the 20th century.

    • invitro says:

      I guess that is the all-Veteran’s Committee team, then?

    • anonymous says:

      To me, the lesson of this HOF iteration – and it’s probably a good lesson to keep in mind – is that none of the systems for putting people into the HOF have been flawless. All of them have made mistakes of varying severity. When you’re looking at actual human voting systems, rather than statistical tests, there are always going to be weird biases, whether it’s that Frankie Frisch is too persuasive or that Ron Santo gets overlooked until his death. And even statistical tests require Joe to manually add guys like Campanella who have external circumstances that statistical tests don’t capture. So it’s good to keep in mind that no HOF methodology is ever going to be perfect.

      • invitro says:

        You are right, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone claim any particular HoF system to be flawless or perfect. Have you?

        • Rob Smith says:

          No, I haven’t. Which makes this series kind of pointless. I guess people are into it with all the comments, but I didn’t even read this iteration. Just went to the comments!

  17. the_slasher14 says:

    1B: Perez had a marginal case for the regular HOF. I don’t see him in the Willie Mays one.
    SS: Luis Aparicio? This is a joke, right? SBs are great but as has often been noted you can’t steal first base and Aparicio’s lifetime OBP was .311. Pee Wee Reese’s was .366 (and Joe seems to have been lost him somehow) and he had a better BA and SP as well. This is the worst of the lot. I mean, we’re talking Andrelton Simmons with SBs. Maranville certainly isn’t in there because of his bat, either, and he played in the souped-up 20s as well as the dead ball era.
    3B: No way Chipper doesn’t belong, unless you’re blackballing the entire 1990-2000 roster.
    LF: See 3B above in regard to Bonds.
    CF: Duke Snider’s lifetime OBP of .380 is 15 points better than Dawson’s best season and he didn’t have many seasons even close to that (lifetime OBP of .323). Snider’s SP is 58 points better than the Hawk’s, and before you bother me about Ebbets Field, ask yourself if Dawson would have gotten into ANY HOF without his Wrigley Field years. Look, I love Dawson but Snider was a better ballplayer and Doby, given a normal career path, would have been too.
    RHS: I suppose Clemens and Schilling are being dropped based upon some principle about the steroid era. The additions are OK except for Ruffing (who lucked into being a starter for what was arguably the best offense in MLB history) and Hunter (more or less the same). You can excuse his mediocre ERAs because of the era but Ruffing walked 1500+ men and struck out 1900+. Which explains his 39-96 record until he found God in New York.
    RP: Again, I assume the Babe Ruth of relievers is paying the price for the time he pitched. I have no problem with adding Eck, because his record as an SP boosts him over the others. Sutter and Fingers are borderline, included only if you consider the importance of an RP to be a major factor. I don’t, so I’d leave them out.

    • the_slasher14 says:

      I overlooked the dropping of Vaughan. To drop him and add Aparicio and Maranville is ridiculous.

      • Pat says:

        It’s funny, this is exactly what I was thinking. Well, minus Aparicio—but I specifically wondered about why Maranville but not Vaughan.

        (Commenters up-thread appear to have figured it out before me; it appears to be the BBWAA votes only.)

  18. Sadge says:

    As soon as I saw that Arky Vaughan was omitted, I disliked the list.

  19. Brian says:

    He’s not dropping (recent) players because of steroids or a dislike of the ’70s and ’80s (anyone who reads Joe know he thinks the ’70s and ’80s are underrated). He’s dropping players who haven’t yet been voted into the HoF, like Bonds, Clemens, Rivera, Jeter, Chipper, et. al.

  20. Larry Rosenthal says:

    I’m sorry, any system that removes Alex Rodriguez and Barry Bonds is fatally flawed. End of story.

    • invitro says:

      You forgot to add “full stop”, “period”, “’nuff said”, “case closed”, and probably a bunch more. Just trying to help.

      • Gerald Flagwell says:

        If you truly want to be helpful, stop subjecting us to your terrible posts and let the adults talk to each other.

        • invitro says:

          I keep forgetting that writing “End of story” means “mature adult here.” Any other signs of adult posts I need to look out for?

