Rank 20 active players on potential HOF induction

i dunno about piazza, given his defensive shortcomings. his gaudy offensive numbers as a catcher strike me like the nfl types who praise shannon sharpe for his offensive stats as a tight end.

6) Roberto Alomar
4) Barry Bonds (just curious: what do y'all think a roid bombshell would do?)
1) Roger Clemens
8) Tom Glavine
Juan Gonzalez
14) Ken Griffey, Jr.
2) Rickey Henderson
5) Randy Johnson
7) Barry Larkin
3) Greg Maddux
12) Pedro Martinez
15) Fred McGriff
18) Mike Mussina
9) Rafael Palmeiro
14) Mike Piazza
13) Alex Rodriguez
11) Gary Sheffield
10) Sammy Sosa
16) Frank Thomas
17) Larry Walker

-one easily forgets (at least i did) the toronto juggernaut that mcgriff powered...alomar was on those teams, too, no?

well he was player of the '90s, 400-400 and multiple mvp winner PRIOR to any steroid allegations.

Oddly enough, Rickey was a member on one of those Toronto teams.

If hard evidence comes up on Bonds for the steroids, it could turn into the exact same situation as Rose, hall of famer on the field but won't be allowed in.

for the record...all the revisionist history about rose not being that good anyways is shit. did he stick around too long? yes. but come on, man.

eh, just one man's opinion.

(i also kind of lump juangone and sosa in to the same class, though were it not for his health, gonzalez would be way bigger than sosa, i think)

I saw a recent interview with Jr. and Harold Reynolds asked him if he belonged in the HOF. Griffey played it off modestly "That's not my decision, I can only control what I do" etc. but Reynolds kept on him and Griffey countered with "Look at the numbers".

So Leee, take a look, you might be surprised how he matches up.

And re: Bonds -- he was also a virtual lock even before he got huge.

would anyone else be surprised if he never hit more than 40 again? granted, science is always one step ahead of regulation, but this thg business will be interesting for the power side of the game.

Some guys who have been ignored, but stand at least as good a chance as Larkin - Biggio and Bagwell.

Roger Clemens—The best power pitcher career since Seaver. His late career playoff success and those Cy Youngs added a star power a starting pitcher hasn’t had in a LONG time.

Barry Bonds-- Yadda yadda yadda…if hard evidence ever comes out on the roids, he might end up outside with Rose. No matter what, Bonds is going to be a controversial hall of famer, which probably is ok with him.

Randy Johnson—The most dominating left handed starter since Carlton. Won’t win 300 or get the gaudy numbers (except Ks), but the way he pitched in that Series against the Yanks signed his ticket.

Rickey Henderson-- The best leadoff hitter ever. Rickey luster is a bit weird, as he has played for over ten years beyond his peak. Rickey also likes to talk about Rickey. When he was in his prime, the guy was an absolute FREAK of nature.

Greg Maddux-- 300 wins and about as consistent a career as you can get. Winning a World Series in Chicago would make him legendary, if he gets a big win. He has the kind of pitching arm and attitude that could maintain being a good working pitcher well into his 40s, if he does that, he might win over 350 games, which puts him in company with the really big guys.

Close:

Tom Glavine- I think you have to consider Glavine one of the best starters of the past 25 years, but I think how he will be remembered is based on how he does in the next couple of seasons. A couple of 8-14 years might cloud the waters a bit, he still would probably have the resume, but it might take a few years.

Roberto Alomar- He will play long enough to get 3000 hits, but the sportswriters will never forget him spitting on that ump. He’ll probably get in, especially if he rings up 3k hits, which is very possible.

Rafael Palmeiro-- If he continues to be consistent, the guy is going to end up over 3k hits and perhaps 600 HRs. That is a mind boggling career for someone who is best known for hocking Viagra. Palmeiro has never been a force in the playoffs or really a major star, which will be a tag on his career.

Hard to Call:

Barry Larkin- Take out Cal Ripken, Ernie Banks and A-Rod and the shortstop position is usually judged much different than any other position, it usually known for solid defense. Good news! Larkin has three gold gloves and would have one more if is wasn’t for Ozzie Smith. Good news! The guy is a classic star who played his entire career (until probably this summer when the Reds dump him) in his home town and even won a world series. Bad news! How much of this will be remembered six years after he retires? I definitely think he is a hall of famer, but will sportswriters in Seattle or Florida? I’m sure the vets committee will never forget him as a player. Larkin is a class player.

Fred McGriff- The guy is pretty classy and was a good power hitter before baseball’s numbers got all funky. He probably is a hall of famer, especially if he gets 500 dingers, but he might be a guy that will have to wait a while.

Sammy Sosa-- Sosa has had a run of hall of fame numbers playing in one of the games more storied clubs. If he continues to play well for another few years, his stats are going to be freaky. If he wins a world series with the Cubs, it will be remembered as long as baseball is played. If it comes out that he is on the roids that and the corked bat are going to be remembered. I think he will lose hall votes just for the corked bat and the appearance of maybe being on performance enhancing drugs.

Too Early to Tell:

Mike Piazza-- He is the best hitting catcher ever. (Not the best catcher ever, that is probably Bench who could hit with more power and in his prime was as good as it gets with the glove.) That being said, unlike most hall of fame catchers, he isn’t that great with the arm, especially in the past few years. Piazza really wants that all time HR record for catchers, but he is a defensive liability, which isn’t exactly being a team player. Yogi Berra played in the outfield for quite a few years. That being said, the guy can hit for average and power unlike any catcher before him. I think he will have to play a few more years or win a series to completely seal his trip to the hall.

Alex Rodriguez-- The guy has been the best overall player in baseball since he busted out in 96, but if he has some freak injury and his career ends tomorrow, does he get into the hall? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Ken Griffey Jr.-- You can never go home – that is so very true. He is still young. If he can get into the AL, where he can get some at bats as a DH and stick for a few years, Griffey could overcome the past few years. If he continues to flame out, with the crab act overshadowing memories of “the kid”, he will be remembered, but I doubt that he will get into the hall. The guy used to be a TERROR as a clutch hitter, remember that playoff series against the Yanks?

Pedro Martinez—The guy is one of the best pitchers ever with just at times un-hittable stuff, but I think his hall resume needs a second act. As I pointed out in a Clemens thread, he is the same age as Roger was when he was “washed up” and left Boston. I think he needs to have a few more solid seasons or be the guy that leads Boston to a World Series win to finalize his hall entrance.

Mike Mussina-- Moose is good, but he has been kind of shaky in the playoffs and has never won 20 games. I suppose he is similar to someone like Don Sutton, except with a much higher ERA. If he can stay healthy and productive to the age of 40, he has an outside shot at 300 wins. What would ensure his entry to the hall would be having a couple of big wins helping the Yanks win a couple more world series.

Gary Sheffield— I think how Sheffield’s stay in NY will be answer whether he gets into the hall. The guy is definitely not going to win votes for being a nice guy, but if he puts his stats up near someone like Frank Robinson, which is not out of the question, and wins a ring or two with the Yanks, the writers are going to have to stuff it and put him into the hall. Sheff has some injuries and being a pain might lead him to get dumped on the outside without a job, so he might not make the hall, which will piss him off to no end.

Frank Thomas (Jeff Bagwell – he also should be on this list.) -- These guys have nearly put up identical career records and are the same age. The Big Hurt was a better player at his peak, but Bagwell has been more consistent. If they can continue to play well in their mid to late 30s and/or finally have some playoff success, they will get to the hall of fame. Would Stargell be a hall of famer without “We Are Family’ and that great 79 season? Maybe…maybe not. If not…they will be close.

Craig Biggio (not on the list)—If he can be consistent and play well for another four years or so, he is going to get close to 3k hits. I think if Bagwell, Biggio, Clemens and Pettitte put together some magical World Series win, it will shine a whole lot of light on Biggio and Bagwell, and will give them a bunch more luster and perhaps a plaque at Cooperstown. Biggio has been an allstar at three positions (C, 2b & OF—what a combo) and also has four gold gloves at 2b.

Jim Thome (not on the list)- This guy is 33 and already has 381 HRs. Thome is in his prime and with three more big years could be 36 and over 500 hrs. If he continues to play at a high level into his late 30s and/or wins a series in Philly, I think he will become someone mentioned for hall membership. If you compare his stats, they are very similar to Willie McCovey and Harmon Killebrew.

Won’t make the hall:

Juan Gonzalez-- He cannot stay healthy and has acted like an ass, so I doubt that he will get the big numbers that usually ring the bell. He is the modern Dick Allen.

Larry Walker-- The guy is a great hitter, but I think unless he puts up the magic numbers of 3k hits or something of the like, people are going to point out his stay in Colorado. I doubt he will stay healthy long enough to get 3000 hits or 500+ hrs. He also doesn't have any big playoff experience. Andre Dawson had a good career and also had a great arm in the outfield, but I don’t think he is ever going to get into the hall or if he does it will be with the vets committee.

ack...such crap.

I think Dawson, Jim Rice and (gasp) Steve Garvey are players that will perhaps get into the hall once they are up for vets committee balloting.

But that shouldn't and will not invalidate the first part of Bonds's career, especially since you can't retroactively hold it against him (if in fact he did juice) since there were no rules against the juice prior to last season. It'd be like taking away Caminiti's MVP award

Checking it out, Juan Gonzalez is still only 34. Hard to believe, but true, considering how long he has been in the majors. I still doubt that he will be able to keep everything together, but he has 429 jacks allready. If he gets his act together, I suppose it wouldn't be much to get to 500. Jose Canseco definitely put up hall of fame numbers up to the age of 34, but after that didn't do squat except become a punchline. I might have to move Juangone up to wait and see.

Chipper Jones is also half way to a hall of fame career. He is 31 and has over 1588 hits, 280 Hrs, 943 rbis in nine full seasons. If he can stay healthy and consistent, which he has been since coming into the majors, he has a good shot at a hall of fame career. Going from numbers at the baseball-reference site, his stats are slightly better than Bonds at the same age. I tend to doubt Chipper is going to hit 73HRs at age 36, but he could still put up close to 3000 hits and 500 hrs.

Manny Ramierez career hitting stats are similar to Chipper and are the same age. Manny is probably too muy loco to be able to keep it up till he is 40. He is to likely to have some freak accident with a dentist, bar fight or a satillite dish and end his career.

Nomar and Jeter are both also about half way to a hall of fame career. If both they stay healthy, productive and winning; I see no reason that they won't be considered. They much further off than anyone else I have mentioned.

And that matters for stat inflation, too. Palmeiro's numbers (or whomever's) might not be enough, when he doesn't have a superstar/winner image. The Hall is going to have to get more selective, or start inducting way more people.

If Bill James concepts (sabremetrics, win shares, etc.) really pay off for the Red Sox, I think they could become key, though.

