Lucky Hall of Famer Number 67 - Ford Frick

Ford Christopher Frick served as NL president from 1934-1951 and as commissioner from 1951-1965. He was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1970, but I do not believe he deserves the honor. 

    Frick was fairly unpopular both as league president and as commissioner, playing a central role in several controversies. His most unpopular decision was known as "the Asterisk," when in 1961, he requested record-keepers to list Roger Maris's new single-season home run record alongside Babe Ruth's old 154-game mark, instead of acknowledging Maris as the true record holder. Regardless of Frick's intentions, after all the pressure and abuse Maris withstood in chasing the record, the Asterisk was a slap in the face. Frick, a friend of Ruth's, seemed to let favoritism sway some of his decisions, as he was also continually accused of favoring the National League in his rulings as commissioner. 

    Frick's greatest contribution to baseball was his role in founding the Hall of Fame. However, Frick was not the only one who founded the museum, and he wasn't even the one who had the idea (that would be Stephen C. Clark). Considering the many controversies he brought upon the game as an executive, I do not believe it is enough to merit his induction. 

My opinion: Ford Frick is not a Hall of Famer. 

Lucky Hall of Famer Number 66 - Bowie Kuhn

Bowie Kuhn was the Commissioner of Baseball from 1969 through 1984 and was elected to the Hall of Fame in 2007. As I wrote in December of 2022, most commissioners do not deserve a spot in the Hall, but Kuhn was especially dubious. 

    During his time as commissioner, baseball underwent a period of great turmoil. The first-ever player strike occurred in 1972 and the umpires struck in 1979. In 1981, the season was torn apart by the worst player strike in history to that point. Over Kuhn's 16 seasons as commissioner, MLB was faced by no less than eight work stoppages of varying significance. 

    Other than the changes to the reserve clause during his tenure, on which I have no comment, Kuhn's most controversial decision as commissioner was to ban Hall of Famers Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle from baseball due to their employment at casinos. However, neither Mays nor Mantle promoted sports betting, much less betting on baseball, but worked as greeters and autograph signers. While Kuhn meant to disassociate from any kind of gambling "in the best interests of the game," banning two of the most famous players in history wasn't exactly in the game's best interest. The bans were lifted almost immediately by Kuhn's successor Peter Ueberroth in 1985. 

One last note: Kuhn's Hall of Fame plaque mentions that he tripled MLB attendance. As a matter of fact, even with the expansion of the league, attendance did not come close to tripling between 1968 and 1985. 

My opinion: Bowie Kuhn is not a Hall of Famer. 

Lucky Hall of Famer Number 65 - Dave Parker

My first official backtrack in article form on this blog, I previously advocated for Dave Parker in 2021, prior to his election in 2024. Since then, I have become more of a small-Hall guy, and after reevaluating his career, I have changed my mind about his case. He was a very good player, but short of the Hall's standards. 

    A seven-time all-star, two-time Batting Champion, and 1978 NL MVP, Parker was an imposing figure on the diamond, standing 6'5" and weighing a robust 230 pounds. He hit over 20 home runs in nine different seasons and drove in as many as 125 runs in 1985. All told, Parker hit 339 home runs and collected 2,712 hits while batting .290 over a 19-year career. 

    Despite beefy counting statistics and a few great individual seasons, Parker wasn't consistently one of the game's greatest players. While he was certainly one of the best for a five-year stretch in the late 1970's, he was merely average for the rest of his career, except for two strong seasons in 1985 and 1986. His .290 / .339 / .471 slash line was good, but a little weak for a Hall of Fame rightfielder who didn't reach 500 home runs or 3,000 hits. And despite winning three Gold Gloves, he was a mediocre fielder, leading his league in errors seven times. He also played 484 games as a DH, which allowed him to play past age 40 and compile his counting statistics while providing little value to his club. 

My opinion: Dave Parker is probably not a Hall of Famer. 

Lucky Hall of Famer Number 64 - Tom Yawkey

Tom Yawkey was the owner of the Boston Red Sox from 1933 until his death in 1976. He also served as the AL Vice President from 1956 through 1973. Yawkey was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1980, but I don't exactly understand why. 

    While Yawkey was a longtime executive in baseball, he didn't bring much success to the game. His Hall of Fame plaque mentions that his team was the first to travel by plane, but that was about the extent of Yawkey's impact. In his 44 seasons with the Red Sox, they only won three pennants and no World Series, so he couldn't have been elected for his club's success. He seems to only be in the Hall for having a long career, not for any particularly important accomplishments. In my opinion, a long career is not enough to merit induction on its own. 

