DOO-WOP/OLDIES FORUM - Welcome
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 22, 2021, 08:59:35 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
ATTENTION:
NO COMMERCIAL SITES OR LINKS TO COMMERCIAL SITES ALLOWED ON THIS FORUM. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SELL,
ie, CLOTHES, RECORDS, FURNTURE, ETC. DON'T DO IT HERE. THE URL WILL BE DELETED...  Mike Paladino
89183 Posts in 9677 Topics by 39 Members
Latest Member: doctordoowop
* Home Help Login Register
+  DOO-WOP/OLDIES FORUM - Welcome
|-+  OT - OFF TOPIC TOPICS :-)
| |-+  Off Topic Stuff
| | |-+  Hall of Fame
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Hall of Fame  (Read 1749 times)
doctordoowop
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3837


« on: March 14, 2021, 08:01:24 PM »

Thot for yrs that Bill Mazeroski is sin HOF because of one hit  his  1960 HR. 1st to win a WS in last of 9th.

Michael  Cooper being nominated for HOF  got me thinking. His stats are far from great  --didnt start for show time Lakers.   He may get in bec he's a nice guy & well liked in LA.  Sure there many other examples  of  poor choices..



 
Logged
Robb_K
Hero Member
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 4411


Hopeless Nostalgist


« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2021, 11:25:48 PM »

That for yrs that Bill Mazeroski is in HOF because of one hit  his  1960 HR. 1st to win a WS in last of 9th.
Mazeroski was a very good fielder, and played most games of a LOT of seasons, & middle infielders didn't hit very well in the 1950s and 1960s.  Johnny Temple was a much better hitter, but not nearly as good a fielder.  Nellie Fox was a much better hitter, but not as good a fielder. I think that Mazeroski was marginal to The HOF, at best.  But, I think there are others in The Hall that were voted in by The Veterans' Committee, who were voted in mostly based on stats NOT assessed in the context of the differences in the ball, the rules, home and away ballparks, pitchers, etc., who may even belong there less than Maz.  They were outfielders and first basemen who hit over .300 for a career but were TERRIBLE fielders, who probably let more runs in against their teams than themselves produced for them.  Hitting .320 in The NL in 1929 and 1930 was no big deal.  Same in Thing for the entire 1920s in The AL.  Same in 1894-1903.
I remember some "All Time Greats" Baseball Card series.  They had several old time hitters who had a few years with lusty BAs or HR totals (or both), who were absolutes terrible in the field, and would NEVER have been played by teams who were true pennant contenders, because a team needed good fielding to help its pitchers.  I remember Lew Fonseca, as one of them.  He had maybe 2 years with good batting stats, and NOTHING else.  I think Mazeroski deserves to be in HOF more than Ryne Sandberg, and Alan Trammell.  Hack Wilson was a lousy fielder, and a lousy runner.  All he could do was hit with power .  He only had a few really good years of BA - with most of that being 1929 and 1930 with the jazzed up NL ball.  Chuck Klein had a similar situation.  2B and SS were MUCH more valuable as top-notch fielders than as hitters.  Also hitting well, like Nellie Fox, or Rogers Hornsby, Luke Appling, Joe Gordon, Lou Boudreau was a bonus, but not the most important factor.

While I'm on this subject, I think there are WAYYYYY too many DH in The HOF.  I never liked that as a Baseball position in the first place (I also didn't like Football getting rid of players being required to play BOTH on offence and defence.

And I also think it's a disgrace for Stan Musial to be listed as a 1B.  He was the dominant force in The NL for ALL his years as an OF, but only for a few as a 1B.  Yes, he was still a great hitter during most of his 1B seasons, but NOT the super player he was during 1942-1953.  If The Powers That Be MUST have him listed as a 1B, then his position should be OF-1B.  Ernie Banks was listed only as SS.
Logged

bklynmike101
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1869


« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2021, 11:57:51 AM »

I was shocked when I saw that "Coop" was nominated for Springfield. Stalwart on D but still...limited O. I don't see it. Likewise, as solid as a player as Maz was, with outstanding fielding skills, I don't see him justly rising to the level of Cooperstown.

Enjoyed Robb's thoughtful analysis. learned "old" players - i.e. pre-1950's - largely from offensive stats. Limited focus on fielding ability. So, for the most part, when I formed my opinions as to who was who and what was what it was without consideration of their defensive prowess. For example, could Rogers Hornsby field? What about Jimmie Fox? Or Frankie Frisch? Eddie Collins? I had/have no idea.       
Logged
Robb_K
Hero Member
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 4411


Hopeless Nostalgist


« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2021, 01:17:03 PM »

I was shocked when I saw that "Coop" was nominated for Springfield. Stalwart on D but still...limited O. I don't see it. Likewise, as solid as a player as Maz was, with outstanding fielding skills, I don't see him justly rising to the level of Cooperstown.