Bill James in his books talks a bunch about peak performance versus career performance, which makes sense. Jim Rice at his peak performance was as good and devestating a hitter that played the game, but his career was pretty much done around age 33, where guys like Aaron, Mays and others continued to play at a very high level to around age forty.

Pitchers are not quite held to those rule book numbers, as many great ones just don't end up playing long enough to put them up. Gibson, Palmer, Koufax and a bunch of other hall of fame starters never won 300 games, mostly as injuries and wear and tear ended their career a few years early.

The percentage numbers are probably more telling, but you they can't beat the freakitude of Rose having 4256 hits, Ryan's 5714 strikeouts, or Cy Young's 511 wins. Think about it: you would have to play 21 years and average 200 hits a year to even get a shot at Rose or 19 seasons of 300 ks to get to Ryan or 25 wins a year for 20 years to get to Cy Young. Other than the outlandish single season performance of in slugging or ERA, it just doesn't seem quite as mind boggling.

I really hope this linkie thing works - <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rosepe01.shtml">PETE ROSE</a>

He hit .325 at 40?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rosepe01.shtml

1990 the Reds pitching fell into place (they picked the last part of the nasty boys troika) and they won it all with Lou at the helm.

*sigh* Wins wins wins -- you guys know that pitchers don't actually WIN games, right? I even heard Joe Morgan say last night that pitchers lose games on bad breaks all the time... Moose would have several 20-win seasons with decent run support.

Mussina has pitched about as well in the postseason as Andy Pettitte has, but just hasn't been scored for as much. Three more typical seasons and he's in the HOF.

McGriff is not a Hall of Famer. Palmeiro has a stronger case, but we're getting to the point where 500 HR won't be a lock anymore.

Larkin has suffered from the Shortstop Boom.

Jeter needs a second-half-of-career renaissance, even if the "Moneyball is heresy" crowd never notice he's terrible defensively.

Deserving HOFer who will be criminally neglected in the balloting: Tim Raines.

as long as character is a quality for induction, mr. "i slide head first so i don't break the coke vial in my sock" raines shouldn't hold his breath. fair or not those are the rules and until they're changed... well, then he'll be overlooked for his on-field accomplishments.

How can one "not imagine" Bagwell as a HOFer, when he and Big Hurt not only have nearly identical offensive stats, but Bags doesn't disgrace himself with the glove?

i don't think jeter needs a renaissance, especially since he hasn't even started declining offensively yet. he's been the undisputed leader of the latest yankees dynasty, and has put up fantastic offensive numbers. people really need to stop comparing him to his peak/fluke '99 season. he's been compltely consistent aside from that. i think the one thing he needs to do to cement his induction is move, preferably to centerfield, and soon.

and though again i warn i'm shit at HoF evals, moose seems more like a "really really good pitcher not quite good enough for the hall" then a lock to me. definitely a few ballots down the road, anyway. i'd say he's a notch above david cone, whatever that means.

i don't, i really really don't. give me a guy who likes to imbibe a little too much or likes a smoke now and then over a bible thumping religious freak anyday. put them in the hall based on what went on between the lines, leave the judgment of character to the civic organizations.

Mussina: 15 starts (5-5)
Pettite: 30 starts (13-8)

Tim Raines at his peak was as good as Henderson as a lead off hitter, except he had a better arm and a bit more power. The guy played the game at full speed, but maybe the problems off the field also is why he was injury prone as he got older.

i wouldn't mind going back some time, i'm sure there's a ton of stuff that i missed when i was 15. and i'd bring golf clubs this time, there seemed to be nothing but golf courses around there from what i remember.

Here is a link to his stats:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/raineti01.shtml

As for his character, Rock was very highly regarded by Torre and was kept around for another year by the Marlins as a mentor player. As with many players in the 80s, he probably liked to party, but I definitely wouldn't put him in the same boat with Steve Howe or Strawberry.

*sigh* OK, once more on Moose, via yesterday's BP:

http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2766

"Objectively speaking, Mussina is among the most consistently great and durable pitchers of his generation. Mussina has posted above-average park-adjusted ERAs in every season of his career, save 1993, and has been 25% better than average in 10 different seasons. In terms of career value, Mussina has been worth in the neighborhood of 100 more wins than a replacement level pitcher--more than Pedro Martinez (who's been in the league one fewer season than Mussina), and just nine fewer than to Tom Glavine, both of whom are contemporary shoe-ins for enshrinement.

The problem with Mussina's case is two-fold: 1) he lacks the peak value of someone like Pedro or Randy Johnson, and 2) he's yet to go through his decline phase, which will topple his career rate stats just a bit. Aside from that, the man has done about as much as anyone could do to build a HOF case for himself at the age of 35. He even has a postseason ERA of 3.05 in exactly 100 innings of work; not too bad for a pitcher some people still refer to as a 'choker.'

"From a traditional perspective, Mussina's case is equally strong. With 200 wins and a career winning percentage of .644, Moose is comparable (if on the low end) to fellow-Yankee Whitey Ford, Jim Bunning, and Catfish Hunter. All three of these pitchers are currently in the Hall of Fame, though if statheads ran the world, there's a pretty decent chance that two of them would have their membership revoked."

Bunning like fellow Phillie HOF'er Robin Roberts was a good pitcher on a terrible team, so I think he is held at a different angle. Bunning got in through the vets committee and didn't get into the hall until the mid 90s.

It all comes down to how Mussina performs in the next couple of years. If he remains consistent and wins a ring in NY, I don't doubt that he will be up for HOF membership. He has a cool nickname, so that counts for something.

Catfish Hunter
Vida Blue
Blue Moon Odom
Rollie Fingers

There is no wonder why they were great.

Not to be confused with Garfield Fizzlerump or Calico Quince.

>Playoff records-

Mussina: 15 starts (5-5)
Pettite: 30 starts (13-8)<

OK, I'll only say this once and without the usual tutorial ... W-L records in so few games tells you almost nothing about how they pitched.

If it should just come down to statistics, then forget the voting process and simply establish numerical standards for people to gain entry.

(insert essay on the importance of mythology to baseball, etc. etc. etc.)

Re "he won a Cy Young," so what? We judge a HOF candidate based on whether he has a misjudged award from the same group? Bob Welch has a Cy Young too; in 1990 he was about the 4th-to-6th-best pitcher in the league but in which he "won" 27 cuz the A's scored a shitload for him.

As for Catfish, he had 3 really splendid years: '72, 74, 75, and was a pretty damn average pitcher the rest of the time. Check the ERA+ columns (Dahlem Person's head explodes):

http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hunteca01.shtml

Of course, Hunter also tended to throw 260-320 innings a year -- the way butch old-timers just LOVE -- which forced him to retire at 33.

The right stats, INTERPRETED CORRECTLY (objectively), are the main means to measuring careers. But stick with "I saw him play one year, on TV, a few times" if it makes ya happy.

Morbs' stance is fairly common in modern baseball thought: Evaluating a pitching career solely or largely on Wins is a judgement on the whole team's performance... the caveat is that it can mask a player's true worth.

Who would you rather have on your team: Russ Ortiz or Brandon Webb?

Great, I will. Thanks for permission, dude!

What are the "right stats," what does it mean for them to be "INTERPRETED CORRECTLY"? How is any of it "objective"? What are the exact cut-offs? A lifetime ERA that's 1 ER under the league average is "hall of fame" but only .5ER would just be "OK"? Why? Who decides?

The entire argument, really, is bullshit. There are no 'right' and 'wrong' stats, there's no possible way to "objectively" measure them or decide what amounts to a "hall of fame" career vs. "pretty-good" career.

And on top of that, how you reach those statistics (you know, 'playing') is the least objective thing in the world. Bad call by the umpire, a slow infield that costs a guy a hit, winds that blow in and out and all over the place, parks of all different sizes and shapes, etc. etc. etc.. Pure fucking luck in many cases

Should we kick guys out of the hall of fame, since we know they wouldn't be as good today? How many of the old-timers would even be able to get on the field, much less hit .400 or .420?

If numbers are all that matter, fuck baseball - go simulate some stats.

"Know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It's 25 hits. 25 hits in 500 at bats is 50 points, okay? There's 6 months in a season, that's about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp... you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes... you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week... and you're in Yankee Stadium."

milo is right, numbers are not all that matter. sabermetrics are incredibly useful for evaluating talent, but they should NOT be the SOLE factor in deciding who gets MVP or who gets in to the hall. here's an extreme example to make my point clear: a hypothetical jackie robinson. if he was a career .250 hitter, i'd still want him in the HoF. would you disagree with that?

no probably not, but I think that's overrated. One could argue and one would probably be right that in the late '90s the best third baseman in the league was Vinny Castilla (I know, Coors factor, but still).

Speaking of Coors, anyone think Helton's gonna make the HOF? I don't think he was mentioned in this thread, but to date his career BA is over .330 and career slugging is over .600...

back to Raffy! I'd say he's a lock, he passed "close" about two seasons ago. His cumulative stats at this point are astonishing. Even stathead Rob Neyer, who a year ago was iffy on Raffy, admitted after last season that he deserves to go in. My prediction: 590 HR, 1870 RBI, 3064 hits, .289 BA, and a very consistent mustache will be more than enough.

helton is a splendind hitter and a good glove. his 3 year road splits are .297/.401/.535, if anyone's interested. i'll let others deal with the HoF arguments, but my feeling on palmeiro is that if he gets in it shouldn't be for many years down the line, cepeda style.

this is as good a time as any to bring this up - has anyone else heard of the supposed "coors effect" (no not the obvious one)? i saw this being argued quite tenaciously (by a rockies fan) on a message boards awhile back. basically the poster suggested that taking batting practice every other week at coors impairs the rockies players ability to hit on the road, so the coors boost is all but cancelled out in the end. i thought of three players off the top of my head to test this with - neifi perez, preston wilson, and jeff cirillo - and it came up negative each time, unless the effects are chronic and preston wilson happened to have a talent boost coincide with his arrival in denver, which really doesn't seem likely. it might seem strange that i'm bringing this up or even considering it seriously, but the guy who brought it _seemed_ intelligent, to have researched the topic, and had some people buying it, as i recall - and it does make some sense, although he might've been taking it too far. so if anyone wants to give their thoughts or think of any other players who've logged signficant time w/ colorado and elsewhere, i'd appreciate it. (obviously castilla is another one, and we should get a pretty good idea of the coors effect by tracking him this year, as he's back with colorado)

I'd never argue that ONE stat could be the Holy Grail to defining a player. Nobody's been that smart yet. But consider :

> There are no 'right' and 'wrong' stats, there's no possible way to "objectively" measure them or decide what amounts to a "hall of fame" career vs. "pretty-good" career.<

There are better and worse stats. It's just real "Flat Earth" to maintain otherwise, and you contradict it when you cite traditional stats on behalf of a player.

