Gallery of Greatness (at least for now)
Until we decide on a different/better name, its the Gallery of Greatness. But far more important, let’s start deciding who goes in. I’ll ask BA to set up some sort of side link or whatever, so we can access it quickly enough. Here is a link of current Cooperstown inductees:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hof/hofmem.shtml
I propose we immediately induct the following into our Gallery of Greatness:
Hank Aaron, Grover Alexander, Ernie Banks, Cool Papa Bell, Johnny Bench, Yogi Berra, Wade Boggs, George Brett, Lou Brock, Roy Campanella, Rod Carew, Steve Carlton, Roberto Clemente, Ty Cobb, Dizzy Dean, Bill Dickey, Joe DiMaggio, Don Drysdale, Dennis Eckersley, Bob Feller, Carlton Fisk, Whitey Ford, Jimmy Foxx, Frankie Frisch, Pud Galvin, Lou Gehrig, Bob Gibson, Josh Gibson, Hank Greenberg, Lefty Grove, Tony Gwynn, Rogers Hornsby, Carl Hubbell, Monte Irvin, Reggie Jackson, Walter Johnson, Al Kaline, Tim Keefe, Harmon Killebrew, Sandy Koufax, Nap Lajoie, Kenesaw Landis, Tommy Lasorda, Bob Lemon, Connie Mack, Mickey Mantle, Rabbit Maranville, Juan Marichal, Edie Mathews, Christy MAthewson, Willie Mays, Joe McCarthy, Willie McCovey, John McGraw, Paul Molitor, Joe Morgan, Eddie Murray, Stan Musial, Kid Nichols, Mel Ott, Satchel Paige, Jim Palmer, Old Hoss Radbourn, Branch Rickey, Cal Ripken Jr, Robin Roberts, Brooks Robinson, Frank Robinson, Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, Nolan Ryan, Ryne Sandberg, Mike Schmidt, Tom Seaver, Ozzie Smith, Duke SNider, Warren Spahn, Tris Speaker, Willie Stargel, Casey Stengel, Honus Wagner, Earl Weaver, Hoyt Wilhelm, Billy Williams, Ted Williams, Dave Winfield, Carl Yastrzemski, Tom Yawkey, Cy Young, and Robin Yount.
There may indeed be other “obvious” ones that I’ve overlooked - but my method was simple, when I ran down the list of names if I came to one and immediately thought “Hall of Famer” (for whatever reason), then I listed him above. I freely admit I don’t know enough about some of the older guys who are probably sure-fire HOFers, but I’m just not acquainted with them (yet). All the guys above, I feel I know enough about such that I believe I can very easily defend any name listed - if necessary.
If anyone here sees fit to *not* include one of the “obvious” ones I’ve listed, let’s discuss. I would ask that each of us chime in on this post, if only to say “agreed on all” -so we can indeed try to achieve some sort of unanimity (at least at the onset, as disccussed).
Two other thoughts: (1) BA, can you set up a separate link/page that lists *our* Gallery of Greatness - and with that, perhaps we can each type comments under a name, if so desired… supporting induction, personal anecdote, San Dimas High rules!… whatever. (2) Should we set up each name to link to his BR.com page? That would allow us, as well as any visitors (heh-heh), to go to the stats if they so desired.
Please advise.
January 11th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
What about Marvin Miller? Love unions or hate them, he has had a TREMENDOUS impact on the game
January 12th, 2008 at 5:10 am
Completely agree - and I posted as much separately. But I thought we were starting with the “easy” picks out of the existing Hall of Fame. Then, in some fashion, we’ll address the remaining members of the current HoF. Then we’ll get to those not yet in the official HoF (some of which will very likely get into our Gallery of Greatness - most notably, Miller, Raines, and Blyleven).
I’m trying to be systematic.
January 12th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I really don’t know the supporting evidence for the following players - Galvin, Irvin, Keefe, Maranville, Nichols
I this the following are debatable - Boggs, Landis, Mack, Rickey, Yawkey, Stargell, Billy Williams - Executives as with managers I think really need to be debated, and while the players here are clearly worthy of consideration, I’m not sure they are really obvious choices.