  21. Ben says:

    Any system that doesn’t have Arky Vaughan in the Hall of Fame is not one I can get behind.

  22. Pak says:

    I think the writers have done an excellent job with the everyday players, of course with a several exceptions like Mize and Vaughan missing, but I didn’t realize how often they voted in far more questionable pitchers, particular so many relievers.

  23. invitro says:

    I tried to make a list, which may be a future Joe list (probably not). Differences from my list and Joe’s list (this one, #2) are noted, and ineligible (pre-1900 and current) players who would make it are listed.

    At catcher (7): Johnny Bench, Gary Carter, Yogi Berra, Bill Dickey, Mickey Cochrane; adding Ted Simmons and Ernie Lombardi (in place of Mike Piazza, Carlton Fisk, Gabby Hartnett, and Roy Campanella).

    * * *

    At first base (10): Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Hank Greenberg, Johnny Mize, Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Murray, George Sisler, Tony Perez; adding Ted Kluszewski and Mickey Vernon (in place of Frank Thomas, Bill Terry, and Willie McCovey).
    (pre-1900: Cap Anson, Roger Connor)
    (current: Albert Pujols, Miguel Cabrera, Joey Votto)

    * * *

    At second base (10): Eddie Collins, Rogers Hornsby, Nap Lajoie, Charlie Gehringer, Joe Morgan, Frankie Frisch, Jackie Robinson, Roberto Alomar, Ryne Sandberg; adding Lou Whitaker (in place of Rod Carew and Craig Biggio).
    (pre-1900: Bid McPhee)

    * * *

    At shortstop (12): Honus Wagner, Robin Yount, Ernie Banks, Barry Larkin, Luke Appling, Joe Cronin, Cal Ripken; adding Arky Vaughan, Alan Trammell, Pee Wee Reese, Dave Concepcion, and Bobby Wallace (in place of Lou Boudreau, Ozzie Smith, Luis Aparicio, and Rabbit Maranville).
    (pre-1900: George Davis, Bill Dahlen)

    * * *

    At third base (7): Eddie Matthews, George Brett, Paul Molitor, Mike Schmidt, Brooks Robinson; adding Ken Boyer and Buddy Bell (in place of Wade Boggs and Pie Traynor).

    * * *

    In left field (10): Ted Williams, Carl Yastrzemski, Al Simmons, Billy Williams, Joe Medwick, Rickey Henderson; adding Pete Rose, Sherry Magee, Goose Goslin, and Minnie Minoso (in place of Willie Stargell, Ralph Kiner, Jim Rice, and Lou Brock).
    (pre-1900: Ed Delahanty, Jesse Burkett)

    * * *

    In center field (10): Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Willie Mays, Joe DiMaggio, Ken Griffey Jr., Mickey Mantle, Duke Snider; adding Vada Pinson, Edd Roush, Hugh Duffy (in place of Andre Dawson and Kirby Puckett).
    (pre-1900: George Van Haltren, Dummy Hoy)

    * * *

    In right field (16): Babe Ruth, Stan Musial, Frank Robinson, Hank Aaron, Mel Ott, Al Kaline, Roberto Clemente, Paul Waner, Dave Winfield, Willie Keeler; adding Shoeless Joe Jackson, Sam Crawford, Harry Heilmann, Larry Walker, Chuck Klein, and Enos Slaughter (in place of Tony Gwynn and Reggie Jackson).
    (current: Ichiro Suzuki, Vladimir Guerrero)

    * * *

    Right-handed starters (29): Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Pete Alexander, Christy Mathewson, Tom Seaver, Bob Feller, Gaylord Perry, Pedro Martinez, Bob Gibson, Bert Blyleven, Phil Niekro, Nolan Ryan, Robin Roberts, Ted Lyons, Jim Palmer, Early Wynn, Juan Marichal, Greg Maddux, Fergie Jenkins, Dazzy Vance, Don Drysdale; adding Ed Walsh, Red Faber, Addie Joss, Mike Mussina, Dolf Luque, Mordecai Brown, Bucky Walters, and Vic Willis (in place of Don Sutton, Dizzy Dean, Red Ruffing, John Smoltz, Bob Lemon, and Catfish Hunter).
    (pre-1900: Kid Nichols, Tim Keefe, John Clarkson, Tony Mullane, Amos Rusie, Old Hoss Radbourn)

    * * *

    Left-handed starters (11): Lefty Grove, Warren Spahn, Randy Johnson, Carl Hubbell, Sandy Koufax, Whitey Ford, Steve Carlton, Tom Glavine; adding Rube Waddell, Eppa Rixey, Eddie Plank (in place of Herb Pennock).