I hears Dan O'Dowd, the Rockies GM, wearily discuss that "other" Coors Effect at the Denver SABR convention last summer. The guy is plain out of ideas.

Castilla was never the best offensive 3B once the home field was factored out. Trust me.

>Catfish Hunter might not have the stats, but he is 'storied' - and that's the key. It's the Hall of Fame.<

Jeez Milo, that silly and desperate argument? Let's induct Bo Jackson and Eddie Gaedel.

And Blue Moon freakin' ODOM, "great"? He was no Jon Matlack...

Jeez Milo, that silly and desperate argument? Let's induct Bo Jackson and Eddie Gaedel.
Excellent argument, Doc. "Well, haha, I'll show you by naming two players who aren't considered 'great' by anyone!"

But sure, if enough people remembered Bo Jackson as a great player of his generation, why not?

You seem to think that anyone has ruled out statistics from consideration. No one has, certainly not me. But statistics aren't the entire story. Never have been, never will be. Your argument fails completely when you start banging on about "right and wrong" and "objectivity" that simply don't exist, outside of what you desperately want to believe.

Your trust in certain statistics is no more a legitimate measure of whether a player deserves "hall of fame" than anything else.

Right now, I'm killing time while waiting for the lunch rush to die down, so re: the Coors effect - the only things I've heard or read re: the Rockies' asstastic home / road splits have to do with the way offspeed pitches (don't) break in Colorado versus how they (most definitely) break in lower altitudes. Not that there's any conclusive evidence - a Baseball Prospectus writer wrote an essay a while back, trying to gague the effect that long home stands had on Rockies hitters. There might've been some correlation, but I can't recall. But free-swinging guys that are baffled by offspeed stuff away from Coors Field (hello, Preston) (and I think Vinny, too) are undoubtedly going to kick ass when changeups and curveballs don't do what they usually do. Plus, I imagine pitchers wary of the thin air effect will rely more on their fastball, which allows fearsome hitters like Neifi Perez a chance to do some damage.

If there's anyone that's going to survive Rockiedom and see the HOF (and I'm saying this w/out actually checking numbers), Todd Helton is it. Other than him & Larry Walker (and his injuries have undoubtedly put the kibbosh on him getting the opportunities to put up the numbers he could easily do if blessed with a stronger body and blessed with not having to deal with Olympic Stadium as an up-and-comer), the Rockies franchise is bereft of anyone that could possibly qualify as a HOF-caliber hitter.

As far as Jeff Cirillo goes, I think it's a matter of his Colorado farewell coinciding with natural physical decline that made him such a joy to pitch to as a Mariner.

i think simmons is the guy that writes for jimmy kimmel, so that's all i'd need against the man. but was that supposed to be a knock on caddyshack??

david, from what i can tell i'd say milo and i are in that sexalicious middle ground. we're just saying that statistics are not the whole story *when one is not playing armchair gm [and even when one is, of course, but to a much lesser extent]*. that's where i draw the line and statheads don't. they take their tools beyond what they were originally designed for. i'm not saying they don't have a place in HoF or MVP arguments - they have a HUGE place - it's just that they can't always see what we as fans, as PEOPLE, see.

i think the HoF is clearly meant to honor great contributions to the game. i think the MVP award is meant to measure value, and i think it's perfectly acceptable to include factors outside a player's control in ones evaluation when they have an effect on his value (of course it's all subjective, but this also makes logical sense). i don't think either of those beliefs are especially radical.

milo, some stats ARE better than others. this can be proven pretty easily by taking an offensive metric and checking how it correlates to actual team runs scored. actually i just checked bp.com and they recently wrote an article about this here: http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2596.

by the way doctor, you didn't answer my question.

But it still comes down to the set of questions you're asking and your attitude toward those questions.

And there is a middle-ground between statgeeks and fictionistas, and that's the one that's pretty much always existed. Personal opinions of a player, their cultural standing, and some of their stats.

>a hypothetical jackie robinson. if he was a career .250 hitter, i'd still want him in the HoF. would you disagree with that? <

What's his on-base percentage? :)

A tough one, which the BBWAA was spared cuz Robinson was a great player as well as a pioneer... I suspect that if the "first"* black player didn't perform, either the team would shuttle in a new one.. or The Great Experiment might've been postponed a few years.

But on a similar pioneer level, why isn't Curt Flood -- a Gold Glover who took the reserve clause to the Supreme Court -- in the HOF? (I'll set Marvin Miller aside, for now.)

*Jackie R was possibly NOT even the first 20TH-CENTURY black player (there'd been a number in the 19th)... A number of Cuban players of African descent in the '20s and '30s made the majors because they "passed." Bobby Estalella's grandpa was one. Doesn't lessen Robinson's achievement of course.

Re "subjectivity": It's subjective to say Bob Welch pitched better than Clemens (robbed of the Cy) in 1990... it's also wrong. One had a better W-L record, the other performed better in all measurable categories.

Regardless of the reasons (physics, eeek), the Rockies hitters take days to readjust after beginning a road trip; the team has studied it.

Milo (you a Catch-22 fan?):

>But statistics aren't the entire story. ..."objectivity" ... simply do(es)n't exist, outside of what you desperately want to believe<

I never said they were the ENTIRE story... but almost everything else you want to consider is anecdotal. Like Yogi Berra on Joe DiMaggio: "He never made a mistake." Oh, bullshit, Yogi. (And I like Yogi, I went to the Penn Station KMart and got his autograph.)

>What are the "right stats," what does it mean for them to be "INTERPRETED CORRECTLY"? ... Who decides?<

Researchers do, and then the readers they're trying to convince. Take a look at the Baseball Prospectus book or their site. There's 25 years of literature that's evolved on this stuff I'm (inadequately) advocating, read a little... like the Bill James Historical Abstract and Moneyball.

As for my jape at your it's the Hall of FAME comment, you clearly implied that it should be filled solely by who's most "storied." I'm sure El Duque is more famous than Stan Musial in these ahistorical times, let's throw that old Cardinal geezer out in favor of the Cuban underachiever...

Yes, certain researchers decide what they value. And they try to convince readers to accept their values. There is nothing objective about this, there is no 'right and wrong.'

Your last paragraph - well, I 'clearly implied' nothing of the sort. It's a Hall of Fame. Not a "Hall of Really Low ERAs!" - Catfish Hunter has strong career accomplishments, and he's storied.

As I said, if you want a Hall of Fame that's derived almost purely from pseudo-objective statistical analysis, then write the rules, set the standards and don't allow any sort of personal conjecture to enter into it. How far are you going to go in that analysis? Should we penalize great players for playing in certain eras and certain ballparks in certain climates? What about career-length, how will that factor in? If you were 'great' for 11 years, sorry, but if you were great for 16, you're in?

Statistical analysis has its place. But it is not, it has never been, and it never will be, the end all and be all of baseball. You cannot claim that sabremetrics/the cult of James is the only proper/objective/right/etc. way to look at baseball history.

Yes, except I favor the verb "adjust" over "penalize." And not just great players, but Larry Walker and Catfish Hunter too!

>What about career-length, how will that factor in? If you were 'great' for 11 years, sorry, but if you were great for 16, you're in?<

A balance of "peak" versus "career" value... Koufax is Mr Peak, Spahn is Mr Career, both great.

I'd like to rebut further, but I really can't make head nor tails of what you're advocating; maybe picking HOFers out of a hat. That's the best Stiff Little Fingers song though!

Wouldn't you say winning 27 games is an unusually high amount for any year?

Hunter pitched in the playoffs every year from 1971 to 1978, so the guy was playing in primetime unlike few starting pitchers did in the days before the expanded playoffs. He won five rings, a Cy Young and the guy's nickname is Catfish; that is all he needed.

As for Musina, Dr. you pretty much said the same thing that I said. If he flames out 12-12 this year and then spirals downward, I doubt that he will get to the hall, but if he wins 50 games in the next three years and/or wins a world series his ticket is assured.

If he hadn't have gotten in that year, he would have had to wait for a while like Drysdale, who didn't get in until 1984 or Blyleven who is still waiting.

I'm not advocating anything, I'm perfectly happy with the Hall induction being solely a product of a vote which allows the voters to establish their own, individual criteria for admission.

I'm responding to statements like "The right stats, INTERPRETED CORRECTLY (objectively), are the main means to measuring careers." This is simply obnoxious, pseudo-authoritative, pseudo-scientific bullshit. "Right stats," correct interpretations and objectivity don't exist in baseball. There's no way to decide what the proper "means" are by which to measure careers.

It all comes down to what questions you ask and your attitude toward them, nothing more.

The same statement, minus the "zis is zee only vay!" stuff, doesn't bother me at all. Interpret the game however you want, but don't try to claim that yours is the one true path.

Obviously without Coors he turns into Morgan Ensberg without the OBP but as far as pure stats goes he was the most potent offensive 3B for several years there. That's all I was saying.

Galarraga is an interesting case, he hit 40 HR his first year after leaving Coors, there was no decline at all.

I've heard another possible theory for the Coors factor is that players get so used to dealing with the flattening out of pitches in Denver that they're all the more mystified when they reach sea level. sort of like the reverse effect of swinging a weighted bat in the on deck circle to make the wooden bats all the lighter. I'd be curious to see interviews with Rockies and ex Rockies as to whether or not this is possibly true.

Not possible, my friend, because the regular-season award ballots' deadline has always been BEFORE the start of the playoffs to ensure they're kosher. MLB delays the results to make headlines in November. I'm gonna have fun taking you guys to school on this stuff.

Milo, all I can say is MINE isn't the only way, but SOME kind of objective analysis is used by everyone, except of course the Veterans Committe guys who got all their pals from the 1920s Giants and Cardinals (plus Phil Rizzuto) into the Hall. You just happen to use trad Joe Garagiola-Curt Gowdy stats, being "storied," how many rings a guy's teammates helped him get, etc.

Santo and Blyleven aren't in? Fuck the Hall.

Blyleven never had such control problems (only walked 100 once, when he was 36), had 60 shutouts to Nolie's 61 (in 88 fewer career starts), and his lifetime Adjusted ERA was 18% better than the league to Ryan's 12%. I don't think either of them are in the Seaver-Clemens galaxy, but both belong in the Above-Average Longevity Tier.

that's what we need, a freak of nature museum. a museum where you look back and say "how the f*#k did THAT happen?" one season where a player put it all together. things like pedro's 1999 (or 2000) season. jim ed rice in 1978.

perhaps we don't need a separate museum but it would be an exhibit i'd want to see at the existing hall.

Well, we all can't be Chris Berman. *prayer of thanks*

You guys know Bill James wrote a book on HOF standards? A fun read (to SOME of us):

http://tinyurl.com/2bgvt

He invented a "Hall Monitor" point system to measure a player's progress toward typical HOF standards; you can find each individual's current total on his Baseball Reference page.