Enjoyed Robb's thoughtful analysis. learned "old" players - i.e. pre-1950's - largely from offensive stats. Limited focus on fielding ability. So, for the most part, when I formed my opinions as to who was who and what was what it was without consideration of their defensive prowess. For example, could Rogers Hornsby field? What about Jimmie Fox? Or Frankie Frisch? Eddie Collins? I had/have no idea.       
Eddie Collins and Frankie Frisch were excellent fielders.  Rogers Hornsby was a small amount better-than average fielder, not a VERY good or excellent one.  Jimmy Foxx was an average fielder when young, whose range decreased when he got old (as happens to most players).  As I stated above, middle infielders (2B & SS) ALWAYS had fielding as BY FAR the more important factor in their being a regular, and even back-up player on ANY organised baseball team.  If they hit well, it was always a bonus.  How else can Rabbit Maranville's high value in trades be explained?  Same went for excellent fielding and pitcher handling catchers.  If they hit well, it was a bonus, but definitely not a requirement (Ray Schalk being a great example).
Logged

JoeC
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4360


« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2021, 03:51:39 PM »

As discussed, there was a definite "mold" for middle infielders back in the day that did not value physical size or power. In fact, both of those traits were likely seen as negatives and/or reasons to move the player to another position.

Maz is definitely NOT a HoF player to me.  Aparicio, Reese, Boudreau and Rizzuto are all additional questionable HoF middle infield choices (IMO, Aparicio and Boudreau were a bit more deserving than Phil or Pee Wee). In terms of the old time IFs, Rabbit Maranville's credentials are just not that impressive at all (other than his Stolen Bases).



 
« Last Edit: March 15, 2021, 04:05:25 PM by JoeC » Logged
bklynmike101
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1869


« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2021, 11:23:39 AM »

Full disclosure: I'm a born and bred Brooklynite/New Yorker in my soul.

That said, I'm of the decided opinion that both Phil and Pee Wee, much as I thought highly of their careers, would not have no way no how been selected to the HOF if not for playing in Brooklyn/New York, the uncontested media capital of the US back in the day.
Logged
JoeC
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4360


« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2021, 12:09:37 PM »

Full disclosure: I'm a born and bred Brooklynite/New Yorker in my soul.

That said, I'm of the decided opinion that both Phil and Pee Wee, much as I thought highly of their careers, would not have no way no how been selected to the HOF if not for playing in Brooklyn/New York, the uncontested media capital of the US back in the day.
Agree, Mike. I wasn't a NYY or Dodgers fan but, growing up in the NY, I saw loads of those teams' games. Phil and Pee Wee were fine ballplayers on really superb teams. Put them on the Senators or Phillies and ... you'd get a different career view.

Phil was a true great in terms of his bunting skills, was a very good fielder (had fine range, and went back on popups over his head beautifully), perfected his slap-hitting to end up with a career respectable .273. He's one of only a few lead off men to get into the HoF but ... he wasn't elite in that regard in his own time. There were equally good - or better - lead off men around.

Pee Wee's HoF credentials aren't as good as Rizzuto's. An excellent shortstop with a very average bat. Over his career, hit .269. His nickname, fan popularity, and being the Captain of the team during the Brooklyn Dodgers golden era helped immensely. Association with Jackie Robinson also didn't hurt his case.
Logged
doctordoowop
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3837


« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2021, 10:02:59 PM »

Agree  that  Phil & Pee Wee  are NOT HOf material.  i feel  justified in my complaints-Jowe said no to Maz-Robb marginal.  The difference between HOFs is that the hoop HOF  also includes  college & Olympic exploits.

Leaving color  & social importance out of it-- is Jackie of HOF   QUALITY?  Agree Robb  I dont like DHs in HOF.
Logged
Robb_K
Hero Member
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 4411


Hopeless Nostalgist


« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2021, 01:57:33 AM »

Agree  that  Phil & Pee Wee  are NOT HOf material.  i feel  justified in my complaints-Jowe said no to Maz-Robb marginal.  The difference between HOFs is that the hoop HOF  also includes  college & Olympic exploits.

Leaving color  & social importance out of it-- is Jackie of HOF   QUALITY?  Agree Robb  I dont like DHs in HOF.
Jackie Robinson was definitely HOF quality.  He was in the late middle of his prime when he came up with The Dodgers.  He had superstar skills, run hit, hit with power, field.  He did everything well, and all during a time when he was taking terrible abuse and mental strain, that would have made lesser men sick a lot earlier than it did him.  He died at a ridiculously young age, which was clearly due to the terrible treatment he and his family had to stomach.  He made The Dodgers go from 1947-53, and they won The NL Pennant in 4 of those 7 years, finished tied in the 5th, and 2nd, one game out in the 6th.  Never before did they have a run like that, and never again, at least during the time I followed Baseball.  He had help, but, he was the main cog imo.
Logged

Robb_K
Hero Member
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 4411


Hopeless Nostalgist


« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2021, 02:15:53 AM »

Full disclosure: I'm a born and bred Brooklynite/New Yorker in my soul.

