Hall of Fame Win Shares

Wow, this certainly suggests that Sandberg was not a borderline candidate, which several sportswriters have suggested. Also, since the repl levels in the WSh format are so different for pitchers and non-pitchers, these 2 categories should really be separate. Otherwise, you are comparing apples to oranges. Also, it would have been interesting to see a couple of breakdowns of this list, say electees from 1984-present vs pre-1984, and BBWAA selections vs vet comitee selections.

Nice work.  I’m also suprised by Sandberg’s total. 

In addition, to the great recommendations David made, I’d also like to see a list of the other eligible candidates and their career WSh totals.  I suppose I could wait until I got home this evening and look it up, but I want it NOW, darn it!

I was surprised that Honus Wagner appears in you list as voted to the HOF by the Veterans Committee.  Wasn’t Wagner one of the original group voted in by the BBWAA?  The HOF’s web site lists him as BBWAA elected. 

Thanks, birtelcom.  That must be a problem in the Lahman database.  I’ll let them know.

Sandberg and Boggs were deserving.  The big crime is Blyleven’s omission and low vote, just look at the stats and his WS.  Sutter is also deserving because of his historical impact as the inventor of the splitter variant on the forkball and his role, along with Eck, in the definition of the modern bullpen with closer. Gossage is much more marginal because he was only dominant in a few years and has no historical relevance.  Regarding other hall members with low WS scores, some of this is the lower standards during early voting years.  But some of it is other legitimate factors.  Eg, Schoendienst was a successful manager and coach; Dean and Marichal were incandescent, Hunter and Fingers dominated in playoffs that are not counted in WS, Koufax and Campinella’s dominance was unfairly interrupted, and Maz is arguably the best fielder in history (just compare his GDPs vs his peer group against Ozzie’s vs his peer group).

I agree that Wiin Shares aren’t the only criteria to use for HOF selection.  But your comments raise a few questions:

- Why should Sutter receive credit for “inventing” his role.  Shouldn’t Herman Franks get credit for that?  And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, he didn’t invent the splitter.  Maybe he was the first one to use it to full effect, but why should that qualify him for the Hall, other than how it impacts his career totals.

- Same thing with Eck—why not credit LaRussa?—though I believe Eck belongs in the Hall based on his total career.

- Fielding Win Shares are included in total Win Shares.  Your comment about Maz would indicate that you don’t think they give him enough credit.  Is that right?

- How much credit should be given to players who had the chance to shine in the playoffs?  I agree that some should be given, but isn’t there a fairness issue?  If a very good player played for a .500 team all his career, how much should that be held against him?

And I don’t see how you can say Gossage was only dominant in a few years.  The man was great for over a decade.  From 1975 through 1985 he only had one less-than-stellar year. 

I take only one issue with some of the above posts, the criteria for entrance into the HOF is career performance.  In some eyes, that can be stellar defensive performance, extraordinary peak years, long career and playoff performance, and the like.  It should not include one shot items like the invention of a pitch or a single play in the playoffs.  Those images and creations are memorialized in the HOF in separate displays and showcases.  Certainly, a display on the art of pitching should include the splitter, and I’d imagine that Bruce Sutter should be given all due credit, but if the balance of his stats do not merit entry (this is not an opinion on his merits), then he shouldn’t be inducted.  Likewise, a stellar play or seminal hit in the playoffs will be recorded in the HOF and often on display, but induction should be reserved for the fewer transcendant stars of each decade.