Close:
Tom Glavine- Pitched better than his record indicates. A taxi cab ride cut his year short, what a strange way to get hurt.

Rafael Palmeiro—He appears to have lost his bat, but is only 25 hits away from 3k and has 551 HRs.

Barry Larkin- He had a good first half and changed his mind about retiring. The Reds have decided not to give him a contract. The guy is still one of the best shortstops of his time.

Mike Piazza—Wow, he can’t play 1b for nothing and isn’t that great behind the plate anymore. Still…there hasn’t been a catcher that can hit like him.

Hard to Call:
Roberto Alomar- Wow…another year in the tank. He will be 37 next year and still needs 275 hits to get to 3k. I am beginning to wonder if that will happen and if it doesn’t, I think him spitting on the ump will haunt him even more.

Sammy Sosa—Sosa definitely didn’t make many new friends this year. His HR stats are still very gaudy. It waits to be seen how it plays out next year, if he and the Cubs have a big year, much will be forgiven.

Ken Griffey Jr.—Wow…what a sad story. How many more years will he come back if this injury keeps coming up. He is over 500 HRs and might be a hall of famer like Koufax based on how good he was at his peak, instead of his career totals. I’ve maligned Griffey to many of my baseball friends over the past few years, but after the injury this year, I really feel sorry for the guy. I hope he can at least pull it together to have one more full, healthy and successful season.

Too Early to Tell:

Alex Rodriguez—The golden boy is looking more tarnished after these playoffs.

Pedro Martinez—Add a World Series ring and a couple of more big playoff wins to the resume. It will be interesting to see how he pitches in his mid to late 30s and if he can still put up big numbers.

Mike Mussina—Moose pitched well in the playoffs after an undistinguished season.

Gary Sheffield— Sheff put up some great numbers this year and created a quote about the Red Sox that will follow him to the grave. It took much longer for him to say something stupid than I thought it would, but I will give him points for timing.

Frank Thomas— Like Griffey, he was having a good season and then got hurt (no pun intended).

Jeff Bagwell and Craig Biggio— Bagwell and Biggio both took their HOF case up as much as anyone this year. Bagwell played great down the stretch, got some big hits in the playoffs and has found an adjustment that allows him to hit without being as dependent on his bad shoulder. Biggio had a very solid season and is returning next year for the Astros.

Jim Thome- Went through slumps with people on base and nagging injuries, yet still hit 40 taters and drove in over 100 rbi.

Won’t make the hall:

Juan Gonzalez—Another year in the tank.

Larry Walker—Missed a bunch of games this year with injury again, but did play well for the Cards down the stretch and in the playoffs. Going by the playoffs, the old boy still can play the outfield quite well.

Fred McGriff- The crime dog won’t get into the hall by voting. Because of the attention to his failure this past season and the articles written about him hanging on, this will be the first thing that comes up when eligible.

Palmeiro is coming back to the O's next year, at a reduced rate. He had a great September, which might have something to do with that. I could see Raffy sticking around long enough to get 600 HR, and 3000 hits is a lock. as is the HOF, first ballot.

Pedro is a no-brainer. Pedro's best six years are equal, if not better than Koufax's six-year run. And if Koufax got in for that ...

Sosa is in.
Piazza is the greatest hitting catcher ever, so he's in.
Unless he hits .250 for the next ten years or gets run over by a bus tomorrow, ARod is clearly in.

Curt: postseason heroics, bringing a championship back to Boston, three 20win seasons, etc. He'd get in less on stats and more on several high-profile accomplishments, if he did get in at all.

Edmonds: possibly the best CF in the game right now, looks like he has 2-3 more typical seasons left in the tank. 34 years old, current career line of 302 HR, 909 RBI, .294 BA, .544 SLG, .384 OBP, .928 OBPS.

if I had a vote, I'm not sure I'd vote either one of them in right now, but I think Edmonds might be the one who could accumulate enough stats to make a solid run at it. Or he might be the CF equivalent of Dwight Evans...

is it safe to assume that schilling gets the al cy young this year? i didn't realize he's never won one, but i guess in his good years he's been overshadowed by randy johnson, schmidt, maddux or glavine.

Some other players that are hard to figure for Hall Membership:

The Closers:
Mariano Rivera -- Sandman isn't as automatic anymore, with now with a big blown save to go with the one with the D-Backs. The guy is still great. But hey, so was Goose Gossage for a good long time and he isn't in the hall of fame.
Trevor Hoffman -- his career stats are really just as good as Rivera, he just didn't play for the Yanks. He did lose his only WS appearence.
John Smoltz -- Let's say that Smoltz somehow is a very strong closer for four more seasons and gets over 300 career saves to go with 170 wins and a Cy Young as a starter. Where does this rank? I don't know, Eck had 390 saves and almost 200 wins. Lee Smith is the alltime save leader and isn't in the Hall, so go figure.

Many around here say that the closer is an overrated position. In some cases this may be true, but I will point out look at what Backe and Foulke did this post season as another illustration of what some of these closers can do. Then again, Izzy wasn't that great for the Cards.

Another player that I can't figure is Jeff Kent. The guy is now the alltime HR leader at 2b. The porno stache is definite HOF matierial, but I have never really thought of him as being "great" 2b, as much as a very good hitter.

Closers are overrated because their careers as stellar performers are usually quite short. In that sense, it's "easier" to groom a guy to be a good closer than to groom someone at any other position. In turn, this lessens the value of that position. Closers with extended (>5 yrs) periods of excellence are the exception, not the rule. Mo, Hoffman, and Eck are clearly a cut above the rest. Hoffman has toiled away in relative obscurity, however, which will hurt his chances.

Lee Smith is clearly not as good as those three. Compared to the others, his ERA's were higher, he pitched in fewer games+innings/season, with fewer K/9IP, more H/IP. His save numbers in his best seasons were less than EckMoHoff. And MoHoff pitched in a better era for hitters. He racked up a lot of saves because he pitched a long time, so he has that going for him, but he was never as dominant as EckMoHoff at any point in his career. His batter equivalent (i.e. someone who was good, maybe great at times, played a long time but was rarely considered to be one of the best at his position) is the midpoint between Raffy Palmeiro and Harold Baines.

re: edmonds

even given that there's a dog and pony show element to gg's, the sheer amount edmonds has won taken in combo w/ his career offensive stats could be a big factor, no?

the business w/ lee smith is a bit weird. didn't rollie fingers get in pretty quickly? staxhe factor?

Of course, he couldn't do that and pitch as often as today's closers. Today, 60-70 appearances and 70-80 IP per season is typical. For Fingers, it was more like 45-55 apps and 110-120 IP.

"Stellar postseason" hasn't weighed too heavily for Jack Morris so far. Joe Sheehan wrote last week that while Schill helped his HOF case more than anyone this year, his resume is way short of the standard.

Anderson will be 33 next season and is already over 1700 hits, has career .299 avg and other than missing some games this season with injury, has been remarkably consistent, high quality player since he came into the bigs.

Anderson has some decent RBI numbers (which is highly team dependent), got a lot of credit for being the cleanup hitter on an overachieving WS-winning team, and that's it. He's no HOF'er and he's not even close.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/anderga01.shtml

His top comparables thru age 32 are Steve Garvey, George Bell and Al Oliver. Case closed!

Garvey's production really fell off at age 32, up to that point he was on mark for a HOF career and was one of the best players in the game in the late 70s. It gives me the willies even defending that guy, I really hated the Dodgers.

Also, the fact that he relies on hitting .300 to get a decent OBP (AND the fact that his walk rate has stayed unnerringly consistent) doesn't augur well for what's going to happen when his bat slows down. I don't discount the notion that he might buck this trend & continue to cough up an 800 OPS & 25-30 HRs every ding dongin' year between here & retirement, but it's not likely. And it's doubtful that sort of production will get him in the Hall of Fame. With his career numbers where they are, he'd need to hit like the mid-90s Frank Thomas from here on out to have a shot at the Hall.

Barry Bonds (obvious)
Rickey Henderson (maybe even more obvious)
Randy Johnson (best pitcher of his era)
Roger Clemens (overrated, but still great career #s)
Greg Maddux overrated, but still great career #s)
Roberto Alomar (MVPs, best player at position during prime, great defender and great offensive #s for his position)
Barry Larkin (the NL shortstop version of Alomar, although perhaps not quite as good)
Ivan Rodriguez (the catcher version of Alomar EXCEPT Pudge really might be on of the greatest catchers ever. Total shoe-in, esp. after Florida WS)
Ken Griffey, Jr. (slowed down by injuries, but Gold Gloves and MVP, it's not close
Sammy Sosa (drug allegations will taint him more than Barry, but should still make it)

Seems likely if they continue:

Pedro Martinez (best pitcher of his era--along with Johnson--had best pitching year since like forever in 1999, number of big game wins, needs to get to mid 200s to secure himself)
Tom Glavine (needs to get to high 200 in wins, really not that great a pitcher. . . Dave Stewart always gets jobbed by fuckers like Glavine and Maddux, even though Stew was the best pitcher in the world for 4 years, he'll never make it, while these guys who were always great, but not in his league will probably be shoe-ins.)
Alex Rodriguez (too early to say)

Probably (at some point):

Mike Piazza (Best hitter in league for a couple of years there, really hampered himself by staying at catcher, but he'll probably make it anyway)
Rafael Palmeiro (great #s, but never really an MVP caliber player. Will make it for career achievement aka Don Sutton)
Jeff Bagwell (great #s, MVP and very consistent, should make it)
Gary Sheffield (no GGs, no MVP, good, but not great offensive #s, probably borderline, should make it if he gets above 500 homers)
Juan Gonzalez (like Sheffield only with 2 MVPs and slightly better #s but also a bigger jerk and no ring)

No:

Larry Walker (grossly inflated offensive #s from Coors Field, too many injured seasons)
Fred McGriff (just not that great)
Mike Mussina (no MVPs, not a great postseason pitcher, low #s compared to greats)
Frank Thomas (too many injuries, didn't play position for much of career, not likely)

to early to say: barry bonds

imo 7-8 amazing years is plenty to get a player into the hall. same grounds for a-rod and pedro there. i mean if a guy can plausibly be considered the BEST PLAYER IN THE GAME for any 5 year period of time doesn't he belong in the HOF?? it's an open question i guess but i think my mind's made up.

Thomas is more debatable, but I just think that his decline really should shave a lot of votes off him. In 1997, I would have said, okay if Thomas continues like this he's gotta make it, now 7 years later I guess I just feel like he kind of bombed out. And before you make the Griffey argument, I rate him a LOT higher. Griffey was a complete ballplayer. Excellent baserunner. Best fielding center-fielder in the game for a time.

i think edgar will make it in time.

i'm hoping & praying he's going down down down

If we only look at career numbers, without considering points #1-3 that I made in the above paragraph, and without considering basic questions like "was this guy one of the best players in the league when he played" (as John has noted), then we're letting in a lot of players that don't belong.

