Baseball's HOF vs. Hockey's HOF: Which standard do you prefer

[gifted88]

While baseball can be pretty strict there are still players who make it in that probably shouldn't have.

IDK, I don't overly care about it. Not gonna sit here and complain that someone made the hall and someone else didn't. So I'm happy with the players the NHL is inducting.

 

[cptjeff]

Yeah, I think the NFL has it pretty down pat. Baseball is a bit too strict in regards to longevity, I think it's 10 years played or you aren't eligible. I do like how stringent they have been with suspected juicers, though.

Honestly, I hate how strict they've been with juicers. For the longest period of time, MLB was basically endorsing the practice. To turn around now and cry about it seems hypocritical at best, and to punish the players for what was a complete failure of leadership from MLB itself seems wrong.

Yeah, steroids are bad, I get it. But I don't blame the players- I blame MLB. The practice was widespread enough that you'd basically be erasing an entire era from the HoF, and I don't think that's appropriate. I think you just need to induct the best players and just put a little note about the era somewhere- you explain the dead ball era stats in baseball, you have an explanation for 80's stats in hockey, and you adjust your perceptions of those players accordingly. The steroid era needs the same.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I think they are letting the dust settle on juicers, see what is revealed, see what perception is.

As for relievers, I cant agree they dont belong, they get Cy Young and MVP consideration. Clearly they are valued. And it's widely believed you cant win without a great closer.

 

[MS]

I think they are letting the dust settle on juicers, see what is revealed, see what perception is.

As for relievers, I cant agree they dont belong, they get Cy Young and MVP consideration. Clearly they are valued. And it's widely believed you cant win without a great closer.

The thing is, they don't get Cy Young and MVP consideration anymore.

There was a blip during the 1980s when voters were dazzled by the new saves stat and the low ERAs that some of these guys could put up by throwing 100% for 1 inning.

Then they correctly realized that a guy who has a 2.00 ERA in 80 innings is the same thing as a guy who bats .370 in 200 plate appearances. Or the hockey equivalent of a backup goalie with a 2.00 GAA in 20 starts. A backup with nice-looking numbers but a very limited sum contribution.

Guys like Wagner and Rivera have very rarely finished high in Cy Young voting (one top-3 finish between them) and never been anywhere near the MVP voting. The era of guys like Mark Davis and Willie Hernandez winning major awards for a highly limited contribution is over.

Bruce Sutter is just a ridiculous induction, worse than anybody in the HHOF. Fingers and Gossage aren't much better.

__________

Agreed that they're waiting to get historical perspective on the juicing era. And also for the stink of the era and the resulting investigations to subside a bit.

 

[Hasbro]

Hockey,

the BHOF hasn't even gotten around to the question on which Japanese League players to induct.

 

[pvr]

The thing is, they don't get Cy Young and MVP consideration anymore.

There was a blip during the 1980s when voters were dazzled by the new saves stat and the low ERAs that some of these guys could put up by throwing 100% for 1 inning.

Then they correctly realized that a guy who has a 2.00 ERA in 80 innings is the same thing as a guy who bats .370 in 200 plate appearances. Or the hockey equivalent of a backup goalie with a 2.00 GAA in 20 starts. A backup with nice-looking numbers but a very limited sum contribution.

Guys like Wagner and Rivera have very rarely finished high in Cy Young voting (one top-3 finish between them) and never been anywhere near the MVP voting. The era of guys like Mark Davis and Willie Hernandez winning major awards for a highly limited contribution is over.

Bruce Sutter is just a ridiculous induction, worse than anybody in the HHOF. Fingers and Gossage aren't much better.

__________

Agreed that they're waiting to get historical perspective on the juicing era. And also for the stink of the era and the resulting investigations to subside a bit.

Just like in hockey, stats don't tell the whole story, and personal observation is indispensible when evaluating the talent/dominance of the player vis a vis his peers.

You're obviously too young to have watched Sutter (or Fingers or Gossage). Those guys all routinely pitched 100+ innings in relief. It's very difficult to throw 1-3 innings every other day, in addition to all of the up and down pitching in the bullpen before hitting the mound. Guys like Wagner and Rivera, coming in to pitch to a batter or three, are used differently today than relief pitchers were used in the 60's-mid 80's.

Basicially, Sutter's responsible for re-introducing the sinker as the split fingered fastball into the game. What was "ridiculous" was the complete dominance he had over batters with that pitch. I don't think I've ever seen a pitcher make a batter look as completely amateurish at the plate more frequently than Sutter did during his prime. He certainly looked to me like he belonged in the HOF, particularly when compared to peers. He was at/near the top of his generation at what he did within the game, and that gets him into the Hall.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Basicially, Sutter's responsible for re-introducing the sinker as the split fingered fastball into the game. What was "ridiculous" was the complete dominance he had over batters with that pitch. I don't think I've ever seen a pitcher make a batter look as completely amateurish at the plate more frequently than Sutter did during his prime. He certainly looked to me like he belonged in the HOF, particularly when compared to peers. He was at/near the top of his generation at what he did within the game, and that gets him into the Hall.