As a general point, I think it is very difficult to separate the dancer from the dance in judging a manager’s merit, and would like to see further discussion of manager candidates.
January 12th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Oh, and how could you possibly leave Phil Rizzuto off the list?!?!
January 12th, 2008 at 11:22 am
wrt to Miller - ahhhh, Bock!
Boggs is not debatable IMO….
January 12th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
At this point, lets table any nominee that at least one of us has a question/concern with. I’d like to start by taking care of the “obvious” (i.e. unanimous) guys already in Cooperstown. Working off my list (as that would represent my personal “obvious” picks, and anyone else then - by defnition - I’d outright reject or at best, want discussion/examination of).
So table the guys Tank mentions - and we’ll table anyone else that’s pointed out… ass-uming that others aside from Tank, Gonzo, and I actually participate in this undertaking.
P.S. Thanks for the Rizzuto chuckle. Not only is he not getting into our Gallery of Greatness without a ticket (well… in the spiritual sense, of course), but I wouldn’t mind starting a petition to have him removed from Cooperstown. Nothing against the man personally - seemed like he was a wonderful fella… but he has no business in a major league baseball hall of fame (or gallery of greatness). He’s not the only one - and objectively he may not be the most obvious one - but he’s the most obvious one to me.
I’ll explain my other “questioned” inclusions at a later time… as I say, I’d like us to agree on the obvious/unanimous choices before we do anything else.
January 15th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Doesn’t seem like there are any additional objections to the initial list. Our first round of nominations next?
January 15th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I have set up a page for the Gallery of Greatness. And I’ve placed a controversial stub there. Before Cliffy goes off the handle, I’d like to know the ground rules of this endeavor. For instance, given the cumulative amount of personality flaws of which this current group of editors is in possession, I’d like to know why a degenerate gambler who happens to have more hits in the league than anyone else would not be a member? If we are a different organization than the Hall of Fame, we can certainly focus our lenses on playing days and not managerial day discretions?
Please let me know if you can edit the page. Given that it’s a side page, I believe we lose the ability to have comments, so it’s just a page that is left to who last edited it.
January 16th, 2008 at 6:58 am
BA… regardless of our character flaws, or the character flaws of the players to be considered, we’d like to follow a process. A Reds fan unilaterally putting Pete Rose into the GoG is not the process we’ve undertaken. We started with the list of current Cooperstown inductees, of which Rose is not a list member.
Take Rose off (at least for now) - but feel free to make him your first nominee, once we get to that phase of the process. And let’s add the names above (less the “objections” raised by Tank, as nobody else seems to have any other questions/objections).
Then as Tank notes, we can our first round of nominations - preferably from guys already in the HoF. Yes, I’m anal retentive - but I’d like some sort of systematic approach… in large part to ensure we fairly consider everyone worth considering, in a timely manner. If BA is so hell-bent on bringing PR up for debate, fine… bring him up and let’s discuss.
Aside from addressing BA’s personal pet project, how’s this nomination process gonna work? Can any of us bring up any player at any time and then… at some nebulous future point, with the virtual apathy vote taken, said player’s candidacy is determined… and that determination is final, without opportunity for re-discussion in the future?
Or - does each of us have the opportunity to bring up one (or a couple) at a time, per week (or whatever time frame) - and we allow a week (or whatever time frame) for discussion/objections to ensue. If at the end of the week (or whatever time frame), we have a unanimous “yes” (at least among those who choose to participate in the selection process), then said player is “in”. If there is even one objection, for whatever reason… then what?
I’m curious for any and all proposals/suggestions/rebuttals, but I’d propose the following: Each of us can bring up one guy at a time, perhaps a singular post, with stats, anecdotes, whatever to support the candidacy. The clock starts ticking and the rest of us have one week to agree, disagree, or ask questions. If someone objects, put it in writing. If there are no objections (still on record) after seven days, then the player’s in - and the nominator can bring up another (if he so chooses). In other words, someone can object/question initially - but perhaps be swayed in that week of discussion, and pull their objection (i.e. support the nomination) in the end. If there is at least one objection, no dice - but the player can be brought up again… after we’ve gone through all the current Cooperstown guys.
Does that make sense - or is there a better way?
January 16th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Makes sense to me.
