Who belongs in the HOF??

[UK Cowboy]

John Jefferson
Ahmad Rashad
Drew Hill
John Stallworth
Wesley Walker
Haven Moses
Tony Hill
Otis Taylor
John Gilliam
Sammy White
Alfred Jenkins

I could argue Pearson as top 5 on this list, even though a few were predominantly different decades. The fact that Pearson was All Decade for the 70's supports this

 

[blstoker]

Smith was a pretty shaky reliever who was fortunate enough to start his career right at the time where the role of the closer was diminishing from 2-3 inning appearances down to 1 inning (and hence could pitch in more games), which played a large factor in why he had so many saves. If you look through his seasons, had a good amount of years that were nothing special but he was able to get 30+ saves.

I don't see the fascination that many have with the guy.

The fascination begins with the fact that though those 30 save seasons mean nothing today - but they were something special back then. He lead the league 4 times in saves (Rivera 3, Hoffman 2) and finished in the top 5 in saves 12 (Rivera 11, Hoffman 9).

People look at his numbers and talk about how he wasn't dominate enough for the Hall, but I just don't agree. Smith was the first long term modern closer. His numbers are actually really good. From 1982-1995 (years he was a closer) he posted a 2.91 ERA with 470 sv. Dennis Eckersley (closer at roughly the same time) from 1987-1997 posted a 2.87 ERA with 386 sv. Eck in - Smith out.


There is something to be said for being one of the best for a very long time, and if guys like Biggio are HoFers for surviving long enough to get to statistical plateaus, then Smith should be in.

 

[blstoker]

I could argue Pearson as top 5 on this list, even though a few were predominantly different decades. The fact that Pearson was All Decade for the 70's supports this

All decade teams are just like any other award, a popularity contest. The fact that the other 1st Team All-Decade WR is Lynn Swann should be enough to completely discount the honor for anyone who received it. Only Carmichael, who barely made the second team with 2 votes, was deserving of the honor out of the 4.

 

[StanMarsh51]

The fascination begins with the fact that though those 30 save seasons mean nothing today - but they were something special back then. He lead the league 4 times in saves (Rivera 3, Hoffman 2) and finished in the top 5 in saves 12 (Rivera 11, Hoffman 9).

People look at his numbers and talk about how he wasn't dominate enough for the Hall, but I just don't agree. Smith was the first long term modern closer. His numbers are actually really good. From 1982-1995 (years he was a closer) he posted a 2.91 ERA with 470 sv. Dennis Eckersley (closer at roughly the same time) from 1987-1997 posted a 2.87 ERA with 386 sv. Eck in - Smith out.


There is something to be said for being one of the best for a very long time, and if guys like Biggio are HoFers for surviving long enough to get to statistical plateaus, then Smith should be in.

ERA's a very misleading stat for relievers, because a guy can have a few (or even 1) game when they're horrible and it hurts their ERA for the entire year. John Smoltz' 2003 season when he had a 3.25 ERA is probably the best example of this, as he had 1 terrible game where he gave up 8 ER, and that screwed up his ERA for the entire year (but in reality, it was a great season). Not to mention, inherited runners don't affect ERA: Smith allowed 29% of the runners he inherited from '82 to '95 to score, which doesn't hurt his ERA.

If you look at Smith's other stats (ones that generally wouldn't be affected skewed by small samples), they weren't great by any means: 1.23 WHIP from 1982-1995, 2.77 K/BB, .640 OPS against. Eckersley during his 11 year run as closer had a 0.98 WHIP by comparison, 7.09 WHIP (not a typo), and .606 OPS against. So I'd certainly say Eck was a more dominant closer, even if he had less saves. Regardless, I aways though Eck was pretty overrated and a borderline HOF at best, and Smith wasn't nearly as good as him.

Regarding a guy like Biggio, I'd argue he was a HOFer even if he didn't reach 3,000 hits....he was pretty much the 2B version of Barry Larkin, who got in with well under 3,000 hits.