That said, I'm of the decided opinion that both Phil and Pee Wee, much as I thought highly of their careers, would not have no way no how been selected to the HOF if not for playing in Brooklyn/New York, the uncontested media capital of the US back in the day.
Agree, Mike. I wasn't a NYY or Dodgers fan but, growing up in the NY, I saw loads of those teams' games. Phil and Pee Wee were fine ballplayers on really superb teams. Put them on the Senators or Phillies and ... you'd get a different career view.

Phil was a true great in terms of his bunting skills, was a very good fielder (had fine range, and went back on popups over his head beautifully), perfected his slap-hitting to end up with a career respectable .273. He's one of only a few lead off men to get into the HoF but ... he wasn't elite in that regard in his own time. There were equally good - or better - lead off men around.

Pee Wee's HoF credentials aren't as good as Rizzuto's. An excellent shortstop with a very average bat. Over his career, hit .269. His nickname, fan popularity, and being the Captain of the team during the Brooklyn Dodgers golden era helped immensely. Association with Jackie Robinson also didn't hurt his case.

Rizzouto had a VERY respectable .273 Lifetime BA, and Reese had a very average .269!!!!  That's only .004 difference, with The AL having a better leaguewide BA than The NL by a few points (probably 3) over that period.  So, essentially, they were almost the same batter.  So, why do you think Rizzouto was significantly better?  Because Reese was only in The .260's, and Rizzouto was way up in the Stratospheric .270's?  I bet you think buying gasoline a $3.75.99 is a big bargain compared with the outrageously high $3.76 a gallon!  Cheesy  And your wife thought she was still young at 39 years of age plus 364 days into her 39th year, and when she reached her 40th birthday she thought it was all over!
Logged

JoeC
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4360


« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2021, 07:36:02 AM »

First, I didn't say "VERY" (all caps) about the respectability of Rizzuto's career average. Just "respectable." But, you're right that "respectable" and "average" don't mean the same thing and they basically hit the same (Reese with more power and RBI).

In looking more closely at their stats, they were basically the same player. I guess I gave Phil a little more credit (in my mind) for what he did with the bat because he looked so thin (5'6, 145), and over-matched physically, up there against pitchers like Feller and the other strong pitchers of his day.

In terms of HoF credentials, Rizzuto did win an MVP Award and was on all those WS championship teams. I can't hold the latter against Pee Wee though as that was just the luck of the draw.

As for Jackie, there's a old film clip of Jackie getting a single, then moving around the three bases, one at a time. At each base, his leads literally drove the pitcher crazy. I think, in addition, he stole second and third base. NO one else in the "modern era" was THAT disruptive with his base running. (As an unbiased observer of that famous WS steal of home, though, as much as I'd like Jackie to have been safe, he does look out to me). Plus, he was a .311 career hitter for 1947-54 (.316 if you subtract 1955 and 1956, when he was basically done).

I'm sure the abuse he took played hell with his hypertension and diabetes, not to mention his anguish over his son's death at 24 in that car crash on the Merritt Pkwy. Jackie Jr came back from Viet Nam with a drug problem. Jackie SR died little more than a year later.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2021, 08:12:22 AM by JoeC » Logged
bklynmike101
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1869


« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2021, 11:37:53 AM »

To me, Phil and Pee Wee were comparable, both fine players with consistency and longevity but whose careers don't rise to the level of HOF and would  not have been inducted had they not played in NY.

Jackie was clearly a HOF level ballplayer, period. Post-playing career, he was a legitimate political figure in the NY area, leveraging his UCLA educational background as much as if not more than his past athletic prowess.   
Logged
JoeC
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4360


« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2021, 01:41:06 PM »

To me, Phil and Pee Wee were comparable, both fine players with consistency and longevity but whose careers don't rise to the level of HOF and would  not have been inducted had they not played in NY.

Jackie was clearly a HOF level ballplayer, period. Post-playing career, he was a legitimate political figure in the NY area, leveraging his UCLA educational background as much as if not more than his past athletic prowess.  
I recall when Jackie retired, a lot of NYC press was given to Chock Full O' Nuts making him Exec VP for Personnel. It wasn't just a token appointment and they paid him like their other key executives. Sort of "so what" these days but truly remarkable for the mid-50s.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2021, 01:45:34 PM by JoeC » Logged
Robb_K
Hero Member
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 4411


Hopeless Nostalgist


« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2021, 09:48:03 PM »

To me, Phil and Pee Wee were comparable, both fine players with consistency and longevity but whose careers don't rise to the level of HOF and would  not have been inducted had they not played in NY.

