Yeah, that core of Jr., Unit, Edgar, Buhner and young ARod should have done more in all honesty.
all you said is true, but i still cant put him in the top 25, especially considering he only played 10 years. of course there are a lot of factors that caused him to achieve less than he might have, but all you can do is judge him on what he did. Hall of Famer yes, but Nolan Ryan hall of fame level, not babe ruth and ted williams hall of fame level
you are probably right on the homers thing. i looked wrong and was thinking he was hitting more in that stretch. another 200 hits though were likely and that would have been more important to his legacy anyway. Musial is my favorite all time player along with lou whitaker (should be in the hof) and i am biased, but i do give him the edge over williams, mantle, etc. but there is a fine line that separates them all. his consistency was absurd, much like that of aaron. had mantle taken care of himself, he might have eclipsed them all though
Well, I have a lesser opinion of Ryan than most so I have Robinson far higher than him, but agree Robinson isn't near Williams/Mays/Ruth. I find it impossible to hold the limited Major League service time against him though. He was a top player in the Negro leagues and was a clear Major League caliber player in '46 when they were forced to start the 'great experiment' in the minors. Mind you, those Negro leagues produced some of the best players in history in their death throes after integration. Mays, Banks, Aaron, Campanella, alone is an amazing list and there were plenty more. Robinson was an All-Star/MVP caliber player for a few years before getting to break the color line.
I'd have Whitaker in the HOF too. Kind of weird he got passed over. Old Timers will fix it I'm sure.
you cant hold it against him, but you also cant give him credit for what he didnt do in the majors. however, as you said, he certainly had the capability of playing in the league long before he got there. it really does suck all those negro league players didnt get a chance to show their stuff in the majors at all or for much of their prime. how good was satchell paige? certainly great, but but how great? cool papa bell, josh gibson, etc. would have been interesting to see. of course they are still legends but its impossible to compare given the different conditions, poor record keeping, etc.
It was especially absurd that whitaker was only on the ballot one year. but i think all of the modern era tigers kind of get the shaft when it comes to the voters. he and trammell really should have gone in together. as times changed, lou's numbers seemed less impressive compared to modern second basemen, but in his day he was as good as anyone at the position. it is pretty easy to say that if sandberg got in so easily, whitaker should be in too. his numbers are pretty comparable.
I stumbled across a Bill James article a few months ago where he was putting together a HOF of 5 players to best represent the history of baseball. He was making up the criteria for it (one being that he wanted to cover as many years as possible in the 5 players), it's hardly his most 'scientific' article, but it was really cool. His final 5:
i dont think you can compare his major league stats to those of a slightly younger clemens at the end of his career. the numbers were fine, but nothing special except for the age he did it at. but you are right, he could have been the greatest of all time. and i am sure he was worn out playing in the negro leagues and barnstorming all over. there really is no way to determine and even if those players said that, it doesnt make it so (or not so). you would need more than the limited sample size those guys likely saw to give a fair assessment. Feller actually saw him quite a bit on their barnstorming tour, but got the better of it more times than not. of course it is hard to determine if they were facing equal level hitters. its likely the batters faced by Paige were overall better than those faced by Feller, however.
Yup, 80's were the last era of the Punch and Judy hitters in the middle infield and he wasn't that. Whitaker belongs in.
Well the point of the exercise James was engaging in was projecting backwards. Like how we looked at Trout and compare him to the other guys who got off to monster starts. In this case, James was simply pointing out, if you do this backwards, you have a guy with the best pitching performances at that age ever. The other guys who had great years at that age were all HOFers or close to it, and yet Paige's performance at that age are better. It obviously proves nothing, was just a cool use of what little data does actually exist. His argument for Paige on that list of 5 (besides trying to convey how great Satchel really was by account of everyone who ever saw him) was also about him marking the times well, being a colorful character and fitting that gap of years well.
i grew up in detroit and it seemed like whenever i was watching, whitaker was killing it. had he only played when i watched he might be the GOAT. And yes, he a trammell are iconic there and he won gold gloves, stole bases, had good power, ROY, etc. certainly more deserving than the likes of mazeroski, foxx and ironically, johnny evers who got in ONLY because he was part of a famous dp combo.
The Hornsby/Morgan debate is so difficult. Raw numbers, there is no comparison. Morgan's case is all about every 'adjustment' going in his favor. Morgan was a phenomenal defensive 2B, Hornsby was a lousy one. Morgan played in a pitcher's park in an extreme pitcher's era, where Hornsby plays in the best offensive era ever (at least the years he put up the monster numbers). Morgan was a great base stealer/runner, Hornsby (even in the deadball era, when running was expected) was a slug on the base path. Morgan has longevity on him as well. I'm fine with people who put Hornsby and Collins at the top of the list, I just choose Morgan because I choose Morgan. Lol.
hornsby wasnt too bad on the basepaths in the deadball area. certainly no Morgan, but he was usually in the teens in sb's. morgan definitely played in a shitty hitters park, no doubt. but even in the era he played in, hornsby's numbers were ridiculous. his HR numbers were about 40% of the teams home run total in many years, so you cant just say it was all that era.
Hornsby stole a few bases, because it was the style of play at the time (amazing how quickly SB's died between the dead ball era and Robinson showing up). They didn't keep caught stealing numbers (or at least the records to go back and count them) until the live ball era, but you'll see, his percentages are atrocious. I think it's highly unlikely that wasn't true before they kept track. Otherwise, you're absolutely correct that I can't just say 'era'. Hornsby was a godly hitter. But Morgan's OBP, given his era is absolutely competitive, even if it falls a little short of Hornsby's hitting. Hornsby clearly has power though. Defense and base running is where he makes up that gap imo. Plus Morgan was a team leader of a great dynasty and Hornsby was an ass, but I don't actually count that (just think it bears mentioning at some point in this discussion).