    * * *

    Relief pitchers (1): Hoyt Wilhelm (dropping Goose Gossage, Dennis Eckersley, Bruce Sutter, and Rollie Fingers).

  24. Jimbo says:

    Any system that excludes Chipper Jones is a bad system.

  25. Dan Meyer says:

    I still don’t get why Gossage is considered so solid. Don’t get me wrong, he was great, but his stats are no better than a handful of guys who will probably never gain entry into the hall. I think he is getting far too much support for his post season work with the Yankees.

    • MikeN says:

      Because his name is alliterative.

    • invitro says:

      “but his stats are no better than a handful of guys who will probably never gain entry into the hall.” — Who? (If you’re talking about relievers.)

      • Pat says:

        Quisenberry’s an easy guess—better WHIP than Gossage, better ERA.
        Here’s another one:
        Player A: 124-107, 1,809 IP, 3.01 ERA (126 ERA+), 1.232 WHIP
        Player B: 75-73, 1,204 IP, 3.63 ERA (125 ERA+), 1.283 WHIP
        Obviously not the same player but mostly due to era (heh.. as reflected in ERA). Player A pitched more innings but that’s mostly due to era and usage, but not entirely: Player A started about a full season; Player B made only 4 career starts. Player A also lasted four more seasons.
        Player A is Rich Gossage (well, duh).
        Player B is Mike Timlin.

  26. Alejo says:

    This Hall represents well below 1% of all MLB players.

    I think it is roomier than the first, but still a bit stuffy.

    I do feel better without PED users in it.

    • Daniel Prenat says:

      PED users are definitely in this Hall it just left out the ones that weren’t voted in by the writers. Take your head our of the sand baseball players didn’t start using PED’s in the late 80’s early 90’s that just happens to be when everyone decided to care about it.

  27. Mtortolero says:

    Incredible that any version have a lefty reliever once Billy Wagner was removed

  28. Sonny says:

    I have an issue with an Willie Mays Hall of Fame that includes Ozzie Smith but not Arky Vaughan. Of course, I have an issue with a regular Hall of Fame that includes Ozzie Smith, but not Alan Trammell.

    • Sonny says:

      Came down here to comment before reading some of the comments explaining the reasoning.

      Still don’t like it, though …

  29. Carl says:

    Pee Wee Reese was left out in error I think.

  30. Alejo says:

    Ideologically I am opposed to life (or death) sentences. In the country where I live the longest sentence is 16 years in prison (extendable in exceptional cases).

    I say this because I am starting to doubt the fairness of Pete Rose’s banishment. Yeah, Rose can be his own worst enemy sometimes, but it is really not cool to keep him out forever.

    Even regular justice would have trouble condemning him for life because of illegal betting.

    I think in an imaginary HoF he should be in. In the real HoF he has no chance (but then, why Bonds, Selig and Clemens do?)

  31. Edwin says:

    IMO, Neither Jim Rice or Catfish Hunter belong. That bothers me more than the omissions.

  32. Bryan says:

    The issue with the BBWAA vote becomes really obvious if you break it down. Limiting it to players who debuted since integration (1947) because there were obvious problems with needing 75% of the vote and 20 players on Ted William’s ballot being current Hall of Famers and the scarcity of information available in 1965 when they were completing those ballots. Only pitching WAA for pitchers.