Maybe nominations should be made in the main blog page to allow debate in the comments.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Agreed - and I see you’ve begun with the guy that is, at *worst*, the second-best pitcher in the history of the game. I’ll start addressing the ones you had questions on above.
And yes… Tank and I do welcome input from others. And yes BA, you’re allowed to comment on someone other than PR.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Pete is gone… You can’t edit the page?
January 16th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I would humbly submit the name of Curtis Flood to be added. Was a darn good player (had some gold gloves, was an all-star) and had a huge impact on the fundamental structure of the game. Sadly, had his playing career cut short because he was blackballed for challenging of the player reserve system and making those going after him very, very, rich.
I also suggest we remove Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis. Yes, he cleaned up baseball after the black sox scandal. But, he was a truly awful judge: scores and scores of his ill reasoned and capricious rulings were overturned, he got Jack Johnson banned from boxing over a racial charge, he kept blacks out of baseball and he used really specious anti-trust reasoning against standard oil while not applying any of that same reasoning when the federal league sued MLB on the same grounds and ended up screwing them and the players.
Basically, I think he was a terrible little tyrant who was bad for justice and bad for baseball players.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I have essentially the same issue with Landis - if we agree that eliminating the color barrier was an unambiguous good, then the fact that Landis took it upon himself to preserve it has to be weighed against any positive contribution he may have made to the sport. Then there’s the issue of Shoeless Joe…
January 16th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Well, Neumann, go ahead and nominate Flood in a stand-alone post using your shiny new login and password.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Neumann… you’ll note the approach Tank and I have taken in nominating players - please feel free to do the same with Curt Flood. BA should do the same with PR. And Danny can do the same with what I’m sure is a litany of underappreciated Milwaukee Brewers and Braves.
As for Landis, can we agree that he’s not going into the GoG for his judicial record - but rather his candidacy is based solely on his resume as baseball commissioner? Now his judgments as commish are clearly worthy fodder, but my point is that his non-baseball judgments are moot. In short, I’d put Jim Brown into Canton in a heartbeat for his performances on the football field - and rightfully ignore his performances on the silver screen (which were, um, less than historically great… although “Dirty Dozen” remains among my all-time favorite movies, fwiw).
Let’s stick to the *relevant* data supporting - or refuting - the candidacy of each nominee please.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Fwiw, I’ll be very interested to see the discussions on guys like Shoeless Joe, PR, and Curt Flood - for various reasons… but those three are not in Cooperstown, and I’m intrigued to see what our collective decision is on the three of them. Related to Flood somewhat is Marvin Miller as well.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
My biggest issue with the HOF voting is that there has never been a unanimous selection. I don’t understand how some writers have left off certain players on the first ballot…. with logic like, if Ted Williams wasn’t a unanimous selection, then how could I possibly vote for Cal Ripken on the first ballot.
Since we are starting from scratch, I would propose not automatically initiating the 40 or so guys you list above, but rather allow players access based upon merit. Surely Robin Yount is not the same type of HOF as Babe Ruth, and it is insulting to induct them at the same time.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Aren’t you being a bit hypocritical? First, you rage against the machine for defining relative levels of HOF worthiness… then, you suggest that we need to approach our GoG by defining relative levels of HOF worthiness.
Either a guy is a HOFer/GoGer, or he’s not. If you have issue with of the group I listed (outside of those already questioned), then name them - but if your only concern is that “not everyone is as good as Babe Ruth”, well… then aren’t you wasting our time?
If you’d like, and I don’t think it’s a bad idea fwiw, we can have the added aspect of ranking our GoGers. Now, it would be mostly subjective - especially wrt hitters vs. pitchers vs. non-players (so perhaps we rank within those classifications, but then… what about the fact that Ruth was great hitter *and* a great pitcher?). I guess we’d all submit our rankings, then take the averages to arrive at the “official” GoG rankings - and perhaps as each new guy is added, we submit individual rankings, and then take the average to “officially” slot him? I dunno… we can discuss the mechanics of that more. But perhaps ranking them would be an interesting and fun exercise - and at the very least, would address your concern that someone might have the audacity to put Robin Young on par with Babe Ruth (although, admittedly, I’ve personally yet to meet this fictional individual).