HOF Talk: Mike Campbell

[RonCo]

What an interesting case. A corner OF with 577 HR, 1,800 RBI (I know, I know) and 62 WAR. Throw in a hundred or so stolen bases, too. And he made 5 All-Star teams. Which is quite the career. But really, do you point at Mike Campbell and say “Hall of Famer?”

Hmmmm.

Part of the problem may be that he played mostly with Hawaii, and mostly in the late 30s and through the 40s, and in that time period, Hawaii was mostly good and never great. At times he may or may not have been the Tropics’ best player, but the team just never got over the hump to be fearsome. So…

Bottom line, he’s an obvious Hawaii HoF selection, but I’m a bit of a harder sell on his step into this ring. I’ll probably say yes, but I just haven’t decided. 62 WAR makes him a justified selection, but would put him fairly far down the pantheon. Which is still fine. I mean, hellfire, Dusty Rhodes is in the Hall of Fame. I’d take Campbell 10,000 times in a row before I’d take Dusty Rhodes (no offense to the Rhodes family). So … well … hmm


Player Page

[Dington]

I thought I was gonna vote for Campbell while he was playing, but now I just don’t see it. Super solid and underrated player.

[BaseClogger]

I'm not sure what the argument against him is other than "it doesn't feel right in my gut". All the numbers are there to reach the various counting stat and rate stat thresholds even if they aren't top half of the HoF.

[bcslouck]

I'm not sure what the argument against him is other than "it doesn't feel right in my gut". All the numbers are there to reach the various counting stat and rate stat thresholds even if they aren't top half of the HoF.

For me, it's the gut feeling.

[Dington]

I'm not sure what the argument against him is other than "it doesn't feel right in my gut". All the numbers are there to reach the various counting stat and rate stat thresholds even if they aren't top half of the HoF.

A lot of times it comes down to "was he the best at his position while he played" and the answer is easily no, not even close. Fantastic player, but not HoF.

[BaseClogger]

A lot of times it comes down to "was he the best at his position while he played" and the answer is easily no, not even close. Fantastic player, but not HoF.

I think that's kind of a silly benchmark. Being second best at a position for 15 years behind the greatest player at that position in history can easily be a HoFer.

[Dington]

A lot of times it comes down to "was he the best at his position while he played" and the answer is easily no, not even close. Fantastic player, but not HoF.

I think that's kind of a silly benchmark. Being second best at a position for 15 years behind the greatest player at that position in history can easily be a HoFer.

Which is why I said "a lot of times." There are several cases I vote for the 2nd or 3rd best player at a position. Was Campbell even top 5 RF in this era?

[RonCo]

Campbell is the kind of candidate the make for great conversations. It makes me wand to go do some deeper comparisons.

[BaseClogger]

Which is why I said "a lot of times." There are several cases I vote for the 2nd or 3rd best player at a position. Was Campbell even top 5 RF in this era?

If an era is rich at one position, say 8 of the 10 greatest RFers played during that era, why hold it against the guys who weren't top 5? I just think HoF should be much more fluid than that.

[Dington]

Which is why I said "a lot of times." There are several cases I vote for the 2nd or 3rd best player at a position. Was Campbell even top 5 RF in this era?

If an era is rich at one position, say 8 of the 10 greatest RFers played during that era, why hold it against the guys who weren't top 5? I just think HoF should be much more fluid than that.

Because the talent is relative to the era. It's like voting for steroids guys. 50 HR in 1999 isn't the same as 50 HR in 1970.

[BaseClogger]

Which is why I said "a lot of times." There are several cases I vote for the 2nd or 3rd best player at a position. Was Campbell even top 5 RF in this era?

If an era is rich at one position, say 8 of the 10 greatest RFers played during that era, why hold it against the guys who weren't top 5? I just think HoF should be much more fluid than that.

Because the talent is relative to the era. It's like voting for steroids guys. 50 HR in 1999 isn't the same as 50 HR in 1970.

I think it should be talent relative to all of BBA history. So yes, 50 home runs isn't the same across years but WAR or era adjusted stats allow us to compare players. If there weren't many 60 WAR players for decades at a time and then all of a sudden there are several all of those guys should get in because they're so much better than the players that came before them, even if they don't rank as favorably within their era.

(IMO)

[Dington]

This is why we vote. People have different standards and we get to see different viewpoints.

[RonCo]

Yes, but the discussions are fun, too!

[recte44]

3000 hits and 577 homers. Pretty hard to say no if you're a counting stats guy.

[BaseClogger]

Not a bad rate guy either. Career .295/.347/.538 hitter. Nearly .300 BA and .900 OPS. Was perfectly cromulent in the field.

[recte44]

cromulent. That's funny.

[Jwalk100]

#10 all time RF hits, #10 RF all time RF slug, #9 triples by a RF, #5 in HR, #8 RBI and in the top 15 in HoF metrics for RF. Also a homer vote!

[Dington]

#10 all time RF hits, #10 RF all time RF slug, #9 triples by a RF, #5 in HR, #8 RBI and in the top 15 in HoF metrics for RF. Also a homer vote!

I think that swayed my vote.

[Trebro]

Voted for him.

[Trebro]

Bumping to help consideration