Only made two all-star teams

Led the league in strikeouts once.

?

 

I have never understood this one. All-star appearances for pitchers are based on approximately 1/2 of the season. In addition, he may have been bumped by a lesser pitcher who HAD to make it due to the rule of having one player from every team.

 

Why do we use that as a measuring stick?

 

Two words:

 

Jack Armstrong

Agreed. However, I'm curious if we have the same reasoning.

 

Rose did nothing to enhance his performance significantly like Bonds.

 

Both lose on the integrity of the game issue so Rose gets in.

I'm basing my decision, for on the field play. Rose didn't hit for HR power, more of a gap/singles hitter. Ran hard on every play, even groundballs. His aggressiveness, in taking the extra base and headfirst slides, were an inspiration to kids every where.

 

His passion for the game, existed then and I believe now.

 

I have never understood this one. All-star appearances for pitchers are based on approximately 1/2 of the season. In addition, he may have been bumped by a lesser pitcher who HAD to make it due to the rule of having one player from every team.

 

Why do we use that as a measuring stick?

 

Two words:

 

Jack Armstrong

I may be wrong, but not certain mandatory from each team, was implemented back in Blyleven's day. Like I said, he played on some bad, bad teams.....I'm guessing, but I would say he has several 14 win and 14 loss seasons. He was an outstanding, K style of pitcher, who had very good control on the mound.

 

Jack Armstrong.....Wow, what Red. He may have been, the best/worst potential pitcher, to toe the mound. Did he even win 50 games?

Given your scenario, of either Rose or Bonds.....NO question, the greatest hitter and epitome of hustle, Rose.

:thumb: :thumb: Out of some of the ones mentioned I could go for Dawson (for certain), Rice and one that I haven't seen mentioned or just overlooked it is Dave Concepcion. I also would love to see Ron Santo in (that is just a personal preference)

I may be wrong, but not certain mandatory from each team, was implemented back in Blyleven's day. Like I said, he played on some bad, bad teams.....I'm guessing, but I would say he has several 14 win and 14 loss seasons. He was an outstanding, K style of pitcher, who had very good control on the mound.

 

?

 

One more reason that wins and losses are only a good way to measure a team and not a pitcher.

Pete Rose should be there. His stats were not enhanced by any substance. His poor choices should be a non-factor in the decision. His records are HOF material, and there's probably many, many players in the Hall that have lower morals than Pete.

Ineligible list

Pete Rose

Joe Jackson

 

Hal Chase was a first baseman in the early 1900s who was thrown out of baseball for throwing games in 1918. Walter Johnson and Babe Ruth both called him the best first baseman of the era. Led the league in home runs once, average once, and hits once. Played 15 seasons, .291 career hitter.

 

Eddie Cicotte was one of the Black Sox thrown out in 1919. 208-149 in his 14-year career with a ERA of 2.38. 249 complete games. 35 shutouts.

 

It is likely all four (Rose and Jackson for sure) of these guys would be in the Hall of Fame if not for their off the field issues.

One more item, on Blyleven I omitted. I haven't checked lately, but at one time he was in the top 5 all-time, for total K's.

K3 - I know from the Biggio thread you're not big on projected/equalized stats. However, your man Bert benefits in almost all types of calculations that try to equalize/neutralize the team factor. In each case, Bert ends up with over 300 wins.

K3 - I know from the Biggio thread you're not big on projected/equalized stats. However, your man Bert benefits in almost all types of calculations that try to equalize/neutralize the team factor. In each case, Bert ends up with over 300 wins.

True and pitching, is one aspect of the game, that can't be controlled by the Pitcher himself but he must rely on the other 8 players, to make plays. Then, he must have offensive production from those same 8, in order to contend for a win.

 

A position player, relies solely on his potential as a hitter and he for the most part, can control the outcome of his AB, unlike a Pitcher. He can go 2 for 4 and his team lose, but been successful for him individually. A Pitcher can give up 3 hits, K-10 and allow 1 run and get beat 1-0....a loss.

Let's focus on some of the names being listed, for some discussion. Out of the names, if you "had" to choose 2 for the HOF, who would they be and in what order.

 

Dawson

Rice

Blyleven

Lynn

Parker

Kent

Whitaker

Murphy

Santo

Palmeiro

I would select

Dawson

Jim Rice

 

Because I believe the Hall of Fame should admit only the best, I wouldn't vote for anyone on the list. If forced to cast a ballot, I would vote for Jim Kaat with Blyleven second.

 

If longevity is really important, I would think the real shooin is Julio Franco. If he doesn't qualify, I can't see any of the others being seriously considered on the basis of longevity. Actually, though far from great, Franco's numbers look pretty good. Other than the overrated and too common homerun, he compares quite well when stacked up against the others mentioned.

Pete Rose should be there. His stats were not enhanced by any substance. His poor choices should be a non-factor in the decision. His records are HOF material, and there's probably many, many players in the Hall that have lower morals than Pete.

On the obvious fact that the man has more base hits than anyone to ever play the game I certainly agree and would love to see it. I do however recognize the fact that he bet on baseball and that cannot be overlooked. Yes, there imo is no doubt that there are some in the hall with lower morals than Pete but that does not remove the fact that he bet on baseball, lied about it, kept lying about it and finally admitted it. Imo if Pete would have came clean at the first, admitted he had gambled on the game - apologized that he would have had a chance and should be in. I don't think that Pete has ever showed any (or sincere) remorse for his actions. Just a sad situation all the way around. Now, if they ever come up with an "asterik" clause then he should be there.

On the obvious fact that the man has more base hits than anyone to ever play the game I certainly agree and would love to see it. I do however recognize the fact that he bet on baseball and that cannot be overlooked. Yes, there imo is no doubt that there are some in the hall with lower morals than Pete but that does not remove the fact that he bet on baseball, lied about it, kept lying about it and finally admitted it. Imo if Pete would have came clean at the first, admitted he had gambled on the game - apologized that he would have had a chance and should be in. I don't think that Pete has ever showed any (or sincere) remorse for his actions. Just a sad situation all the way around. Now, if they ever come up with an "asterik" clause then he should be there.

 

Excellent post. I agree. It is an understatement to say that Rose is his own worst enemy. He really isn't a very sympathetic figure.

For what it's worth..IMO Joe Jackson should be in.

For what it's worth..IMO Joe Jackson should be in.

What about his shoes?

 

If Joe gets in, then Rose will be there too.

 

Yes, Rose has shown ignorance in the way he has handled his gambling on baseball problems. But that still does not negate his HOF (non-steroid) accomplishments. He should be in the HOF, and willl be someday after he is long deceased, and that's sad he will not be able to experience it in his lifetime.

Here's what I love about the Flyin' Dutchman, and it makes me wonder what might've happened had he played on better teams:

5 Postseason Ser 8g 6gs 2.47era 5w 1l 0sv 1cg 47.1ip 43h 13er 8bb 36k

 

On the converse, not once did I ever think of him as the ace of any staff he was on, except maybe his stint in Cleveland, and that's only because those teams were atrocious. In Minnesota, he was second banana to Frank Viola. In Pittsburgh, he was probably third banana to Jim Bibby and the Candyman. Even when he was in Texas he had to answer to Gaylord Perry. I can't really speak to his first Minnesota stint, because my memory doesn't go back that far.

 

I suppose I can't punish him for spending the bulk of his career with awful teams. But still, he leaves me a wantin' for something more. (Kind of like Don Sutton, who I think is a complete joke as a HOF member, and that's not because I hate the Dodgers. Blyleven might've won 400 games had he played on the teams Sutton did.)