Do these numbers belong in the MLB Hall of Fame?

Question

Here is a list of 10 former MLB Players. Some of these guys are in the HOF and some aren't. Which ones are deserving based on below stats which aren't?

Player 1 165-87 2.76 ERA
Player 2 .307 BA 2153 Hits 1099 RBI
Player 3 224-166 3.26 ERA
Player 4 .318 BA 2304 Hits 207 HR 1085 RBI
Player 5 .262 BA 2584 Hits 1702 RBI
Player 6 .265 BA 2111 Hits 398 HR 1366 RBI
Player 7 124-107 3.01 ERA 310 Saves
Player 8 .279 BA 2774 Hits 438 HR 1591 RBI
Player 9 .297 BA 1778 Hits 148 HR 999 RBI
Player 10 .273 BA 1588 Hits 38 HR 562 RBI

Sorry I left some stats out on purpose to prove a point of mine that you just can assume some one is a HOF just because of a select few stats. My friend disagrees.

should say can't assume

Answer 1

Without references or looking:
1. Koufax
2. Mattingly
3. Bunning
4. Puckett
5. Reggie Jackson
6. Murphy
7. Gossage, I think.
8. Dawson
9. hmm... good one... got me stumped.
10. Freddie Patek ? Gotta be a middle infielder.

We'll check back later... anyway, I really dislike evaluating Hall candidacies from just career summary stats (and a severely reduced subset thereof, at that). I want a big picture -- position, seasons, the landscape of a career, era played in, all that and more.

But given the names above, and ignoring whether or not they really are in the Hall, I'd go with:
Sandy - yes. Amazing peak.
Donnie - no.
Senator Jim - no.
Puck - no. I didn't think him a very good choice, but I understood why the writers luvved him so.
Reggie - yes.
Murf - I'll waffle, since I always do. Would look good on a plaque but the Hall is not suffering without him.
Goose - yes. Yes yes yes already!!!
Dawson - see Murf comment.
mystery guy - probably not. Nothing in this teeny-tiny set of stats stands up and says "Hall worthy" to me.
MI guy - these numbers clearly aren't gonna do it. How was his glovework?

OK, now hitting the databanks:
1. Koufax (1 for 1)
2. Mattingly (2 for 2)
3. Catfish Hunter (Bunning: 224-184, 3.27) (2 for 3)
4. Puckett (3 for 4)
5. Jackson (4 for 5)
6. Murphy, though he had 1266 RBI -- typo obviously. (5 for 6)
7. Gossage (6 for 7)
8. Dawson (7 for 8)
9. George "Highpockets" Kelly (BR.com sez 1020 RBI). Good one. (7 for 9)
10. Phil Rizzuto (563 RBI) (7 for 10, though I did nail the "middle infielder" part)

Postmortem:
Hunter, like Puckett, I thought to be not a very good choice by the writers, but a defensible one.

Kelly played in a very different era, and for that time his numbers were good, though not great. Not a brilliant choice. That his Giants went to four consecutive World Series (winning two) doubtlessly helped elevate his profile. A "teammate of VC chair Frankie Frisch" special, the lowest ebb in VC history.

Rizzuto was what he was, and if he hadn't been a Yankee he'd never have gotten elected. One of the worst choices ever, even by lax Veterans Committee standards, and one of the reasons why that old version of the VC was abolished.

This was fun.

Answer 2

Player 1 165-87 2.76 ERA-------not a lot of games played
Player 2 .307 BA 2153 Hits 1099 RBI---yes
Player 3 224-166 3.26 ERA --------maybe
Player 4 .318 BA 2304 Hits 207 HR 1085 RBI-----yes
Player 5 .262 BA 2584 Hits 1702 RBI-------yes
Player 6 .265 BA 2111 Hits 398 HR 1366 RBI-------maybe
Player 7 124-107 3.01 ERA 310 Saves-------yes
Player 8 .279 BA 2774 Hits 438 HR 1591 RBI-----yes
Player 9 .297 BA 1778 Hits 148 HR 999 RBI-------no
Player 10 .273 BA 1588 Hits 38 HR 562 RBI-------no

Answer 3

It also depends what position and era they played. A 1B playing in the 90's and 00's hitting 300 HR is no big deal. A SS playing in the 60's and 70's hitting 300 HR is a Hall of Famer. I'm going to assume everyone is an outfielder or a pitcher during the last 30 years to be fair.

Player 1 - Any K's? Great ERA and record. Yes.
Player 2 - No.
Player 3 - I really need K's for these pitchers. No. But close.
Player 4 - No.
Player 5 - No. Close.
Player 6 - No.
Player 7 - Interesting career. Very Smoltz-like. Yes.
Player 8 - No. But close.
Player 9 - No.
Player 10 - No.

Again, we need A LOT more information than that to determine whether someone is a hall of famer. Are these real guys? I probably just said Orlando Cepeda doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame or something.

Answer 4

Player 1: No
Player 2: No
Player 3: No
Player 4: No
Player 5: No
Player 6: No
Player 7: Yes
Player 8: Yes
Player 9: No
Player 10: No

It's a lot harder than that though. You have to look at seasonal averages. If you look at Pujols' stats right now, he's an iffy HoF'er, but when you look at his averages per season, you would say, yeah that's HoF right there.

Answer 5

I don't think stats alone are sufficient. one must factor in the era in which someone played. a 3.00 ERA is very impressive today, but that was not the case 80 years ago. The same is true with 300 HRs, or 20 in consecutive seasons. It is all relative.

Answer 6

Insufficient information - you don't tell how long they played, what position they played, or what era they played in. All that is significant in determining a player's worth. (Player 1 appears to be Koufax, but that's the only one I can immediately recognize from just looking at those limited stats.)

Answer 7

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. Yes
8. Yes
9. No
10. No

Answer 8

1. No
2. No
3. Yes
4. No
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Yes
8. Yes
9.No
10. No

Answer 9

1. no Koufax
2. no Mattingly
3. yes Hunter
4. yes Puckett
5. yes Jackson
6. no Murphy
7. yes Gossage
8. yes, most deserving Dawson
9. definitely no ???
10. no Rizzuto

Dawson should have been in the HOF a looooooooong time ago

Answer 10

1-No
2- close but id say no
3-No
4- again close but again no
5-Yes
6-No
7-Goose Gossage lol and yes
8-close once again and no
9-No way
10-No way

put more stats up for better results