Actually Bowie Kuhn did some good for baseball, such as stopping Charlie Finley from having a fire sale. Now Jeffrey Loria does it all the time and there’s nothing the baseball fans of South Florida (or Montreal before) can do about it.

Of the 27 guys with 3000 hits, only 5 hit for a lower average. He was never the best 1st baseman in his own league at any given time during his career.

There are lots of things you can say positive about Eddie Murray, and for every one of them a negative can be brought up. But the same goes for Tony Oliva. The ONLY glaring difference between the two is Murray hung around long enough to amass big numbers.

I only pick him out because so many think just because he got to 500 homers and 3000 hits he should be a shoe in. If he’s a shoe in, than so is Oliva, who, BTW, WAS the best right fielder in the AL for several years, and quite possibly the best hitter in the AL (it was between him and Yaz from ’64-’69) for a five or six year stretch, something Murray could never come close to claiming.

The “love” shown Murray is simply because he stuck around long enough to get noticed. Given a choice, in their prime, every baseball man on the planet would have taken Oliva. And that should say something to the HOF voters.

Gordon missed the ’44 and ’45 seasons due to WWII.

I can understand someone arguing that a certain player should be in the HOF for the reasons you state – if, he was fairly close to having the numbers. But I cannot agree that Tony Oliva was such a player.

Oliva’s NEWS score is 237 – far removed from serious HOF numbers. Here are some players with comparable numbers.

Fred Lynn 239
Bobby Doerr 238
Ron Cey 237
Johnny Evers 237
George Foster 237
Tony Oliva 237
Daryl Strawberry 236
Bill Freehan 235
Joe Gordon 235

I do not believe that any of these players belongs in the Hall – even if they led exemplary personal lives.

Why pick on Eddie Murray? When he retired, he was only the third player in history to have 3000 hits AND 500 home runs (Aaron and Mays were the other two). Are you really suggesting that he does not belong in the Hall?

Great ambassador, great player, tremendous impact on the popularity, particularly in the Carribean island nations.

A case can be made that he was the premiere hitter in the 1960′s, a pitcher’s era, and only injuries cut short what would have been a no-brainer HoF career.

Anyone who knows me also knows that because of this oversight, the HoF is, and always will be, a meaningless entity to me. Until the only player who ever won batting titles his first two years in the league is elected, I will not take the place seriously in the least, particularly when I look at all the “stat-padders” who couldn’t hold Oliva’s jock as a hitter (such as Eddie Murray, again).

According to the NEWS HOF Gauge, both Kirby Puckett and Sandy Koufax DO HAVE HOF NUMBERS even though they had short careers. One of the unusual features of the NEWS is that it shows that a number of players with short careers (such as Puckett, Koufax, Greenberg, Dizzy Dean, Jackie Robinson, etc.) do indeed have the numbers. While some others, like Dom Mattingly, do not.

“The current guidelines also allow for a player of great integrity or one who had a tremendous impact on the popularity of the game, or one who was a great ambassador for the game to make it, even if some other players had a greater “body of work” statistically.”

I notice that you did not give an example here. I agree that there are a few players (but not many) who I would vote into the Hall on these grounds. Ozzie Smith is one.

I’m glad Blyleven was though. I’m old enough to remember almost all of Tommy John’s career. Again, if he isn’t a HOF’er, who is? Kaat, Gossage as well.

I’m also underwhelmed at the lack of support for Jack Morris. He was THE premier starter of his time. I’m quite willing to bet if you looked at his years in the majors leagues he is head and shoulders above anyone else. That plus all he did in the postseason should make him a shoo in.

Oh, and Joe Carter too.

The guidelines now leave room for someone who was a jerk to not get elected, no matter how many homers he hits, and that’s a good thing. The guidelines also allow for those who had an impact as a player but had a shorter career (Puckett, Koufax) and didn’t stick around to pad stats (Eddie Murray, Don Sutton). And that’s a good thing.

The current guidelines also allow for a player of great integrity or one who had a tremendous impact on the popularity of the game, or one who was a great ambassador for the game to make it, even if some other players had a greater “body of work” statistically.

The Hall of Fame is NOT the Hall of Stats. I’m sick of the surge to make it that way.

An interesting question. Strictly speaking, voters would NOT BE ALLOWED to consider Torre’s managerial record with the Yankees for his election as a player because he never played for the Yankees.

Check out the following from my book.
“Who belongs in the Hall of Fame? According to the guidelines set forth for the BBWAA election process, “Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.” This statement clearly says that “integrity, sportsmanship, character” may be considered. It does not say that accomplishments such as managing, broadcasting, etc. may be considered – unless for the same team for which he played. For example, should Joe Torre’s success as the manager of the New York Yankees be considered since he never played for the Yankees (“contributions to the team on which the player played”)?

Am I missing something here?

I’m not completely sold on Dick Williams, but I’m not sold that he shouldn’t be, either. LaRussa some day will be trying to get in this way, and I’d be pretty dead set against that.

And of course, I’m in the tank for Danny Murtaugh, but I think he deserves it.

“But these are really the side issues, the real hall of famers are the players, first and foremost, followed by some distance by the managers, then the umps and lastly owners.”

I happen to agree with your sentiment here. In fact, I would take it one step further and say that ONLY PLAYERS should be elected to the Hall – and ONLY based on their on-field playing performance.

Unfortunately, I do not see anyone turning back the clock. And I will not be surprised to one day see an agent’s name on the ballot.

To be honest, I was surprised to see Dreyfuss was recently elected because I thought he would have been enshrined years ago. I agree with you about Kuhn. That bastard cost the Sox Rollie Fingers and Joe Rudi and crushed the spirit of a nine-year-old boy in the process. I’ll never forgive him for that!

What, should agents be elected too? Scott Boras? He’s had quite an effect on the game.

It should be people in players, umps, managers, and the occasional commish or owner.

The idea that Doug Harvey didn’t get elected is the most jaw dropping to me. He deserved it over all the others, in my opinion.

I’d never have voted for O’Malley just for what he did to Brooklyn.

But these are really the side issues, the real hall of famers are the players, first and foremost, followed by some distance by the managers, then the umps and lastly owners.

I really can’t believe Bowie Kuhn deserves enshrinement, doesn’t hurt to be a butt kisser, I guess.

We’ll all be howling the day Selig gets enshrined.

John Lease – The elections are not supposed to be a popularity contest (although they sometimes are). Didn’t Miller have a really big impact on the game? Isn’t that what this is all about? You can see from Cary’s comment that some fans think he deserves to be in Cooperstown.

Cary – I would not go so far as to say THE most significant. But Marvin Miller certainly deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame.

Marvin Miller doesn’t exactly deserve enshrinement in the baseball hall of fame.

Union hall of fame? Sure.

The “new” veterans committee did exactly what was wanted – elect people for induction.

WHO is elected generates publicity, including the media focus on who WASN’T elected. Having some controversy on the elections to generate discussion about the HOF is exactly what the HOF wants in addition to inductees.