    Despite being in the Hall of Fame, Yawkey's name has often been mentioned with distaste. The Red Sox were the last existing MLB team to integrate, not fielding their first black player until 1959. Whatever the reason may be, the ensuing controversy didn't exactly help Yawkey's image, and it doesn't make me more inclined to support his already weak Hall of Fame case. 

My opinion: Tom Yawkey is not a Hall of Famer. 

Lucky Hall of Famer Number 63 - Carlos Beltran (And a Word on the Sign-Stealing Scandal)

    The BBWAA's official voting criteria states that "[v]oting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." Using this as our guideline, I am willing to make the bold assertion Beltran's election to the Hall is unwarranted. 
    There is little doubting Beltran's record, but due to his involvement in the Houston Astros' infamous sign-stealing scandal, every other criterion (including playing ability) comes into question. Astros players and certain staff members would use the centerfield camera to pick up the opposing catcher's signs, decipher them with a computer monitor, and relay the signs to the batter using a series of signals, including banging on a trash can. Per the commissioner's report, this was in clear violation of MLB policy, and it resulted in a massive scandal when it came to light. For what it's worth, in what seems to have been a largely player-driven scheme, Beltran was the only player mentioned by name in the report. 
    By cheating to gain an advantage, not only did Beltran break the rules, but in my mind he forfeited all right to benefit from the integrity, sportsmanship, and character criteria, and I would be hard-pressed to find anyone making a convincing argument to the contrary. As for his playing ability, he could have benefited from similar schemes across his entire career. According to another source, he was the one who told the Astros that their sign-stealing tactics were "behind the times," conceivably suggesting that he had previous experience with sign-stealing methods of this kind, and had been using them before he even arrived in Houston. However this contributed to his overall record, it is difficult to consider his statistics untainted, and it is possible that they would be considerably worse had he never illegally stolen signs. As for contributions to the team(s) on which he played, Beltran's time with Houston brought them one championship (albeit a tainted one), but it also brought the club massive scandal, cost them draft picks, incurred the largest fine allowable by MLB, and incited opposing pitchers to relentlessly pelt Astros batters with pitches after the story broke. The infamy around his name was enough to cost him a managing job with the New York Mets in 2020. 
    The Hall of Fame is supposed to honor baseball's all-time greats who made a positive impact on the sport, including through excellent play. While Beltran's career accomplishments are comparable to those of many players in the Hall of Fame, I cannot confidently say that he had a positive impact on the sport. He brought upon the game one of the greatest scandals in its history, and through his role in the cheating, which affected championships and ruined careers, I consider him a disgrace to the game and unworthy to be immortalized in Cooperstown, where fans from every generation might look on his plaque with admiration. Any other player who had a role in the scandal, particularly a leadership role, is equally disgraceful to our National Pastime. The fact that the Hall would induct players who harmed the game so much is frankly disgusting to me. 

My opinion: Carlos Beltran does not deserve his Hall of Fame plaque. 

Lucky Hall of Famer Number 62 - Jim Leyland

I've complained about Leyland before, and with good reason. His career winning percentage of .506 is way too low to be considered Hall-worthy. Unless there is something remarkable to offset such a winning percentage, such as a considerable impact on baseball history or a plethora of World Championships, it simply isn't a number that should earn a manager a place among baseball's all-time greats. With 1,769 wins, three pennants, and one World Championship, I don't think Leyland did enough to make up for it. 

    Don't get me wrong - Leyland had his moments as a manager, but I don't think his results are enough to merit induction. I love the guy, but there's no way he's a Hall of Famer. 

My opinion: Jim Leyland is not a Hall of Famer. 

Lucky Hall of Famer Number 61 - Bid McPhee

Bid McPhee played second base for the Cincinnati franchise (later the Reds) in both the American Association and the National League from 1882 through 1899. A defensive wizard, McPhee was the last professional player not to wear a glove in the field, holding out until 1897. A quiet and unimposing man, McPhee was forgotten for over a century before the Veterans Committee inducted him into the Hall of Fame in 2000. 