Jackie was clearly a HOF level ballplayer, period. Post-playing career, he was a legitimate political figure in the NY area, leveraging his UCLA educational background as much as if not more than his past athletic prowess.  
I recall when Jackie retired, a lot of NYC press was given to Chock Full O' Nuts making him Exec VP for Personnel. It wasn't just a token appointment and they paid him like their other key executives. Sort of "so what" these days but truly remarkable for the mid-50s.

Was that a candy manufacturer?  If so, had Jackie previously made commercials (print advertising, radio and/or TV) for them? 
Logged

bklynmike101
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1869


« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2021, 12:29:25 AM »

Robb,

I know you are sincere but what you wrote struck me as funny. Chock Full O' Nuts was a ubiquitous (in NY anyway) coffee brand that also operated a string of "coffee shops" of sorts that were casual restaurants featuring hamburgers and the like. Patrons sat on stools at a counter while other customers lined up behind them 5-10 deep waiting their turn. And you had best finish your burger and coffee (or Coke) in 5 minutes or you'd be hip checked into oblivion by the guys in line.  Grin
Logged
JoeC
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4360


« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2021, 07:19:49 AM »

Here's a 60 second little film loop showing a few Chock Full O Nuts locations, and the menu. At their peak, they had 80 locations in NYC. Nedick's (knee-diks) was their big competitor and they had 75. Coffee, vs a patented orange drink, was the main attraction at these storefronts, respectively.

Although Jackie is in a still picture here, I never recall him doing commercials for them, while a player or an employee. I could be wrong.

The jingle ingrained in any 1940s/50s New Yorker's head was its' last line -- "better coffee Rockefeller's money can't buy." Later, they had to use "millionaire's" instead of "Rockefeller's."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nraL2Gwtc8A

« Last Edit: March 18, 2021, 07:22:56 AM by JoeC » Logged
bklynmike101
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1869


« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2021, 10:56:07 AM »

I recall the "millionaires" jingle.

Nedick's was more hot dog and (for me) grape drink (or orange drink for most folks). Chock was a bit more upscale, burger and other "real" foods plus coffee (Coke for me).
Logged
Robb_K
Hero Member
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 4411


Hopeless Nostalgist


« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2021, 12:18:02 PM »

I've only been to New York City once, in 1969.  I was supposed to visit to 2 weeks, but hightailed it up to Quebec after only two miserable 100+ degree F 99% humidity and inversion-plagued, smokey-aired days there.  I've never returned, except to change planes in Kennedy Airport until about 25-30 years ago, when I started entering North America in Toronto Int.  But, I have no idea what coffee restaurants exist in any of the 5 cities (or villages) I reside, including Winnipeg and L.A. (other than Tim Horton's and Starbuck's, respectively).  I know almost NOTHING about NYC, because I don't read anything about it, don't watch American commercial TV shows, have watched very few American films made after 1965 or so, and those few that I have since then, I didn't paid much attention.

I DO, however remember the Joe DiMaggio commercials for Mr. Coffee. Grin
Logged

doctordoowop
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3837


« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2021, 01:45:00 AM »

Ok-u  experts convinced me--Jackie should  be in  the HoF.Besides   Rivera,  which Met was the near the last 42..Sasser?
Logged
JoeC
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4360


« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2021, 07:18:06 AM »

Ok-u  experts convinced me--Jackie should  be in  the HoF.Besides   Rivera,  which Met was the near the last 42..Sasser?
I know the reliever Roger McDowell wore 42 in the late 80s. I suspect more players wore it after him but I have no idea who.
Logged
doctordoowop
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3837


« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2021, 02:02:51 AM »

Looked it up. Last 42 before Mariano-  was a Met-=-Mo Vaughn.

LA  did not  totally  retire 42  right away-- --in 1969  a guy named Lamb was 42 for  awhile!!!
Logged
JoeC
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4360


« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2021, 07:30:31 AM »

Question for someone more knowledgeable of numbers than I am.

Wasn't 42 an unusually high number to be assigned back in 1947 when Jackie came up from Montreal? Seems to me most (all?) the Brooklyn position players of consequence wore single digits or numbers in the teens. Might've been even more true of infielders. Was that just a Dodgers thing?
Logged
doctordoowop
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3837


« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2021, 01:06:17 PM »

Right Joe.When I was researching No 42--there was an article why Jackie was 42-but I didnt read it.
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.134 seconds with 18 queries.