    Year of Debut 1947-1970:
    11 of 11 with 50+ WAA elected by the BBWAA: Blyleven takes 14 years but for simplicity judge it only on if they elected the player and like most people would have the BBWAA also elects: Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Frank Robinson, Morgan, Mathews, Clemente, Kaline, Seaver and Phil Niekro. It’s not that those are necessarily the 3 best pitchers of that time frame, it’s that in order to get to 50+ WAA is so rare and largely objective that there will be a very compelling on field argument to include that player in the Hall of Fame. The BBWAA gets zero credit for inducting these players
    6 of 7 with 40-49.9 WAA elected by the BBWAA: Yaz, Bench, Carew, Bob Gibson, Perry and Jenkins elected and Grich gets left out. Grich is one of the best players in baseball from 1972-76 and has a relatively short career, his .266 batting average is likely a major factor in why he was rejected by 419 of 430 voters but his .371 on base percentage is quite close to Jeter’s .377 (.383 for Jeter if he retires at the same age as Grich) and OBP was easily available to writers in 1991 when they filled out the ballots and 97.4% of the voters didn’t place a mark next to Grich’s name even if they considered Grich and Jeter to be similar quality defenders.
    8 of 10 with 35-39.9 WAA elected by the BBWAA: Brooks Robinson, Jackie, Snider, Reggie Jackson, Fisk, Carlton, Roberts and Nolan elected, Reggie Smith and Santo not elected. Santo gets a full run with the BBWAA and is famously elected after his death. One Reggie gets 3 of 427 votes the other Reggie gets 396 of 423 votes. WAA likes Jackson better if they retire at the same age and gets full marks for intangibles but that’s a staggering vote difference if you compare what both players did on the field.
    Up to this point it just comes down to personal preference, these are all great players and the debate is on the margins, the BBWAA does elect 25 of 28.

    Below 35 WAA you have Banks who was pretty much a statistical lock for the HoF in 1960 even though his career doesn’t go that well relative speaking after that and even without intangibles can potentially slip into the margins but unquestionably a great player even if you only consider on the field. The fans voted Koufax as the greatest living pitcher, he may not be that but anything but slavish devotion to a WAA ranking will include the left arm of God. Campanella is basically a lock as long as the voters also consider negro league play. Pete Rose wasn’t really a decision by the writers.

    Still no credit what-so-ever to the BBWAA because just about any system elects most if not all of the above. The evaluation of the BBWAA takes place by looking at the other players they did and did not elect.

    In: McCovey, Killebrew, Billy Williams, Stargell, Aparicio, Tony Perez, Lou Brock, Palmer, Marichal, Ford, Drysdale, Wilhelm, Don Sutton, Fingers, Catfish

    Out: Dick Allen, Graig Nettles, Bobby Bonds, Larry Doby, Ashburn, Tenace, Munson, Torre, Wilbur Wood, Tommy John and if you wanted to induct a reliever for some reason John Hiller

    Having the first kick at the cat the BBWAA gets McCovey, Killebrew, Stargell, Palmer and Marichal who are probably elected in most systems. Needing 75% of the vote of hundreds of people is supposed to avoid someone getting elected just for being the career leader in both stolen bases and caught stealing at the time of their election. But to that point there are few enough BBWAA “mistakes” and the writers do largely respect statistical excellence at a time when the statistic used for this post hasn’t even been invented yet.

    Debut since 1971, retired in 2006 or earlier to avoid Barry, Clemens and much of the off-field based voting:
    Well for starters the BBWAA only elected 4 players who pitched in an MLB game: Eckersley, Gossage, Bruce Sutter and Boggs. Whatever the writers thought about Kevin Brown, Reuschel, Saberhagen, Cone, Stieb, Appier, Finley, Guidry or whoever at some point they could have pretended it wasn’t T-Ball and elected a few more pitchers. Yes, some great pitchers are going to retire in the next few years after 2006 and the writers did try to elect Jack Morris.