 

[blstoker]

If you look at Smith's other stats (ones that generally wouldn't be affected skewed by small samples), they weren't great by any means: 1.23 WHIP from 1982-1995, 2.77 K/BB, .640 OPS against. Eckersley during his 11 year run as closer had a 0.98 WHIP by comparison, 7.09 WHIP (not a typo), and .606 OPS against. So I'd certainly say Eck was a more dominant closer, even if he had less saves. Regardless, I aways though Eck was pretty overrated and a borderline HOF at best, and Smith wasn't nearly as good as him.

Smith's longevity can't be disocunted. Yes, ERA isn't always the best, but we're not talking about Smoltz's 1 season with 70 innings - we are talking about a much higher number of innings (1124 for Smith and 750 for Eckersley) and it would take more than 1 bad game to mar the ERA stat with that many innings.

While true Smith allowed 129 of 448 inherited runners to score (28.7%), and Eckersley only 74 of 303 (24.4%)I can't say whether either of those two numbers is good or bad (since I don't know what everyone else did at the time).

I will agree that Eck at his peak as more dominant than Smith - and maybe even the most dominate ever. But, that lasted only 5 seasons (1988-1992). Other than that - Eck is extremely mediocre. Smith, on the other hand, was consistent his entire time as a closer. He never fluctuated to these terrible seasons, but consistently stayed right there at the top of the list of best players at his position for nearly 15 years.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Smith's longevity can't be disocunted. Yes, ERA isn't always the best, but we're not talking about Smoltz's 1 season with 70 innings - we are talking about a much higher number of innings (1124 for Smith and 750 for Eckersley) and it would take more than 1 bad game to mar the ERA stat with that many innings.

While true Smith allowed 129 of 448 inherited runners to score (28.7%), and Eckersley only 74 of 303 (24.4%)I can't say whether either of those two numbers is good or bad (since I don't know what everyone else did at the time).

I will agree that Eck at his peak as more dominant than Smith - and maybe even the most dominate ever. But, that lasted only 5 seasons (1988-1992). Other than that - Eck is extremely mediocre. Smith, on the other hand, was consistent his entire time as a closer. He never fluctuated to these terrible seasons, but consistently stayed right there at the top of the list of best players at his position for nearly 15 years.

IMO Eck's body of work as a closer wasn't HOF worthy on its own...much of the appeal with him was that he was an above average starter as well, so the combination of his starting/closing work was 'unique.' I do think he's borderline at best and probably wouldn't vote for him (if I had a vote).

I'd also say Eck's 1987 season great (and lump that with his 5 year run of dominance)....he had a 2.60 ERA and 0.95 WHIP as a reliever in 100 innings (had 2 bad games as a starter).


If you look at Smith's career, I don't think there were many stretches where he was a top 3-5 or so closer...

In the early to mid '80s, I'd say guys like Quisenberry, Sutter, Gossage, Orosco were at least as good during that stretch.
In the 2nd half of the '80s, I'd put guys like Quisenberry, Righetti, Worrell, Franco, Doug Jones, McDowell as being as good/better
In the early to mid '90s, I'd say Eck, Wetteland, Hoffman, Montgomery, Augilera, Beck all were as good/better

So we're talking about a guy who maybe for a handful of years at the most was barely a top 5 closer? I just can't see that as a HOFer.

 

[UK Cowboy]

All decade teams are just like any other award, a popularity contest. The fact that the other 1st Team All-Decade WR is Lynn Swann should be enough to completely discount the honor for anyone who received it. Only Carmichael, who barely made the second team with 2 votes, was deserving of the honor out of the 4.

And yet....Carmichael didn't win jack shit in the 70's and his team got obliterated by Pearson's team the entire decade. I'm sorry, but this is like the Emmitt Smith argument....at some point, being one of the best players on an all time great team should trump putting up like numbers on a sorry team....I guess Phillip Rivers and Matthew Stafford are comparable to Tom Brady and Peyton Manning....seriously, forget all the Super Bowls, let's talk yards lmao

 

[Pack 500]

And yet....Carmichael didn't win jack shit in the 70's and his team got obliterated by Pearson's team the entire decade. I'm sorry, but this is like the Emmitt Smith argument....at some point, being one of the best players on an all time great team should trump putting up like numbers on a sorry team....I guess Phillip Rivers and Matthew Stafford are comparable to Tom Brady and Peyton Manning....seriously, forget all the Super Bowls, let's talk yards lmao

My dude come on now you can't seriously be comparing receivers to QBs on winning Super Bowls. I hate doing it for QBs even as evidenced by this year, but any other position is a complete joke.