That's the problem with using your eyes, and your memory. Sutter was dominant only for a brief period of time, early in his career. A closer with less than 1 k per inning (sometimes well under) is difficult to call dominant, especially when he allowed well over a baserunner per inning. That was Sutter from 1980 to 1988: still racking up lots of saves, but with unimpressive numbers.

If you consider only 1977 to 1979, he looks really impressive. But his career was much longer than those three years.

 

[pvr]

That's the problem with using your eyes, and your memory. Sutter was dominant only for a brief period of time, early in his career. A closer with less than 1 k per inning (sometimes well under) is difficult to call dominant, especially when he allowed well over a baserunner per inning. That was Sutter from 1980 to 1988: still racking up lots of saves, but with unimpressive numbers.

If you consider only 1977 to 1979, he looks really impressive. But his career was much longer than those three years.

I think you need to go back through the history of closers in baseball to better understand where players like Gossage, Fingers, and Sutter fall as compared to their peers and players that came before them. There is little doubt that they were in the very upper echelon when they were playing, and in some regards were well beyond anyone that came before them at their position. Gossage revolutionized the power closer position, and combined it with (compared to today's relievers) high inning counts. Sutter was dominant beyond three years. He led the league in saves five years, was top three in Cy Young voting in four years, and top eight in MVP voting five times. People who actually saw him play would disagree with your assessment.

We currently are in the days of closers with 2/3 inning pitched and 1-2 strikeouts. They basically throw their arm out in one inning. Your type of argument is used commonly around other forums in HF Boards to deride the accomplishments of the older generations of players when comparing them to the current players. I wouldn't expect to see that in this forum. Heck, people around here are wondering whether Sidney Crosby would be inducted into the hall if he were never able to lace them up again, with similar (+/-) accomplishements as Sutter.

 

[Axxellien]

What about:

..The Hoyt Wilhelm factor, hé?

 

[Fish on The Sand]

The comparison of closers in baseball to back up goaltenders is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. If a team had a goaltender that they used exclusively to close off the last 5 minutes of a one goal game, and this goaltender did it extraordinarily well this goaltender would likely be in the hall of fame.

Baseball has its questionable inductions sure, like Rice and Dawson, however hockey has Joe Niuewendyk, Doug Gilmour and Dick Duff, and probably soon to be Mats Sundin. Baseball players like Albert Belle (who was a far better baseball player than any of those guys were hockey players) and Jeff Bagwell can't even make it in. You could probably knock out 20% of the baseball hall of fame and most people probably wouldn't have too much of an issue, but I could make a strong case that half, or perhaps more than half of the hhof is filled with guys who shouldn't be there.

 

[member 83027]

I could make a strong case that half, or perhaps more than half of the hhof is filled with guys who shouldn't be there.

I would love to see your strong case on this. Just remember.... What you think might be strong really isn't.

 

[Mayor Bee]

there is no questioinable players in the MLB hall of fame

hockey--not so much

Every one of these are marginal to questionable, and this isn't even including the guys who I could make a very strong case against. It also doesn't touch the idea of relief pitchers as HOFers.

Catchers
Roger Bresnahan
Rick Ferrell
Ray Schalk

First basemen
Frank Chance
Bill Terry
Jake Beckley
George Kelly
Jim Bottomley
Tony Perez

Second basemen
Bobby Doerr
Johnny Evers
Billy Herman
Tony Lazzeri
Bid McPhee
Red Schoendienst

Third basemen
Fred Lindstrom
George Kell

Shortstops
Rabbit Maranville
Bobby Wallace
Joe Tinker
Dave Bancroft
Joe Sewell
Travis Jackson
Phil Rizzuto
Hughie Jennings

Outfielders
Jim Rice
Andre Dawson
Chick Hafey
Joe Kelley
Heinie Manush
Elmer Flick
Sam Rice
Harry Hooper
Ross Youngs - doesn't meet 10-year requirement anyway
Enos Slaughter
Lloyd Waner
Max Carey
Edd Roush
Earle Combs
Earl Averill
Hack Wilson
Tommy McCarthy
Kiki Cuyler
Hugh Duffy

Pitchers
Jack Chesbro
Herb Pennock
Eppa Rixey
Red Faber
Chief Bender
Waite Hoyt
Jesse Haines
Rube Marquardt
Addie Joss - didn't meet 10-year requirement anyway

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Good post, agree that some BBHOF selections have been baffling, especially outfielders. Gwynn deserves to be there based on his batting titles, but aside from Henderson, don't see much difference in value between the OF's elected and those who weren't. I don't think they even look at on-base %. It seems to be mostly about compiling hits and HRs.

Were these five:

Dawson
Gwynn
Puckett
Rice
Winfield

really better than these five?:

Evans
Murphy
Lynn
Parker
Raines

Raines... he should've been in long ago. Puckett is an interesting one too and Rice probably doesn't belong. The others are the right choices in my opinion. And the baseball HOF kicks the tar out of hockey's joke of a hall. It's much harder to get in and the votes are transparent and spread out with far more voters. It's a much, much better system.

However, baseball is going to have some serious problems with the steroid era. Performance drugs have completely screwed things up because it's impossible to know who's on them and who's not. As such, guys who are probably deserving won't make it while others who ordinarily wouldn't even sniff it will get in. It's a huge mess.