I agree with John that 7-8 spectacular years (in which the guy is arguably one of the top five players in the game or league) is sufficient. Or, I'd say 12-15 very good, leaning toward great years in which the guy is considered one of the top fifteen or so players in the game or league and one of the best at his position. Baines and Anderson fail both of those tests.

Garvey, like Keith Hernandez, is a bit of a different case because he was a very good but not great hitter, but was considered a wizard with the glove. Both guys deserve consideration for that (this is why Mazeroski is in the HOF, because he's one of, if not THE best fielding 2Bman ever, despite so-so hitting).

I suspect that the same arguments will be made for Andruw Jones when he retires (I don't believe Jones has been mentioned yet on this thread). Only nine years into his career, many believe he's one of the best fielders ever at his position. His hitting is very good, but not great in this hitters era, but he does have 250 HR, all this, AND HE'S ONLY 27. So in five-ten years time perhaps he will be considered a no-brainer too.

And I like Garvey and Hernandez, but neither should be in the Hall.

He is so good and yet so overlooked -- even in his own city.

Similar Batters through Age 27

1. Ruben Sierra (894)
2. Ron Santo (878)
3. Al Kaline (877) *
4. Frank Robinson (876) *
5. Jose Canseco (874)
6. Ken Griffey Jr. (859)
7. Eddie Mathews (858) *
8. Greg Luzinski (846)
9. Barry Bonds (842)
10. Hank Aaron (839) *

That's four HOF'ers, two on their way to the HOF (Bonds, Junior), one who should be in the HOF (Santo), and two more who many thought were HOF bound at that point in their careers (Sierra, Canseco).

And we're just talking about batting here. None of them (except perhaps Griffey) are Jones' equal with the glove.

Gosh, isn't speculatin' fun?

Um no he wasn't, but that he's considered such is a pretty amusing myth. Anyway, great fielding/hitting third basemen are harder to find than centerfielders, who let's face it are a dime-a-dozen. Andruw Jones is probably not and has never been even the in top five active centerfielders at any given point in his career (and the fact that he's not a perenial All Star or ever placed highly in MVP kinda indicates that.) And I don't know what that stats comparison is based on, but it's total bullshit.

aj is a great (if overrated) glove, but generally i don't like the idea of guys who stumble/roll along at good-not-great clips for long durations getting into the hall, EXCEPT as lifetime achievement award kind of things for guys who put up great career totals (at the end of the day there's a lot to be said for consistency and durability, but before that those things can be pretty frickin dull). the only thing andruw really has going for him right now, besides being young yet and "productive" offensively every year, is his (statistically) undeserved rep as the "greatest-fielding CF of all time" (which is admittedly quite a lot).

also abreu > jones, also schmidt's .267 BA > jones' .271 BA

(that's the point i meant i was agreeing w/, tho i also agree w/ schmidt >>> jones)

Really?

Acc to a column I recently read, Edmonds trails only the following CFs in career HRs: Mays, Griffey, Snider, DiMaggio. (+Mantle)

-- Dr Morbius (wjwe...), November 1st, 2004 12:54 PM.

It is true that 3B is an underrepresented position in the HOF, but great hitting CF are about as difficult to find (throughout baseball history) as great hitting shortstops.

(xpost)
I wasn't suggesting that Jones is Schmidt's equal in hitting -- I was just showing that the stats you used to try to argue your case are essentially useless.

Among MLB CF'ers, Jones was 5th in OPS in 2004, 8th in 2003, 3rd in 2002, 11th in 2001, and 4th in 2000 (incidentally, Edmonds was 1st in all five years). His cumulative OPS over those years is in the mid 800's. By itself, his hitting is very good, but not HOF-worthy, but he's also considered to be one of the best fielders ever at his position. If he hits and fields at that level for another ten years (which is entirely realistic if he is indeed 27), then he'll have a good HOF case.

Similarity scores:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/similarity.shtml

i might look into those similarity scores tomorrow cuz right now i find them v difficult to believe.

(xpost)

(it took ten minutes to type this out, because I was distracted midway through by Sportscentre showing a clip of Schilling speaking on behalf of Bush at a rally in Ohio).

well that's interesting because guys who aren't slaves to win shares say very different. more advanced defensive metrics have jones varying from middle-of-the-pack to "above average"; win shares, from what i've heard james say, has him off the charts. if i had to guess i'd say he's a very good to great defensive CF, but probably not one of the best ever, and probably not the best in the game right now (that seems to be mike cameron, or certainly was going into this season).

Yeah, Brooks Robinson is a much better comparison (again, I only mentioned Schmidt because of the K's and low BA comment). He wasn't a outstanding hitter, but he played a LONG time (23 years? and I think he held the record for games played when he retired) and GG's in 90548 straight years is astounding.

Obviously, a lot does depend on longevity. Bernie Williams was one of the most valuable players in the league at his peak, which, barring a career resurgence, lasted nine years (1994-2002). It's a huge assumption to project that Jones will hit 25-30 HR's for the next ten years (putting him in the 500-600 range for his career), while winning several more GG's.

Yeah, that's true, he's probably a bit overrated because of that. For this reason, similarity scores work better for comparing players once they're near the end of their careers.

Of course, it seems that there's still a lot to discuss re: Jones' fielding!

now that i think of it isn't it widely perceived that jones' D slipped considerably after he beefed up? he's obviously lost a lot of footspeed and that's bound to take you down a few notches when you play center.

Pedro, Piazza, A-Rod should all be locks if they never play again.

>Garvey...was considered a wizard with the glove<

Stathead analyses show that Garvey had the range of a pregnant water buffalo at 1B, which is why he often logged .998+ fielding pcts. He was the polar opposite of Keith Hernandez in this aspect of his game.

Garvey had a terrible arm too, if I remember correctly.

Mussina arguably was robbed of the Cy in 2002(?) when Clemens went 20-3 and was the third best pitcher on his team (behind Moose and Pettite). Also, short-term achievements (for lack of a better term) such as pitching a perfect game, hitting four homers in a game, a hitting streak, etc.; aren't supposed to be considered in a players' favour in HOF voting. Although I'm sure they do end up getting some credit for these things nonetheless.

Obviously some sort of sustained achievements of these sorts, i.e. Nolan Ryan pitching seven no-hitters over a nearly 20 year span, are a different matter.

Moose's career ERA is about a run below the league, Cone's was about .70 below (almost identical career innings right now). Moose is better and may wind up with 800-1200 more innings, 50-80 more wins.

If from the '60s Koufax, Gibson, Marichal, Drysdale, and Bunning all go in, why should fewer from the past decade enter? Because it's a hitter's environment since '95? This is one illustration that people are too picky about post-1970 HOFers.

G: 31
GS: 29
ERA: 3.22
WL: 11-14
S: 1
CG: 2

By contrast Stewarts' line:

G: 22
GS: 18
ERA: 2.84
WL: 10-6
CG: 3
SO: 1

AND HIS LCS LINE!

G: 10
GS: 10
ERA: 2.03
WL: 8-0
CG: 1

Seriously dude, if you think "a bunch of relievers" from recent times deserve HOF consideration ahead of Mussina or Glavine (and I'm not sold on TG yet either), we got nothin' to talk about. Especially the "big game" silliness. (Check Willie Mays' underwhelming WS stats.)

>Schilling has been no contest better (but he'll be Dave Stewart disqualified most likely.)<

No idea what this means. Stewart, Schilling (as of now)and Jim Rice shouldn't get in the Hall without tickets.

I don't disagree about Jim Rice, but Stewart and (after this year) Schilling should both be there.

Apparently we have nothing to talk about, cuz I'm taking Rivera, Smoltz and Hoffman ANY day of the week over Mussina and Glavine.

Maddux definitely gets a bad rap for his postseason pitching. 3.22 ERA in the postseason isn't bad at all (Smoltz's is 2.77, which isn't a huge difference). However, most of those numbers were put up when he was almost invincible in the reg. season, whereas he was certainly more vulnerable in the postseason. Unfortunately for him, his best postseason was probably 1997, when he pitched extremely well but lost twice to Florida and Eric Gregg's 93-foot wide strike zone.

I don't think anyone's arguing for Jim Rice's HOF resume, but it's undeniable that he was one of the top hitters in the game for several years, but, like Albert Belle, a) he didn't play long enough and b) most people think he's an asshole, which the voters hate.

We have to look at how Maddux (and anyone else) actually pitched. In his career, I see two horrible postseasons (1989, 2000) which obviously count against him. Otherwise, he generally pitched very well. In 1996, he pitched 39 innings and gave up just 8ER. And he was "only" 3-2. In 1999 he pitched 28 innings and gave up just 7 ER. And was 1-2.

Most of the time, he was quite good. Again, his bad rep comes because he was untouchable in the reg. season and couldn't quite live up to those expectations in the postseason.

You have to look at those stats in the context of the GAMES themselves though. He gave up runs and the opposing pitcher didn't (or gave up less!) This happened TIME AND AGAIN. It wasn't all just bad luck! He consistently got outpitched, DESPITE supposedly being the best pitcher in the NL for all those years. That docks ya in my opinion.

And the Gibsons and Smoltz and Stewarts and Schillings DO seem to always come up big, don't they? Just as big as needed to be, ya know?

anyway, who's in now?

I remember when Stewart was a back of the bullpen pitcher for the Dodgers, it was hard to believe this guy all the sudden got good with the A's. Stewart didn't have a good season as a starter until he was 30 and had only had marginal success in the bullpen.

I wonder what Tom Glavine's career ERA would be without all those runs he gave up in the first inning. More than any other successful pitcher than I can remember, he seemed to always get roughed up in the first, then settle down and not give up a run for the rest of the game.

Injuries had a lot to do with this.

GLAVINE

HOF Standards: Pitching - 45.0 (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 154.5 (Likely HOFer > 100)

MUSSINA

HOF Standards: Pitching - 45.0 (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 101.0 (Likely HOFer > 100)

I bet they both go in. Glavine is ahead at this point because of the postseason trips. The writers will judge them as being more like Sutton than like Kaat or Morris.

hell, even Robb Nen?

Rivera is a shoe in. Other relievers? Maybe Hoffman? Maybe nobody?

I don't see why the writers would get all exclusive about pitchers suddenly. Mussina, Glavine, and Smoltz are all gonna have better career totals than pitchers-park-aided Don Drysdale (and maybe Fergie Jenkins too).

Schilling not good enough for long enough.

on the subject to a degree, Raffy is now 10 hits from 3,000!

I'd agree about Schilling now, but if he gets healthy this year and adds a couple more solid seasons plus more post-season heroics, he'll make it and a lot easier than other two will.

Blyleven

Black Ink: Pitching - 16 (128) (Average HOFer ~ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 239 (24) (Average HOFer ~ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 50.0 (36) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 120.5 (67) (Likely HOFer > 100)

ERA+ = 118

Glavine

Black Ink: Pitching - 29 (50) (Average HOFer ~ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 189 (49) (Average HOFer ~ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 45.0 (50) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 154.5 (39) (Likely HOFer > 100)

ERA+ = 121

Quite comparable to Blyleven, and they'll probably be nearly equal in wins when Glavine retires. If Blyleven should be in the Hall then it looks like Glavine has just as good a case.

Neither guy could be considered the top pitcher in the league for an extended period of time, but they were perennially in the top five

However, even though Glavine's HOF Monitor is much higher than Blyleven's, this is surely due in large part to his playoff appearances. Also, Blyleven was better for longer, as he has a big edge in Grey Ink. Finally, if Glavine was arguably the third best pitcher on his own *team* during his peak years, will that reflect negatively on voters? I don't see how it could not.

Uh the guy's getting more and more feeble every year. Admittedly the Mets seem to be getting better. Still if he keeps pitching like this I can't see him hanging around for too much longer.

'03 - 4.52 ERA, 22.1 VORP
'04 - 3.60 ERA, 42.0 VORP (and pitched 30 more innings)

He was likely one of the 15-20 best pitchers in the NL last year.

30 position players, kinda chosen based on at the bare minimum having maybe accomplished enough that even if they dropped off the cliff this upcoming season they would merit strong consideration in some quarters.

Bobby Abreu
Carlos Beltran
Adrian Beltre
Lance Berkman
Miguel Cabrera
Johnny Damon
Carlos Delgado
Adam Dunn
Jim Edmonds
Vladimir Guerrero
Todd Helton
Ryan Howard
Derek Jeter
Andruw Jones
Chipper Jones
Paul Konerko
Joe Mauer
Magglio Ordonez
David Ortiz
Jorge Posada
Albert Pujols
Manny Ramirez
Scott Rolen
Ichiro Suzuki
Mark Teixeira
Miguel Tejada
Jim Thome
Chase Utley
Omar Vizquel
Mike Young

Of those, I'd say yes to...

Vladimir Guerrero
Todd Helton
Derek Jeter
Chipper Jones
Albert Pujols
Manny Ramirez
Ichiro Suzuki

looks about right to me, plus Rolen and maybe Edmonds

oh and Thome duh

i left a-rod off that list, i guess

I just realized that Pujols is a free agent at year's end.

indeed

some good arguments for Jim Edmonds (imo):

http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2011/2/3/1972120/some-jim-edmonds-novelties

particularly interesting is the second point, that Jim Edmonds ranks #20 all-time in WAR from age 30-40 seasons.

the company that puts him in:

1. Barry Bonds 56% 11 Ted Williams 45%
2. Babe Ruth 47% 12 Jackie Robinson 86%
3. Honus Wagner 64% 13 Charlie Gehringer 60%
4. Willie Mays 55% 14 Roberto Clemente 63%
5. Hank Aaron 46% 15 Nap Lajoie 51%
6. Ty Cobb 40% 16 Eddie Collins 41%
7. Tris Speaker 45% 17 Edgar Martinez 75%
8. Stan Musial 45% 18 Lou Gehrig 42%
9. Mike Schmidt 53% 19 Rickey Henderson 43%
10 Joe Morgan 55% 20 Jim Edmonds 70%

(the numbers in parentheses are the % of the players career WAR that came from the age 30-40 seasons)

Definitely:
Ichiro Suzuki
Derek Jeter
Albert Pujols
Chipper Jones

Probably:
Jim Thome
Jim Edmonds
Jorge Posada
Manny Ramirez
Scott Rolen

Everyone else needs more good/great years IMO (and some like Andruw and Vlad and Todd and Vizquel hahaha aren't going to get them).

I had no respect for how good a defensive CF Andruw was up above (or how next level a hitter Frank Thomas was/is.)

is that your own list, omar? kinda curious as to why adam dunn is on there!

besides his top ranking ability to blow giant gum bubbles while running the bases

Surely Guerrero's a cinch by now.

Adam Dunn is might end with 600+ HRs by the time its all said and done. That's pretty impressive even if he was a statue.

Yeah Vlad should be on that second Probably list. Vlad's only problem is that his relatively early decline is going to hurt his counting stats a bit.

Agreed, but I think with him, writers are going to block off that 10-year-period from '98 to '07, and he'll get in with some room to spare, much like Kirby Puckett did.

that's kind of a random list i came up with, guys i figured would be good for debate.

definites:

Vladimir Guerrero
Derek Jeter
Chipper Jones
Albert Pujols
Ichiro Suzuki

50/50:

Jim Edmonds
Joe Mauer (more than 50/50 with several more years like his first few)
Jorge Posada
Scott Rolen
Jim Thome

uncertain on some of the others b/c of various issues

Adam Dunn is might end with 600+ HRs by the time its all said and done. That's pretty impressive even if he was a statue.

agreed that 600 homers would probably impress HOF voters. But in general, he's been a ~3 WAR player, which is great but not really HOF imo

Pudge Rodriguez gets in before Jorge.

anyway, after looking at his stats for a while i guess i could see dunn on a top 30 list (not necessarily in terms of merits but in the likelihood of HOF voters putting him in) even though i disagree

If Dunn were to get to 600 home runs, I think the writers will have something of Dave Kingman dilemma on their hands. In general outline--Dunn is clearly a better hitter than Kingman ever was.

"Pudge Rodriguez gets in before Jorge."

Unless the steroids thing gets him. But yeah Pudge was def better than Jorge.

Adam Dunn
Ryan Howard
Vladimir Guerrero
Derek Jeter
Andruw Jones
Chipper Jones
Albert Pujols
Manny Ramirez
Ichiro Suzuki
Jim Thome
+ A-Rod & Pudge

adam dunn
ryan howard

if we're going "voting today"

If you put aside the possibility that Thome is subjected to the same steroid suspicions as Bagwell, I think it's going to be hard to keep him out. He's going to hit his 600th home run this year, but you can't just call him a counting guy; his sabermetric stats are among the best in history. Even as a counting guy, my own feeling is that at a certain point, and absent any gaping weaknesses (like you would have with an Adam Dunn), counting guys should go in: 300 wins, 3,000 hits, 600 home runs (adjusted upwards from the old benchmark of 500). On stats alone, I don't know what the reason would be for not electing Thome.

i think people generally really, really like thome a lot, he's never had any steroid suspicion cast on him (nor any embarrassing moments related to the suspicion thereof), and his numbers are pretty undeniable. i think he *should* be a definite, but then again i also think bonds should be as well. i figure if thome walks away

whoops

if thome walks away with 600+ career HR and those epic slugging % and WAR and OPS numbers, i don't think there's any way he doesn't get in barring a shocking positive test for a PED. i don't think he gets in the first few times, though.

One thing I didn't understand this past round was people who were on the fence about Palmeiro for reasons above and beyond steroids. The argument, as I understood it, was that he was just a guy who accumulated big career numbers because of durability and longevity (which I count as positives, not things that should be held against you), and because of a favorable offensive context, and that he was, at best, only one of the top five first basemen in the game in even his best years. For me, 500 HRs + 3,000 hits = first ballot; that's someone who should go in the hall of fame. Aaron, Mays, and Murray reached 500/3,000, and that's it. I know that the phrase "counting stats" has become a pejorative, and I know that there are lots of times when counting stats are in fact misleading. I look at Palmeiro's career box, and I don't see them as being all that misleading.

Not that this MEANS anything, but out of the top 12 on the all time home run list, only Barry Bonds and Hank Aaron accumulated more doubles than Palmeiro, and only Babe Ruth had fewer strikeouts. The guy was a very efficient hitter, and certainly would not be anywhere near the least deserving person in the Hall.

Rafael Palmeiro was as consistent as you can get at the plate, year in and out, he is just one of those guys that never had the big spike seasons. The guy also drew walks. He was just a very good all around hitter. Thing is that he played in an ERA where guys were hitting 70 HRs and had seasons hitting .370, and he didn't.

Bobby Abreu – file in the hall of very good near Vada Pinson and Bernie Williams.

Carlos Beltran – had the talent and got the early start, but the injuries have done him in. It would be nice to see this guy play a full season again.

Adrian Beltre- solid player with mostly pretty good career with a couple of years that stand out. I can’t see him being good long enough to get something like 3000 hits on his resume. He would have to be an every day guy for 8 more years and average 150 hits for him to hit a mark like that one. If he does remain that consistent at third for 8 more seasons, it might add up, but that is a lot to ask.

Lance Berkman- cool player, but I think he will probably fall into the hall of very good. Berkman had a few of seasons where he was killer in the first half, then totally fell off the cliff or vice versa.

Miguel Cabrera- so far, so good, but can he keep it up and stay healthy for another 10 seasons? It will be interesting to see how he does after age 30.

Johnny Damon- He’s had a very solid career, but the only way I see it happening is if he can stay healthy and productive enough at the plate to put up 500 more hits and rings the 3000 hit club. Without that hallmark counting stat, he is going to be bunched up with a bunch of guys and he moved around a bunch. I’d say that is still possible.

Carlos Delgado- He’s a better power hitter and better player than most remember and they don’t, as like the Crime Dog most of his best years were in Toronto. I don’t think it will happen.

Adam Dunn- Dunn is if anything, very consistent. I think him going to the White Sox might be the perfect fit for him to continue to do what he does. It’s a good power park and the Sox have a history for liking those softball type sluggers. Maybe it is that I know him from Cincy pretty well, but I think he has a real strong shot at 500+ home runs, which will both raise his Hall profile and probably spark quite a bit of debate on the skills he didn’t have. All things being equal, I could see Dunn being a line in the sand kind of case for some even with the big home run numbers and 500 HRs, that it doesn’t add up to a hall of fame plaque. They probably might be right too.

Jim Edmonds- His stats look pretty good for a centerfielder, but I never really thought of him as being that caliber a player. I’d file him under very good.

Vladimir Guerrero- I think he has a good shot, especially if he can have a couple more productive seasons. The only knocks I can see on him is that he didn’t draw maybe enough walks for how good a power hitter he was and that his legs gave out pretty young and became a DH pretty early. That arm made a few amazing throws in it’s day though.

Todd Helton- I think it could end up a bit of a Mattingly situation. He won’t have the overall big career numbers, but he had some really great seasons. Hard to say how playing in Colorado will change the perception, although a whole career there might make it easier. I’d say he is borderline.

Ryan Howard- is similar and a bit better hitting version of Dunn, but Howard started later in the bigs – so I don’t think he will be around long enough to get 500 home runs and borderline on the 400 level. If Dunn does hit 500 home runs, Howard will be a guy people point out that was better than him at the same time. Phillies win a couple more championships and Howard is big part of it, that will change the equation.

Derek Jeter – I can see the hate and I think the adoration is a bit much on him, but the guy is pretty good. What would have Robin Yount’s career been like if he started as the Yankee shortstop at age 19 and played through the Bronx Zoo and 80s?

Andruw Jones- nah, but he was pretty good at one point.

Chipper Jones- won’t have the counting numbers, but I think he will get in.

Paul Konerko- better hitter than most realize, but probably not.

Joe Mauer- probably still too early…how will his body hold up?

Magglio Ordonez- good hitter, but no.

David Ortiz- it will be interesting how Papi gets discussed. I wouldn’t think so.

Jorge Posada-

Albert Pujols- He’s a lock now.

Manny Ramirez- the guy is one of the greatest right handed power hitters ever…but Manny being Manny, the peds etc. don’t look good. Probably depends on what happens to the rest of the peds list.

Scott Rolen- Good player, one of the best 3b of his time, but I don’t think so.

Ichiro Suzuki- Automatic.

Mark Teixeira- Good start, but he has to keep it up.

Miguel Tejada- good career but I think the peds are going to really hurt his background.

Jim Thome- Thome is pretty much a modern Killebrew. I got a feeling he is going to be the guy that the peds thing will never touch. If the Twins go out a champ and Thome has a nice year, you are going to see a whole lot of love going his way. I don’t think he is anywhere near as big a star as the other bashers of the time, but he has been a fan favorite everywhere. The dude cried leaving Cleveland, even with the injuries still seemed to do OK with Phils fans.

Chase Utley- I’d say he is on his way, biggest thing is staying healthy and productive.

Omar Vizquel- I think eventually, he will get in. He was too good a fielder and too solid over all for a long time to be ignored.

Mike Young- I think a whole lot depends on how this next chapter of his career goes.

Nice round-up. The two (comparatively) younger guys who are right on track are Cabrera and Mauer. Anything can happen (hello Don Mattingly, Fred Lynn, Dwight Gooden, etc.), but I'd say they're both more than halfway home. Ten more years of slow, standard-issue decline, with maybe a couple of bounce-back years mixed in, would be enough, I'd think.

Ten more years of steady decline for Joe Mauer might make him the greatest catcher ever. I gotta imagine the position the position catches up with him at some point.

slow, standard issue decline rather

agree with pretty much all of that except vizquel. if alan trammell can't make it in as an above average hitter for his career and great defensive SS, i don't know how vizquel will make it as a below average hitter for his career and similarly great defensive SS

Yeah this Vizquel argument seems crazy. No one thought he was one of the best players in the game during his prime, but now all the sudden he's the second coming of Ozzie Smith!?!?!! I get that he's been around forever, but so has Jamie Moyer and I don't see people lining up to induct him.

you cannot induct that which will not retire.

You probably have a point there on Vizquel considering Trammell, but I would say at least of my time watching baseball the only two dudes that could hang with Ozzie on the glove at a near level were him and Dave Concepcion. Omar was definitely compared to Ozzie quite a bit and I look at the guy and his career line and background kind of reminds me of Luis Aparicio.

i wonder if the pro-vizquel argument ties in with some of the anti-PED stuff, not to mention the HOF voters' (old school) tendency to love these flashy glovemen at SS who stick around long enough to put up 2500+ hits and win a ton of gold gloves. i think in the case of guys like that counting stats are a plus rather than a negative (as it often comes across w/r/t a guy like harold baines, to cite one "hall of very good" example.)

Dave Concepcion got 16.9% on his best HoF ballot showing. If Vizquel ends up beating that it'll be kind of silly.

Concepcion crossed my mind too--Concepcion and Tony Fernandez, who drew less than 1.0% support in his only year on the ballot. At their peak, both were almost certainly better than Vizquel; Vizquel has moved ahead of them in career totals because of his longevity (a good thing, as I always try to point out, unless you're milking it, which Vizquel has been for the past four seasons). I think Vizquel was a promising HOF candidate right after his one superstar year in 1999; he was 32 at that point, and the arc of his career looked good and was getting better. And that's it, even though he went on to win a few more gold gloves (I'm guessing they were largely reputation-driven, but I'll leave that for somebody who understands defense better than I do). Maybe--maybe--he'll get in via the Veteran's Committee way down the road, but I don't think he'll ever come close with the writers.

Weird--on Baseball Reference, Concepcion is the fourth best comp for Vizquel (similarity score of 827), and Fernandez is the second best comp for Concepcion (875), but Fernandez is not one of the 10 best comps for Vizquel. Also noticed what might be an argument in favor of Vizquel, albeit a weak one: six of his Top eight comps are in the HOF (Aparicio, Maranville, Ozzie, Luke Appling, Pee Wee Reese, and one second baseman, Nellie Fox). To me, that reflects more on whether they all should be in the HOF more than whether Vizquel should be.

Ozzie should be in the hall, but he's a great example of why using WAR as an end all for position players is kinda awkward because defensive stats are so subjective. Smith has 90.9 WARP by BP, 70.3 by Fangraphs and 64.6 by B-R. All three are well above average for his position and all show him with a great peak between 84-89, but that's a huge difference esp. between BP and the others.

Ozzie, yes. He would be roughly analagous to Mariano Rivera: even if you're someone who's super-selective when it comes to his type, he's the one guy where you won't get much argument from anyone.

Tony Fernandez kind of fell off the wall around the strike year when he played in Cincy. He came back and had a couple of years as a solid starter again in Toronto. He was a great player in his prime though.

Julio Franco kind of had the same kind of disappearing act, except it happened twice with that second oddball super bat off the bench for Atlanta in his mid 40s.

The argument, as I understood it, was that he was just a guy who accumulated big career numbers because of durability and longevity (which I count as positives, not things that should be held against you),

It depends on where you stand with peak value vs career value. I favour peak over career, so a first baseman (primarily a hitting position) should have been one of the top 10 players in baseball for at least 5-7 years (not necessarily consecutive) to be a HOFer.

The fact that only Palmeiro, Murray, Mays and Aaron reached 500/3000 is really misleading. First, the cutoffs are arbitrary -- if you change it to 510/3100, then it's just Mays and Aaron. Second, contemporaries like Frank Thomas and Jim Thome played just as long, were much better players at their peaks, but didn't reach 3000 hits because they drew a lot more walks. Basically, Palmeiro didn't draw a lot of walks but made up for it somewhat by getting more hits, although overall his OBP (more important than hits or BA) was still less than that of Thome and Thomas. And it's not like his BA was anything impressive, he wasn't hitting .320-.330 every year. His career BA is about 10 points less than Thomas', and 10 points more than Thome's.

But most importantly, the 500/3000 Club seems impressive because of the names involved, and it's supposed to make Palmeiro (and Murray to some extent) seem great by association but really there's no comparison here -- Aaron and Mays were putting up MVP numbers and 8-9 WAR every year, and Palmeiro wasn't.

Longevity seems a really bad way to compile a list of worthy HOF players. I can sort of see why there's a ten-year rule, but I would take full advantage of that, and if a player is brilliant for 10 years and one month then they should be just as strong a candidate as a 22-year stalwart.

Probably not too many "brilliant" players who are only around for 10 years, though. At least not anymore. (Ralph Kiner, Jackie Robinson, Hack Wilson, and Sandy Koufax are all in for careers that spanned less than 12 seasons.)

in that case what do you do with a player who has 10 years of HoF-worthy brilliance and then falls off a cliff? thinking about Andruw Jones here mainly

Personally, I don't think Jones will make it. First of all, a fair amount of his value is defensive, and that's often hidden to many of the voters. (Guilty as charged...) The other big problem is exactly what you say: the Dale Murphy falling-off-a-cliff problem. I don't think Jones will get much above 40% with the writers, possibly much lower. We'll see.

oh i think you're right, i was just wondering aloud how he's treated under Mark C's scheme of discounting longevity. if he had quit baseball after 2007 he'd look a lot different than he does now, even though he's produced the same amount of value now as he had then

I'm pretty sure Andruw will get in eventually, esp as the BBRAA membership gets smarter. Defensive value in a CF is easier to see than elsewhere.

i'd be shocked (but delighted) if andruw ever gets in... maybe as a VC candidate in 50 years

Didn't he set the record for most HRs hit before age 21 or something? plus at least a few All-Star appearances... I think you underestimate how he'll be perceived. Obv he "fell off a cliff" after a shorter period of stardom than Alomar, but there are some similarities.

Andruw Jones seems like a guy who'll get lost in the shuffle when all the big names hitting the ballot in a couple of years. Even though he hasn't retired yet, the ballot will be stacked for the next 10-15 years unless 4-5 guys start getting elected each year. But I wouldn't bet on it, not with everyone hedging their bets on who might or might not have done steroids.

jones' career batting average is at .256 now, i'm wondering if he sticks around any longer and it dips into the .240s if that'll severely affect things. despite his bonafides i can almost read the petulant anti-andruw HOF voter columns from 2020 right now.

I'm thinking Jon Heyman will be unemployable by 2020, but that's the starry-eyed dreamer in me.

What I'm saying is that if you invent a whole new field of physics, win a couple of Nobel prizes and then work out your retirement in comfortable anonymity for another ten years, what value do these ten years really have? Negligible compared to your Nobel prize, but to the Hall of fame they're an essential and obligatory requirement.

The vast majority of Hall of Famers have many, many seasons of average-to-decent baseball which add to their counting stats but in isolation would represent the career of a league average journeyman. How come this element is valued so highly? I think the peak years of a career should be weighed vastly more positively, even if the proverbial cliff is then fallen off.

I think there are so many things that could sink Jones's candidacy. I'm trying to view this through the eyes of the voters (and I think change in how the voters approach things will continue to happen gradually, not all of a sudden):

1) the fact that his last good season may well turn out to be before he turned 30 (huge)
2) the low BA and OBA; I don't .250 is going to stop being a huge psychological barrier anytime soon
3) the fact that he emerges from an era of inflated offense with a sub-.500 slugging pct.
4) the possibility that he may start bouncing from team to team (four in four years); I might be wrong, but I think this is a marginal negative for some voters (deserved or not)

On the other side, you've got great defense through his 20s, and possibly 500 HR if he can turn things around. When he was headed towards 600, I would have said yes. Barring a return to what he was doing in the early 00's, I can't see it.

so what about Delgado? he never made it to 500 hrs (he wants to make a comeback and try for it - but i doubt it will happen) - but he had 7/8 years where he was absolutely dominant.
i think even two more years of him hitting like he did in his prime would have made him a sure-fire HOF'er, but i'm not sure if he'll ever make it.

xpost

This thread actually indicates how things might go for Jones: a protracted, Blyleven-like debate, with induction well down the road.

"so what about Delgado? he never made it to 500 hrs (he wants to make a comeback and try for it - but i doubt it will happen) - but he had 7/8 years where he was absolutely dominant."

He was 1B though! Offensive dominance should be a given and even there plenty of 1B were better than Delgado during that time period.

a few were, sure. i dunno about plenty tho.

exhibit A for why counting stats are bullshit is probably someone like tony perez, who was a very good 1B for a few seasons but the rest of the time was pretty average and he stuck around for 23 seasons, the last 11 of which he was basically kevin millar.

Hometown bias, I admit, but Delgado's run was from '96 to 2008. Pujols was better, Bagwell, McGwire at the beginning, Giambi for three or four years...Helton, I don't know; you'd have to weight Coors properly; Thome, maybe, except I'm not sure how much of his time was spent DH-ing. For the duration of that (artificial, but no more than any decade-best window) 12 years, I'd say Delgado's third behind Pujols and Bagwell. I might be forgetting somebody obvious.

"a few were, sure. i dunno about plenty tho."

Guys who overlapped with part or all of Delgado's best years and were better:

Pujols
Bagwell
Thome
Thomas
McGwire
Helton
Giambi

I favour peak over career, so a first baseman (primarily a hitting position) should have been one of the top 10 players in baseball for at least 5-7 years (not necessarily consecutive) to be a HOFer.

That's valid. I prefer that there be two equally legitimate routes: peak and career (with the automatics being strong in both). I'd say Palmeiro's an easy pick based on career, and at least a borderline in terms of peak.

I like Delgado btw, but 1) he actually was really bad post-06 and didn't really get going until 98 and 2) even during his very best years there was at least a couple of those other first basemen who were better.

Just one other thing about Palmeiro. His walk totals are pretty good. Not freakishly good like Bonds, and neither was he a consistent 100-walk guy, but he did draw 100+ three times, 90-100 two times, and 80-90 two times; 1353 total, 31st all-time. A lot of that has to do with his longevity, but obviously there are numerous guys who played 20 seasons who aren't anywhere near the career leaders in walks.

Of course I'm not saying he was Mays or Aaron. But, elephant-in-the-room aside, I think there's gotta be a place in the Hall of Fame for him.

re:

1) i totally disagree here - he certainly had health problems, but i would not use the word "bad" to describe his 2 1/2 seasons after 06. maybe bad by the standard he had set in the 8 years previous. '07 was nothing to crow about, but '08 was a solid season and in '09 he was mostly injured but when he did play his output was solid.

2) i have to agree here tho. with the exception of maybe 2000 & 2003 a few of those guys on the list usually out performed him in one season or another. but your average HOF'er is going to be in a similar situation too.

xpost

if you adjust for the era in which delgado played, he definitely comes up short. if the dude put up those numbers in the '60s-'80s, he'd be first-ballot. sometimes i look at players in the modern era and i'm amazed not just at the cumulative career numbers they put up but how fast they arrived at those numbers.

and how fast they crash to earth!

yeah and i mean guys like derrek lee can quietly assemble careers that will maybe end w/around 400 HR and 1400 RBI and folks just shrug at it and he'll be off the HOF ballot in one year.

"but your average HOF'er is going to be in a similar situation too."

If your average HoFer is Palmeiro or Sutton, that's true, but I would think most HoFers have at least a couple of years where they are the best player at their position (in their league at the very least).

well, Delgado def had at least two (i say this without checking any other stats from 2000 & 2003 and could be totally wrong).

I know some really like the Wins Abover Replacement stat, but Chipper Jones actually holds up pretty well on the career stat at Baseball Reference.

The guy is #56 all time and has a slew of Hall of Famers below him.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_career.shtml

By comparison, Carlos Delgado is like #337 on the same list.

I think Chipper Jones most likely retiring a lifetime Brave and having that MVP will probably help carry him on. I don't think it will be automatic, but I think it will eventually happen, especially if it doesn't happen voting and goes to the vet committee.

Chipper is a cinch, with the usual caveat.

Chipper no doubt.

chipper should be 1st ballot and might be

"well, Delgado def had at least two (i say this without checking any other stats from 2000 & 2003 and could be totally wrong)."

Giambi had a monster year in 2000, as did Thomas. By 2003 he'd definitely passed those guys though and only Pujols really had the case for being the better 1B at that point. Unfortunately Delgado was never quite that valuable again and he was also a butcher in the field so...

active pitchers version. left pettitte, hoffman, and wagner in there why because they look interesting. culled from a list of both active leaders in wins and active leaders in saves.

Jamie Moyer
Andy Pettitte
Roy Halladay
Tim Hudson
CC Sabathia
Roy Oswalt
Mark Buehrle
Johan Santana
Carlos Zambrano
Cliff Lee
Trevor Hoffman
Mariano Rivera
Billy Wagner
Francisco Rodriguez
Joe Nathan
Jonathan Papelbon

I know it's early, but I'd throw Justin Verlander on there too--three Top 10s in Cy Young voting (and one near-miss) by age 27 is a pretty good start. Anyway, after Rivera, I think Hoffman's 97%, and Halladay must be close to 90% by now (i.e., if he coasts, he's in). Sabathia and Santana are in pretty good shape, I would think. I can't see Cliff Lee ever making the Hall. With relief pitchers, I think we'll have a better sense of what's required in about 10 years, when you start getting a deluge of 300 & 400-save guys.

You missed Lincecum; best chance after Rivera, Hoffman, and Halladay, I'd say (if his arm holds up).

Rivera's a no doubt guy. Hoffman's probably going to make it too. We've talked about Wagner elsewhere, but I think probably not.

Halladay's pretty close. He might need a couple of more of his typically good years to cement it, but I think he'll get in eventually either way.

If Sabbathia keeps up what approximately he's been doing for the next 5-10 years I think he's pretty much a shoe-in. He'll be close to 275 wins and have 3000+ SOs.

Santana's going to have to reverse his decline and put up some great years again, I think. It's hard to tell what the thresholds will be for the next set of starting pitchers (will a starting pitcher with sub-200 wins make it?) Santana was definitely hands down the best pitcher in baseball for three years though so he should have a leg up on everyone not named Halladay.

Oswalt is like Santana (except he was never the hands down the best and he's not really declining much). He needs at least another 4 or 5 good/great years as well.

None of the rest of those guys should come close.

Lincecum is the next best next bet, I agree, with Verlander right behind him.

lincecum has already accomplished so much, yeah. his durability is a maybe a red flag but then again it was like that for pedro too but he lasted for awhile before burning out. verlander does seem to have everything in place to be the righty version of sabathia imo.

looking at Sabathia, i don't think he has another quality 10 years in him.

Sabathia being as young as he was is really his biggest advantage over most of these dudes. Getting 40 someodd wins and 500 SOs is a big leg up in the counting stat department.

Uh Thermy:

2/9/2011: Sabathia lost 30 pounds this offseason, ESPNNewYork.com reports.

Hah j/k obviously he might not. But he's not shown much sign of breakdown so far despite being his current not svelt self for quite a number of years.

Ha ha!

He's only had an era under 3.00 one season in his career - counting stats are going to be his way into the hall. he's lucky he's on the yanks in that regard!

Yeah Sabathia is definitely going to be one of those dudes whose bonafides are heavily influenced by his longevity/career totals. But once you adjust for league/ballpark his ERA+ is pretty good. And he won a totally deserved Cy Young and has been deservedly top 5 three other times. He's not Don Sutton (to this point anyway.)

he's got an outside shot at reaching 200 wins by the end of 2012, and i think barring a complete breakdown he gets to 300.

i think sabathia's a long shot for 300. if i had to put money on one current pitcher getting there i'd probably pick halladay despite the age difference

Sabathia: 157 wins, 2100 innings, about to turn 31. Halladay: 169, 2300 innings, about to turn 34. Halladay's obviously the better pitcher, so it should be close. Neither guy strikes me as someone who's going to experience a sudden decline, and, at least for now, they're both set up on excellent teams. One thing's for sure: at some point, people will start to speculate that they'll be the last two guys to win 300 games ever, something that just never turns out to be true.

i think if we're looking at potential 300 win candidates (and it's probably a fool's gambit trying to bet on who will get there until they clear 250 and remain in full health) felix hernandez is able to average 15 wins per season through his age 30 season, he'll be at 161 for his career.

Forgot all about Felix. 71 wins at the age of 25; Seaver had 57, Clemens 60, Maddux 75. He's also already got a Cy Young share on Baseball Reference of 1.42, which is 31st all-time. He's in great shape.

ya - if we're going to include Lincecum - we have to throw Felix in too.

The once caveat with regards to Lincecum and Hernandez is obvious. Roll call, please: Dwight Gooden, Steve Avery, Alex Fernandez, Kerry Wood, Juan Guzman, Barry Zito, etc. These weren't Stephen Strasburg guys who (possibly) blew their arms out before they even got started; rather, a group of pitchers who got a real fast jump and then, for one reason or another (mostly arm trouble, but not always) just stalled. I have nothing to base this on, but my guess is that one of Lincecum or Hernandez doesn't pan out through his 30s.

That's pretty much the caveat regarding everyone though. Pitchers can fall apart real fast.

Again, just a hunch, but don't pitchers play out this scenario more often? You get the occasional Carlos Baerga or Chuck Knoblauch--early brilliance, then mysterious decline--but in my own mind, I remember far more cases involving pitchers (the arm's fragility being the obvious reason). Great young hitters seem to follow through on their early promise more consistently.

Sorry I meant that's pretty much the caveat regarding all pitchers.

Position players can fall apart fast too though, but it's usually once they get to their mid-30s for obvious aging reasons.

Yeah--I can think of a slew of mid-30s positional guys breaking down: Murphy, Alomar, Rice, Mo Vaughn, Mattingly, etc. (Ignoring anybody PED-related...or maybe they're the guys who don't break down.)

McGwire def. fell apart.

30 position players, kinda chosen based on at the bare minimum having maybe accomplished enough that even if they dropped off the cliff this upcoming season they would merit strong consideration in some quarters.

Bobby Abreu
Carlos Beltran
Adrian Beltre
Lance Berkman
Miguel Cabrera
Johnny Damon
Carlos Delgado
Adam Dunn
Jim Edmonds
Vladimir Guerrero
Todd Helton
Ryan Howard
Derek Jeter
Andruw Jones
Chipper Jones
Paul Konerko
Joe Mauer*
Magglio Ordonez
David Ortiz*
Jorge Posada
Albert Pujols
Manny Ramirez
Scott Rolen
Ichiro Suzuki
Mark Teixeira
Miguel Tejada
Jim Thome
Chase Utley
Omar Vizquel
Mike Young

― omar little, Thursday, February 3, 2011 3:57 PM (3 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well some of these dudes are going nowhere near the HOF, for sure. some of them should but won't.

*depends on the rest of their career, i think.

are you talking about EVER? What if they actually do fix the Veterans Committee someday? I can particularly see Utley, Rolen and maybe Andruw getting in.

i'm being pessimistic on that point. i agree utley and rolen should get in though.