 

[UK Cowboy]

My dude come on now you can't seriously be comparing receivers to QBs on winning Super Bowls. I hate doing it for QBs even as evidenced by this year, but any other position is a complete joke.

Ok, so winning doesn't matter? I think its all that matters. Derek Jeter will be a 1st ballot HOF player(deservedly so IMO). If he had played with the Marlins.....it's the Craig Biggio debate

 

[Pack 500]

Ok, so winning doesn't matter? I think its all that matters. Derek Jeter will be a 1st ballot HOF player(deservedly so IMO). If he had played with the Marlins.....it's the Craig Biggio debate

Wins are what you evaluate a team by not players. What the hell did Peyton Manning do to win the Super Bowl this year? The fact that he won it as about the worst QB in the league as opposed to when he was winning 5 MVPs says wins are not a player stat. There is no single non QB in the NFL who if they missed the game the Vegas line would move over two points. For only a handful would it move over one. I can guarantee it was not Harold Carmichael's fault he played on craptastic teams.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Ok, so winning doesn't matter? I think its all that matters. Derek Jeter will be a 1st ballot HOF player(deservedly so IMO). If he had played with the Marlins.....it's the Craig Biggio debate

Which I think says the following more than anything else:
1) Biggio was pretty underrated
2) Baseball had a poor voting process in prior years (they fixed a large part of it this year when they took away votes from people who hadn't covered baseball in 10+ years).


Take a look at Roberto Alomar had a career very comparable to Jeter's, and he won 2 rings (and was an ALCS MVP). He wasn't a first ballot however.

 

[UK Cowboy]

Wins are what you evaluate a team by not players. What the hell did Peyton Manning do to win the Super Bowl this year? The fact that he won it as about the worst QB in the league as opposed to when he was winning 5 MVPs says wins are not a player stat. There is no single non QB in the NFL who if they missed the game the Vegas line would move over two points. For only a handful would it move over one. I can guarantee it was not Harold Carmichael's fault he played on craptastic teams.

In extreme cases, like say Dan Marino. Otherwise, winning breaks a lot of ties for me

 

[blstoker]

at some point, being one of the best players on an all time great team should trump putting up like numbers on a sorry team

I might agree, but only if you can tell me that Pete Liske, John Reaves, Roman Gabriel, Mike Boryla and Ron Jaworski were all at least as good as Roger Staubach.

 

[UK Cowboy]

I might agree, but only if you can tell me that Pete Liske, John Reaves, Roman Gabriel, Mike Boryla and Ron Jaworski were all at least as good as Roger Staubach.

1 for 5

 

[StanMarsh51]

In extreme cases, like say Dan Marino. Otherwise, winning breaks a lot of ties for me

It depends on the sport...in the NBA/NFL I think it's more important since an individual player tends to have a bigger impact on the game (ie - Lebron or Brady can dominante entire games in their sport since either can play a part on a large percentage of the total plays).

In baseball, not so much considering the best hitter in a lineup gets roughly the same number of chances as the worst player, and the best pitcher pitches as frequently as inferior pitchers on his team (with exceptions of course, such as if a pitcher's going on 3 days rest).

If you were to put Lebron on the worst NBA team and Mike Trout on the worst MLB team, it's a good bet that the worst NBA team probably fares better given the way the games are structured (a player can control the game in basketball moreso than in baseball).

 

[mr.hockey4242]

I feel I deserve to be in the Hall Of Fame for putting up with Nos for 2+ years. He deserves to be in a mental institution for putting up with me for 2+ years.

I think Tim Raines for baseball, Joe Jacoby for football, Eric Lindros for hockey, and Sidney Moncrief for basketball.

2 years? Try 7 then get back to me.