    For position players it looks like Bagwell will be elected which will make it 6 for 6 with 50+ WAA: Schmidt, Rickey, Boggs, Cal and Brett are the others. Again no credit for electing statistically great players, WAA is not a foolproof method of picking a Hall of Fame but you simply can’t get that high without being really good at baseball.
    But then 2 for 5 with 40-49.9: Larkin and Ozzie in. Walker, Whitaker and Trammell out. As well as Brown for pitchers.
    And then 5 for 9 with 35-35.9: Carter, Sandberg, Molitor, Yount and Gwynn in. Edgar, McGwire, Randolph and Raines out. As well as Reuschel, Saberhagen and Cone for pitchers.
    13 for 24 including the pitchers. Even if you stick McGwire and Brown in the off-field issues category it’s still only 59%. 3 out of 5 is a great day at the plate but simply horrific for an election rate. This is the era where the writers became the story and they seemed to collectively seek out reasons not to elect some players while they looked for reasons to elect Rice, Puckett, Morris, Gossage and Sutter as they created stories without evaluating players as a starting point in an era that information was far more available.

    Below 35 in: Alomar, Dawson, Murray, Puckett, Winfield, Rice, Eckersley, Gossage, Sutter

    Below 35 out: Dwight Evans, Buddy Bell, Keith Hernandez, Robin Ventura, Will Clark, Mattingly and the pitchers above. Let alone far more snubs above 35.

    7 time Gold Glove winner Winfield was a below average fielder for most of his career per Total Zone, the source for defensive stats on baseball-reference that pre-date Baseball Info Solutions. Alomar was viewed as a lock who had to wait a year over a spitting incident and has the same .371 on base percentage as Grich but paired it with an eye pleasing .300 batting average. Dawson played his early career home games on concrete and then signed a blank contract, Dwight Evans played baseball about as well as Dawson. 28 of 473 voters picked Dwight on his first ballot, 214 of 472 voters picked Dawson on his first ballot, if you had a competent voting body you can give them credit for knowing more and making informed decisions but that wasn’t something the BBWAA could credibly claim even before PED issues dominated the ballot, they had already lost their way and were making themselves and their vote the story.

  33. John Autin says:

    Joe, I’m confused by your second list of catchers. It drops Ivan Rodriguez (from the first list) without mentioning it. Then you say, “This would leave out six Twentieth Century Hall of Famers,” but you correctly list only four: Ernie Lombardi, Roger Bresnahan, Rick Ferrell, and Ray Schalk.

  34. shagster says:

    Need a new eye doctor.

  35. John Autin says:

    The second list has some major imbalance in positional distribution.
    Not that the HOF should have a quota system.
    But only 7 at 3B and 9 in CF, against 12 in RF and 11 at SS, 2B and LF, fails my smell test — especially when you include Pie Traynor and drop Chipper Jones.

  36. SB M says:

    It seems odd to give Campanella a special exemption based (in part) on his 3 MVP awards, when the fundamental tool here is WAR/WAA and WAR/WAA shows pretty conclusively that he didn’t deserve any of those MVP awards. The war-interruption exceptions make more sense to me.

    • invitro says:

      This particular HoF method doesn’t use WAR… indeed, neither WAR nor anything like it existed when this method chose Campanella.

    • invitro says:

      Just to cover the bases… the previous HoF method did use WAA, Joe did give Campanella an exception, and there’s a long and detailed discussion of Campanella in the comments. The summary argument seems to be that he lost enough WAA both at the front and back of his career, that would make him get in by the WAA method. I don’t think it’s an obvious argument though… you have to do a heck of a lot of extrapolatin’ and assumin’ to make it.

    • Bryan says:

      I think the main intention is to avoid the obvious arguments. Since Part I was by WAA then it would either be Kevin Appier and Sandy Koufax both have 30.7 pitching WAA or Ron Guidry and Koufax both have 26.5 total WAA. I’m pretty sure only Kevin Appier’s Mom thinks he was as good of a pitcher as Koufax.
      Campanella probably could have been better handled by having the bullet point above the list read:
      *Oh, and we will get back to Negro Leaguers including Campanella and 19th Century Players in a bit so ignore those for now.