    While McPhee was a truly stellar defender, his offense leaves a lot to be desired. His slash line was a fairly modest .272 / .355 / .373, good for an OPS+ of 107. While this number is usually no detriment for a second baseman, it is important to realize that second base was an offensive position until around 1920. Once the live-ball era kicked in and bunts became a smaller part of the game, first base became an offensive position and second base a defensive one. 

    In addition, McPhee played the first eight years of his career in the American Association, which is typically considered inferior to the National League. He led the AA once in triples and once in home runs, but never led the NL in any offensive categories. 

My opinion: Bid McPhee is probably not a Hall of Famer. 

Lucky Hall of Famer Number 60 - Larry Doby

It's hard to call any player from the Negro Leagues lucky. Despite Jackie Robinson having broken the color barrier before him, Doby still experienced his share of bigotry as the first black player in American League history in 1947. However, based on his baseball record alone, Doby can be considered lucky to have been chosen for the Hall of Fame. 

    While Major League Baseball declared the Negro Leagues Major Leagues in December of 2020, the quality of Negro League play is certainly questionable, and their records are very spotty. While Negro League statistics should not be ignored, they need to be taken with a grain of salt. 

    Even if we add Doby's existing Negro League numbers to his MLB totals, he nonetheless comes up short as a Hall of Fame candidate, in my opinion. His counting stats are still quite thin for an outfielder (1,697 hits, 1,080 runs, 1,099 RBI's) and he was finished at age 35. Considering Doby's high OPS+ and his historical significance as the first black player in the AL, I can live with his selection, but he is far from an ideal candidate. 

My opinion: Larry Doby is probably not a Hall of Famer. 

Lucky Hall of Famer Number 59 - Hal Newhouser

Hal Newhouser pitched for the Detroit Tigers and Cleveland Indians from 1939 through 1955. A six-time all-star, two-time MVP, and four-time 20-game winner, Newhouser finished with 207 wins and a 3.06 career ERA. He was inducted into the Hall of Fame by the Veterans Committee in 1992. 

    Despite the accolades he earned, I believe Newhouser's career was a little short of the Hall's standards. Both of his MVP Awards (including his 1945 Triple Crown) came in the midst of World War II, when many of baseball's best players were serving overseas and inferior players were brought up to replace them. While these seasons are still valid, they need to be properly contextualized, which makes them appear more impressive at face value than they really were. Newhouser did have a spectacular season in 1946 (league-leading 26 wins and 1.94 ERA), but afterward lost effectiveness due to arm trouble. 

    Overall, while he was a fine pitcher, I think Newhouser's career lacks the volume required for the Hall of Fame. Due to his injuries, he was mostly finished by age 30, and he retired at 33 with fewer than 3,000 career innings. He struggled to gain traction with the BBWAA, but found luck with the VC. 

My opinion: Hal Newhouser is probably not a Hall of Famer. 

Lucky Hall of Famer Number 58 - Dave Bancroft

A National League shortstop whose career spanned from 1915 through 1930, Dave Bancroft was a successful player in his day, winning two World Series with the New York Giants in 1921 and 1922. He was best known for his defense, leading NL shortstops in fielding twice, putouts four times, assists three times, and double plays three times. A career .279 hitter, Bancroft tallied 2,004 hits over his career. 

    Overall, Bancroft has a rather weak case for the Hall of Fame. His bat was mediocre (98 OPS+), and while he was a strong fielder at an important defensive position, he was inferior to the other defense-first shortstops in the Hall, such as Ozzie Smith, Luis Aparicio, and contemporary Rabbit Maranville (who I also consider a lucky Hall of Famer). In addition, he was often caught stealing, batted .172 in four World Series, and played fewer than 2,000 career games, leaving him with rather weak counting stats (including 591 RBI's). In my opinion, his career seems to be lacking the necessary credentials set forth by the Hall. 

    While he was a very good player, most people did not consider Bancroft a Hall of Famer until decades after his career ended. While he never surpassed 16.2% of the vote on any of his first 15 Hall of Fame ballots, he was inducted by the Veterans Committee in 1971, spearheaded by former teammates Bill Terry and Frankie Frisch, who gained infamy in the 1970's by inducting many former teammates whose careers were clearly undeserving. As part of that trend, Bancroft is very lucky to be in the Hall of Fame. 

My opinion: Dave Bancroft is not a Hall of Famer. 

Lucky Hall of Famer Number 57 - Edd Roush

Edd Roush was a Major League centerfielder from 1913 through 1931, most notably with the Reds and the Giants. A two-time batting champion and lifetime .323 hitter, Roush was known as a strong defender and had the unusual ability to make outfield throws with both arms. He was elected to the Hall of Fame by the Veterans Committee in 1962. 

    While Roush was a fine player, in my opinion he falls a little short of the Hall's standards. Other than his two Batting Titles, he rarely topped his league in offense, leading once each in doubles, triples, and slugging percentage. He also played fewer than 2,000 career games, leaving his overall counting stats a little thin. In addition, Roush was frequently caught stealing, cutting heavily into his baserunning value. While his defense was very good and his 126 OPS+ is solid, they don't stand out enough to make up for his lack of volume. 

My opinion: Edd Roush is probably not a Hall of Famer. 

Lucky Hall Of Famer Number 56 - Kiki Cuyler

Kiki Cuyler was a Major League outfielder from 1921 through 1938, putting in his best work with the Pirates and the Cubs. A career .321 hitter known for his speed, Cuyler led the NL four times in stolen bases and twice in runs scored. He was elected to the Hall of Fame by the Veterans Committee in 1968. 

    While Cuyler was a fine player and a key contributor to some good teams, he was not an ideal choice for the Hall of Fame. While his .321 batting average looks shiny, it has to be taken with a grain of salt considering the era in which he played: for example, in 1930 (Cuyler's best season on paper), the entire National League maintained a batting average of .303, demonstrating a general boom in offense that needs to be accounted for. Even in a more statistically-balanced era, Cuyler's career totals would be a little thin for a Hall of Fame outfielder, as he compiled 2,299 career hits, 128 home runs, and 1,065 RBI's, strong numbers but below the Hall of Fame average. While the Hall has certainly made worse selections, Cuyler missed out on his chance with the BBWAA and was scooped up by the VC, certainly making him a lucky Hall of Famer. 

My opinion: Kiki Cuyler wasn't an egregious Hall of Fame selection, but he is definitely near the weaker end.

Lucky Hall Of Famer Number 55 - Edgar Martinez (And A Word On Designated Hitters In The Hall Of Fame)

Edgar Martinez, one of the most hotly debated Hall of Fame candidates in recent years, made it to Cooperstown in 2019, earning 85.4% of the vote on his final BBWAA ballot. Primarily a designated hitter, he was a seven time all-star and two time batting champion. Shortly after his retirement, the Outstanding Designated Hitter Award, which he won five times, was renamed the Edgar Martinez Award. Despite all the accolades and awards he earned, I have some doubts about his Hall of Fame case. Let's look at them in detail. 

    Career long Seattle Mariner Edgar Martinez made his MLB debut in 1987, hitting .372 in 13 games. He was up and down for the next several years, finally securing the Mariners' third base job in 1990 at age 27. Martinez hit his stride in 1992, leading the AL in batting (.343) and doubles (46) en route to a Silver Slugger, the only one of his career at third base. However, his 1993 season was derailed due to injuries (.237 average in 42 games), and he only played 89 games in 1994. At this point in his career, it seemed like there would be almost no chance for him to make the Hall of Fame, except for one thing - the designated hitter. 

    Now I personally am no fan of the DH, a "position" likely introduced to artificially extend the careers of aging stars. It is unnatural (baseball was designed for each fielder to bat, which is the reason why there are nine guys in a lineup) and, quite simply, never should have existed. While this opinion falls far into the minority, especially among modern fans and Hall of Fame voters, there are two other things to consider when evaluating designated hitters: (1), not playing defense severely cuts into a player's value; and (2), it is very easy to focus on hitting without the responsibility of fielding a defensive position. To the second point, Martinez hit well as a third baseman (.302 / .391 / .459, 2.7 HR%), but he really took off as a DH (.314 / .428 / .532, 4.8 HR%). As a third baseman, he never would have made the Hall of Fame. Thanks to the designated hitter, and to the designated hitter only, Martinez is in the Hall of Fame today. Since the DH didn't even exist prior to 1973, and then only in the AL until 2022, Martinez's selection to the Hall is really an accident of place and time. 

    What about the other Hall of Famers who played a significant portion of their careers from the DH slot? What do I think about Paul Molitor, Harold Baines, Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, and David Ortiz for the Hall of Fame? 

    I have already written about Baines, one of the Hall's worst selections. 

    Molitor played 1,174 games at DH and 1,490 in the field, spread out over multiple key positions (including 792 at third base, 400 at second base, and 57 at shortstop). Unlike the others, Molitor was a fine defender at each position. Additionally, he played 976 of those 1,174 games at DH from his age-34 season onward, and his production was not extravagantly boosted (.299 / .361 / .437 before age 34; .316 / .380 / .462 afterward). In all, Molitor collected 3,319 hits and 1,782 runs scored. He's a Hall of Famer. 

    Thomas played 971 games at first base across his career and 1,310 as a DH. Although he was a below average defensive first baseman, he actually hit far better when playing defense than as a designated hitter (.337 / .453 / .625 at first base; .275 / .394 / .505 as DH). In all, Thomas hit 521 home runs. He's a Hall of Famer. 

    Thome played 1,106 games at first base, 492 at third base, and 818 as a DH across his career. Most of his starts at DH came in his age-35 season onward, and by then he'd already established himself as a likely future Hall of Famer. With 612 home runs and a .276 / .402 / .554 slash line, it's hard to say no to Thome. 

    Ortiz is a tough one. He played more games at DH than anyone else (2,027; as opposed to 273 games on defense), and was greatly aided by spending his entire career in Fenway Park. His basic batting numbers are there, and he passed the 500 homer milestone in his next to last season, but half of Ortiz's game was simply nonexistent. He almost never played defense, and when he did, he was awful. Given his postseason exploits, outstanding final season, and impact on baseball in Boston, I'm fine with him in Cooperstown, but he is not an ideal Hall of Famer. 

Name             %Def*  AVG / OBP / SLG             R        H         HR    RBI    SB 

Paul Molitor     .559   .306 / .369 / .448        1,782  3,319   234   1,307  504 

Harold Baines  .390   .289 / .356 / .465        1,299  2,866    384    1,628  34 

Edgar Martinez .275   .312 / .418 / .515       1,219  2,247    309    1,261  49 

Frank Thomas   .430  .301 / .419 / .555        1,494  2,468    521    1,704  32 

Jim Thome        .650  .276 / .402 / .554        1,583  2,328    612    1,699  19 

David Ortiz       .111   .286 / .380 / .552        1,419  2,472    541    1,768  17 

*percent of career plate appearances taken while playing a defensive position 

My opinion: A designated hitter needs to be GREAT, or convince me that he could have been a Hall of Famer without relying on the DH, before he gets my vote for the Hall of Fame. 

Lucky Hall Of Famer Number 54 - Lou Brock (And a Word On the Traditional Hall Of Fame Benchmarks)

Throughout the history of the Hall of Fame, certain milestones have been considered enough for near-automatic induction. Other than the ineligible Pete Rose, until Bonds and Clemens made their debut on the BBWAA ballot in 2013, no player in history who had at least 3,000 hits, 500 home runs, 300 wins, or 3,000 strikeouts had ever been excluded from Cooperstown (although not all were first ballot selections). While Bonds, Clemens, and other steroid users have been excluded so far, the trend has continued even with clean players, such as Fred McGriff (who was inducted by the Veteran's Committee), Curt Schilling (who has been canceled by the liberal media), and now Gary Sheffield. Though the milestones are not a voting rule by any means, a longstanding baseball tradition is crumbling by ignoring them. Other than Rose and the steroid users, I think each player who has reached one of those milestones is deserving of his plaque in Cooperstown, as they are truly impressive achievements. Well, maybe not all of them deserve their plaques. Enter Lou Brock. 

    The heir to Stan Musial as the St. Louis Cardinals' leftfielder, Brock was one of the flashiest players of his era. An eight time leader in stolen bases, Brock set both the single season and career records for steals, both eventually falling to Rickey Henderson. Brock was also a World Series hero, batting .391 with 14 steals in three Series, taking home two rings. He collected his 3,000th hit in his final season, 1979. 

    While I hesitate to call Brock a lucky Hall of Famer because of his hit total, his Hall of Fame case has some serious drawbacks. Brock's signature talent was his stolen base prowess, which led to 938 thefts over his 19 year career. What voters failed to realize was that Brock was gunned down 307 times, second on the all-time list behind Rickey Henderson, who stole over 400 more bases. While Rickey had an 81% success rate, Brock only succeeded 75% of the time, meaning that, despite the hype, he actually provided little value on stolen base attempts. While Brock was an eight time stolen base champion, he also led the league in caught stealing seven times. 

    The other phases of Brock's game do not help his case for Cooperstown, either. At bat, he slashed .293 / .343 / .410, good for an OPS+ of 109, an extremely low number for a Hall of Fame leftfielder. He didn't walk much for a leadoff man, and although he wasn't a power hitter, he still managed to strike out 1,730 times (second on the all-time list at the time of his retirement), further convincing me that he was a weak hitter. On the defensive side, Brock had the range to get to the ball, but had a bad reputation as a fielder because he simply dropped a lot of fly balls. Over his career, Brock had a woeful .959 fielding percentage, leading the league in errors seven times. And outfielders' errors are typically more costly than infielders' errors, often counting for two bases instead of one. 

    Overall, it seems as though Brock wasn't really that good at anything. He wasn't an amazing hitter, he was a bad fielder, and his baserunning was less valuable than advertised. On the traditional five tool test for position players, Brock scores a lowly two (hitting for average, yes; speed / baserunning, yes; hitting for power, no; fielding, no; throwing, no). Yet he sailed into Cooperstown on his first ballot. 

    Brock was a decent player, fortunate enough to play for 19 years and compile some impressive counting statistics, such as 3,023 hits and 1,610 runs scored. He is also somewhat historically significant for his briefly held stolen base records. However, he is not an ideal Hall of Famer. Of all the players in Cooperstown who had either 3,000 hits, 500 homers, 300 wins, or 3,000 strikeouts, each is deserving of his plaque... except Brock. 

My opinion: The traditional Hall of Fame benchmarks are very strong indications that a player is Hall-worthy, but there can be exceptions, such as Brock. 

Lucky Hall Of Famer Number 53 - Orlando Cepeda

When he was first coming up, Orlando Cepeda was one of the most exciting young players in baseball. A highly touted prospect, he was the NL's unanimous Rookie of the Year in 1958. He first became an all-star in 1959, and led the league in homers and RBI's in 1961. One of the most popular players in the game, he took home NL MVP honors in 1967 and was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1999 by the Veterans Committee. 

    Although his basic batting numbers look impressive (.297 / .350 / .499, 379 homers, 1,365 RBI's), Cepeda was not an ideal Hall of Famer and, in fact, a bit overrated. While most voters prefer simplistic batting stats, they rarely take into account things like defense and baserunning. Cepeda was a poor fielder, whether at first base or in the outfield, and was a lackluster baserunner. He did a lot of other little things wrong, too - for example, he didn't walk much for a power hitter, grounded into a lot of double plays, and batted .171 in three World Series. An "old 30," Cepeda had only one big year after he turned 30, when he hit .305 with 34 homers in 1970. 

    Cepeda was the unanimous choice for the MVP Award in 1967, more for popularity than merit. He had a nice season (.325 / .399 / .524, 25 homers, 111 RBI's), but hardly his best. Certainly Roberto Clemente, who hit 32 points higher and was miles ahead both defensively and on the bases, would have been a better pick. Cepeda wound up with 280 vote points and the award, while Clemente finished third with 129 vote points. 

    Although he was very popular and his basic batting numbers seem convincing, Cepeda was aged off the BBWAA ballot in 1994 and relied on the Veterans Committee for induction. The reason for this is, a few years after his retirement from baseball, he served a ten month jail sentence for drug possession. This put a huge damper on his reputation, and he struggled with the BBWAA until the VC came to his rescue. 

    Personally, I would not vote for someone who was imprisoned for breaking the law. While I admit that not everyone in Cooperstown was the embodiment of Christian virtue (nobody's perfect), there is a hard line between being an unpleasant person and actually being a convicted felon. While it is impossible for us to judge someone's mind or soul (nor should we try), it is possible to judge someone's actions, and Cepeda was found guilty of a crime and served jail time. That, and his already marginal career as a player, is enough for me to exclude Cepeda from my ballot. 

    Just a small tangent: Isn't it absurd that Joe Jackson, who was found not guilty on trial for helping throw the 1919 World Series, was banned from baseball for life, while Cepeda, who served jail time, is in the Hall of Fame? 

https://thecooperstownadvocate.blogspot.com/2022/12/two-black-sox.html 

My opinion: Orlando Cepeda is not a Hall of Famer. 

Lucky Hall Of Famer Number 52 - Bruce Sutter

As I wrote in May of 2022, I am not sure if any closers belong in Cooperstown. A closer's role is extremely limited, making it hard to ascertain his true value to his club. What's worse, saves, more or less the defining statistic of closers these days, are pretty arbitrary and don't mean much on their own, making closers even trickier to evaluate. Up until now, I've been pretty lax about criticizing the closers already in the Hall of Fame, but I think it's time to pick on the bottom of the barrel among enshrined closers - Bruce Sutter. 

    Bruce Sutter made his MLB debut with the Cubs in 1976, pitching to a 2.70 ERA in 52 appearances. The next year, he lowered it to 1.34 (with 31 saves) en route to seventh place finish in the MVP Award voting. Sutter continued to shine for the next several years, with the pinnacle of his career coming with the Cardinals in 1982, when he finished off the World Series against the Milwaukee Brewers (an AL team back then). Sutter had a hiccup in 1983 (4.23 ERA), but was back to form in 1984, posting a 1.54 ERA and a setting a new MLB record with 45 saves. This season earned him a six year, $4.8 million contract with the Braves, plus another $4.8 million into a deferred payment account at 13% interest, making him the highest paid player in the game. However, Sutter's career started to crumble from there, as he stumbled to a 4.48 ERA in his first season in Atlanta. Injuries cost him most of 1986 and all of 1987, and when he returned in 1988, he was ineffective. Another injury triggered his release on November 15, 1989. 

    When evaluating Sutter's career, I don't see a lot to love. He pitched twelve seasons in the Majors, and was below average in four of them. Injuries greatly affected his career, and things started coming off the rails right after signing his lucrative deal, making him more of a liability to his club than an asset. At his core, Sutter was an effective pitcher, but in a very limited sample size (1,042 career innings), which makes me doubt his true value. If the Hall wants to induct a closer with so few innings, I'd expect him to have far better rate stats than Sutter's 2.83 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, and 20.3% K rate. 

My opinion: Bruce Sutter is not a Hall of Famer. 

Lucky Hall Of Famer Number 51 - Pie Traynor

Harold Joseph "Pie" Traynor was generally regarded as the dominant third baseman of his day, with some considering him the greatest of all time at the position until Brooks Robinson came into prominence. Traynor, a polite man and a leader on the Pirates back in his day, was a very good player, but quite overrated. In fact, a case can be made that he shouldn't even be in the Hall of Fame. Let us examine his career more closely, and see just how good Traynor was. 

    Traynor was a Pirate for the entirety of his career (1920-1937), and was the most popular Pirate of his generation. While the Waner brothers were also local stars, they were often crass and impatient with fans, often unavailable to do small favors for them, like sign autographs. Traynor, on the other hand, was much more friendly toward the fans, often greeting them with a smile and an x. Generally regarded as the leader of the club, he led the team to two pennants, including a World Championship in 1925. He eventually took over as player-manager in 1934, piloting the club through 1939. As beloved for his nickname as for his play, Traynor often awed fans with clutch hits or acrobatic plays at the hot corner. Traynor was widely regarded as the best fielding third baseman of his generation, and his good reputation helped propel him to Cooperstown in 1948. 

    When taking a closer look at his numbers, however, Pie doesn't seem like one of the greatest players of his era. While he batted .320 for his career and had seven 100-RBI seasons, these numbers are only superficially impressive, largely the product of time and place; for what it's worth, he never finished higher than fifth in batting and only once finished in the top three in RBI's. His best season, statistically, was 1930 (.366 / .423 / .509, 119 RBI's), the year the entire National League batted .303. While Traynor's stats look impressive on paper, they need to be contextualized. 

    As for his defense, there are a lot of mixed reviews on how good a fielder Traynor actually was. Originally a shortstop, he was moved to third base in the minors. While his range was good, and he made many difficult looking plays ("A hitter doubled down the line and Pie Traynor threw him out"), Traynor's fielding percentage was merely average, and he led NL third basemen in errors five times. His arm was particularly wild; as contemporary second baseman Billy Herman once said, "You'd hit a shot at him, a play he could take his time on, and he'd catch it and throw it right quick, so that if his peg was wild, the first baseman had time to get off the bag, take the throw, and get back on again. It was the only way Traynor could throw; if he took his time, he was really wild." The numbers seem to back up Herman's claim; Traynor led the league in throwing errors three times between 1930 and 1933, the first years for which such error-type breakdowns are available. As I wrote in October 2021, throwing errors are more costly than fielding errors, often leading to -1 out and +2 bases for the opposing team instead of -1 out and +1 base. While Traynor had some good defensive tools, his throwing was often a liability, and overall he was not the defender that a lot of his advocates like to say he was. 

My opinion: Pie Traynor is probably not a Hall of Famer. 

Lucky Hall Of Famer Number 50 - Tony Lazzeri

Tony Lazzeri was the second baseman for the dominant Yankees teams of the 1920's. Long a polarizing Hall of Fame candidate, he was eventually inducted into the Hall of Fame by the Veterans Committee in 1991. However, he was likely inducted into Cooperstown more for his fame than his playing ability. Let's examine his case. 

    Lazzeri had a very good career, but was hardly a Hall of Famer. He was a good hitter (.292 / .380 / .467 slash line, 178 homers), but was rarely among the league leaders in offense. In fact, the only offensive category he ever led in was strikeouts, with 96 in 1926. Lazzeri's had seven seasons with over 100 RBI's, which seems impressive, especially for a second baseman, but they too are a product of place and time. Lazzeri usually hit fifth or sixth in the Yankee batting order, with guys like Ruth and Gehrig constantly on base in front of him, so he always had a lot of opportunities to drive them in. In the field, Lazzeri was an indifferent defender, as he led the league in errors three times and had below average range. Finally, his career was short for a Hall of Famer (only twelve years as a regular), leaving his overall counting stats a bit low. 

My opinion: Tony Lazzeri is not a Hall of Famer.  

Lucky Hall Of Famer Number 49 - Earle Combs

Earle Combs was the centerfielder and leadoff hitter for the Yankees' famous Murderer's Row lineup in the 1920's. While he was a solid contributor to the most dominant team in history, he was probably overrated. Combs was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1970 by the Veterans Committee, a selection that is not without its critics. Let's look a bit deeper into his case. 

    On the surface, Combs looks like a pretty good candidate. He batted .325 for his career and scored over 110 runs eight seasons in a row. He helped the Yankees to four World Series (three championships), hitting .350 in World Series play. However, while Combs's .325 average is flashy, he never finished higher than sixth in the AL batting race. Likewise, his other gaudy-looking stats are degraded by the high offense era in which he played, as he was rarely among the league leaders in offense. Sure Combs scored a ton of runs, but they are largely the product of hitting leadoff for the Yankees back then, as the lineup had a ton of guys who could knock him in with one swing. It's not too hard to score when you have Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and company hitting behind you. Finally, Combs's career was too short - only twelve seasons (1,455 games). Anyone with a career that short needs something special to offset his lack of longevity. Combs, with his good but not great offense, is found lacking. 

"I thought the Hall of Fame was for superstars, not just average players like me." - Earle Combs 

My opinion: Earle Combs is not a Hall of Famer. 

Lucky Hall Of Famer Number 48 - George Kell

George Kell was a Major League third baseman from 1943 through 1957, most notably with the Detroit Tigers. One of the best contact hitters of his day, he finished up with a lifetime batting average of .306. Kell was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1983 by the Veterans Committee. Since then, his selection has received much criticism. Let's see why. 

    Kell was brought up early during World War II and struggled as a rookie, batting .268 and grounding into a Major League high 28 double plays. He did a little better in 1945 but had a breakthrough season in 1946, batting .322 and starting a streak of eight consecutive .300 seasons. Kell captured a Batting Title in 1949, hitting .343 to deprive Ted Williams of a third Triple Crown, and in 1950, he became the last player until 1985 to drive in 100 runs in a season with fewer than 10 home runs. Kell slipped to .276 in 1954 but had one more .300 season left, hitting .312 in 1955 for the White Sox. He played two more seasons after this, hanging up his spikes in 1957 at the age of 35. 

    Although he received many accolades during his career, Kell was probably overrated. His batting averages were always flashy, and he once hit 56 doubles in a season, but he didn't walk very much, wasn't a good runner, and didn't hit for power. Only once did he score 100 runs in a season, and only once did he knock in 100 (both in 1950). Kell wasn't really a compiler, either. He only played fourteen full seasons, collecting 2,054 hits, 880 runs scored, and 870 RBI's - good numbers but very modest in the context of the Hall of Fame. His defense was definitely good, but not enough to push him over the top. 

My opinion: George Kell is not a Hall of Famer.