      • the_slasher14 says:

        I think we have to distinguish between players like Campanella, who were already playing at a high level in the Negro Leagues before they entered MLB, and, say, Aaron, who was still a prospect when the Braves signed him. We don’t have to guess what Ernie Banks or Willie Mays would have done in MLB — the records speak for themselves. For Campy (and I’d put Doby, Robinson, and possibly Minoso in the same category), we can only extrapolate. I think it’s fair to be generous in doing so, rather than throwing them in with Gibson or Bell, for whom we have NO MLB evidence.

  37. Rich says:

    Joe, if you’re going to revise your articles please find a way to let us know that. Then we won’t be commenting on something that’s been changed and getting all confused. Either list what was changed exactly and when, or simply include at the start a list of times you’ve updated the article. No need to be mysterious here.

  38. Chill says:

    I still like the first one better. I still think it’s pretty much perfect.

    The players I hate to see missing are definitely not based on WAA or any measure of overall value. They’re Mazeroski and Nolan Ryan, because each was so far above everyone else in their key skill that it’s quite likely we will never see another. Seems like the hall ought to celebrate that.

  39. Adam S says:

    If the list is THE Hall, with only those active and recently retired eligible for future consideration, then it’s a better Hall by adding 30 players.

    If it’s the starting point for the Hall, with anyone “out” eligible for future/additional consideration then it’s a worse Hall by virtue of including all of the elected players who don’t belong in the Hall.

    Net net, we can always ADD players who are missing but we can’t kick off those who don’t belong.

    Side question: where did you find WAA leaders? Did a cursory Google search and couldn’t find anything.

  40. fivetwentyone says:

    On Tom Tango’s website there’s a page that let’s you create a HOF by filtering on any combination of peak + career you like,

    • tangotiger says:

      I should point out that while it’s on my website, it’s there as a courtesy for the public. It’s 100% fivetwentyone’s tremendously valuable work.

  41. Alter Kacker says:

    What this shows me is that there are a lot fewer undeserving players in the Hall than I might have thought. Your cutoff lines exclude an awful lot of guys I saw play who always looked like Hall of Famers to me. There’s no one there who wasn’t an astonishingly good baseball player, even if some were a bit below the level of the others. But if you set the baseline at a notch above the bottom couple at each position (bottom 4 or 5 RHPs), I’d be very happy to see everyone above that level get a plaque on the wall. When you honor them, you honor baseball.

  42. MikeN says:

    Whatever you are doing, I think it’s a travesty to call it a Willie Mays Hall of Fame. That should be much smaller. I realize you’ve covered this in your original post and ended up with just Willie Mays allowed in(who you then threwout for steroid suspicion). I would go with something like:

    At catcher (3): Johnny Bench, Mike Piazza, Yogi Berra
    At first base (8): Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Hank Greenberg, Harmon Killebrew, Willie McCovey. Albert Pujols

    At second base (8): Rogers Hornsby, Eddie Collins, Joe Morgan, Nap Lajoie, Rod Carew, Jackie Robinson, Robbie Alomar and Craig Biggio.
    At shortstop (4): Honus Wagner, Cal Ripken, Barry Larkin, Ernie Banks
    (Jeter gets in — by paying $10 for the ticket.)

    At third base (5): Mike Schmidt, Eddie Matthews, George Brett, Chipper Jones, Wade Boggs

    In leftfield (5): Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Rickey Henderson and Carl Yastrzemski
    Barry Bonds

    In centerfield (7): Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Mickey Mantle, Duke Snider, Joe DiMaggio, Ken Griffey

    In rightfield (7): Babe Ruth, Henry Aaron, Frank Robinson, Mel Ott, Roberto Clemente, Al Kaline, Reggie Jackson

    Right-handed starters (10): Walter Johnson, Pete Alexander, Tom Seaver, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Christy Mathewson, Bob Feller, Bob Gibson, Cy Young,
    Roger Clemens

    Left-handed starters (6): Lefty Grove, Randy Johnson, Eddie Plank, Warren Spahn, Sandy Koufax, Steve Carlton

    Relief pitchers (1): Hoyt Wilhelm

    64 names. Probably could x out some more.

    • AndyNY2 says:

      Should we assume Mariano Rivera will have to buy a $10 ticket to attend with Derek Jeter? Your Hall is a joke. (And $10 overpriced)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *