currently active players with a shot at the hall of fame

i'm always way too interested in this, cause what's the fun in only indulging this when their careers are over? i guess the question is a combo of "who can get in" and "who could deserve to get in anyway"

i'm not talking about super young phenoms with 3 years of service down, obv trout looks like a legend at this point. nor am i thinking of guys at the ends of their careers (incl pujols) who will obviously get in barring scandal. the ballot in 15 years is gonna look a lot less stuffed than it is now which is why this is interesting.

thinking of guys like joe mauer -- 31 years old, 44 fWAR but will end with no major traditional milestones and he probably isn't gonna accumulate much WAR at 1st. if matt holliday ages gracefully he could end with 60+, though he will probably never make it in. loldavecameron said in a chat recently that if yadi has a few more seasons like he's been having he'll be a hall of famer.

beltre seems sorta obvious to me but i have to wonder if he needs a campaign to get the BBWAA on his side

david wright and/or chase utley ???!!!??!?!? ? !??

beltre had a negative UZR last year and still put up 5 wins. fenway/arlington were the best decisions he could've made (if he cares about the HoF). he'll get in.

beltran might have a harder time

brandon belt who even knows

Thinking of the voters:

Beltre, Mauer, Wright -- yes, even though Beltre and Wright have the historical 3B-bias working against them.

Beltran -- close enough that I think it matters what he does in the next two-three years.

Holliday -- good player, but I don't think so.

Utley -- toughest one to figure out because of the way his career is configured; formidable peak, a lot of partial seasons.

CC Sabathia was spoken of like a lock, prior to last season. I'm rooting for Tim Hudson getting in.

Beltre was a PED suspect after his monster year and then disastrous first year in Seattle, but much of that seems to have been reevaluated.

when beltre's going up for his acceptance speech everyone's gotta pat him on the head.

Utley will benefit as the SABR-friendly voters increase; def in top ten 2Bs in my opinion

Utley is still a v. good player, which is helpful because he'll need another 4-5 good seasons to impress the traditional voters. I think he's still a longshot though -- by the time he was HOF-eligible, most voters forgot how good Biggio was at his peak. If he'd retired two years earlier with ~2700 hits then he'd be a longshot too.

I think Mauer is a near lock. If he's John Olerud at first base for the next 7-8 years then he'll end up with decent career numbers, put that together with being the best catcher in baseball for nearly a decade plus an MVP award, and he should get in without a problem.

Cano's got a good chance if Seattle home park doesn't complete suppress his offense.

Pitchers will be hard to figure out. I mean how good does Verlander have to be from here out to make up for fact he won't have 300 (or maybe even 250) wins.

Cano's WAR pace is similar to Utley (and Wright) and he has even more years ahead of him. I think he'll get in.

I think it's generally accepted that pitchers get less wins than they used to, and that W-L records are increasingly meaningless.

Utley strikes as this era's Ron Santo.

Actually, I don't see Roy Halladay not getting in despite only winning 203.

I think it's generally accepted that pitchers get less wins than they used to, and that W-L records are increasingly meaningless.
--Van Horn Street

Sure but I think that just means that pitching benchmarks are just less clear.

Halladay sure but what about Santana. I mean my question is sorta what does Verlander have to do from here to be a HOF lock.

Get to around 60-70 WAR?

Because I don't buy that he already is.

That's like 30-40 WAR. So basically from 31-40 he has to put up the same #s as 22-30... Yikesz

Sorry 20-30 WAR. I guess that's not as bad.

I think Verlander and Hernandez will get around there. But 65 WAR becoming a benchmark for the Hall of Fame is harder to guess.

Hernandez farther than Verlander although I guess he's also younger. I think Felix needs at least one more Cy Young quality season for them to be be on par.

Felix is only 26!

He's 28 right now.

Or rather in 10 days he will be.

A little under three years younger than Verlander.

If the electorate is roughly split old and new, then Verlander and Hernandez are probably sitting in a similar place. Hernandez has a clear WAR advantage: 38.7 through age 27, as opposed to Verlander's 40.7 through age 30. The more traditional predictors favour Verlander, sometimes by a lot: Black Ink (46-20), Grey Ink (130-101), HOF Monitor (108-42), Cy Young Share (1.89-1.66). So above and beyond how well they pitch from here on in (which is obviously the biggest factor), where the electorate is down the road will also figure in. If it continues to inch towards new, as you would expect, Hernandez will benefit.

fWAR favors Verlander a little WAR. Also while Felix is younger they've pitched virtually the same amount of time (Verlander maybe 1/2 season more) so question is really same for each (ie when do wheels come off).

A little more than bWAR.

Just waiting for the vote:

Derek Jeter
Ichiro Suzuki
Albert Pujols

Lets see how they finish:

Carlos Beltran
CC Sabathia
Miguel Cabrera - probably not far now
David Ortiz
David Wright
Justin Verlander
Felix Hernandez
Adrian Beltre - probably not far now

Really good, but too early to really say:

Joey Votto
Joe Mauer
Dustin Pedroia
Andrew McCutchen
Mike Trout
Clayton Kershaw
Buster Posey
Prince Fielder

This is the list I worked up in a few minutes.

Fielder is probably a long shot, as you have to think the frame and injuries are just around the corner, but I'd say he's still got a shot a 500 HRs too.

Missed Robinson Cano under Let's see how they finish too. That was a pretty obvious one too.

I'd also say that Adam Dunn might end up the first player to hit 500 HRs and not get into the hall of fame for issues other than PED use. The guy is only 60 away at this point.

Subtracted WAY too early dudes (four years or less):

Carlos Beltran (I'd say he should make it, but it's really hard to say what voters will do... only real flaw is lack of monster season(s)/hardware. Does have great post-season stats though)
CC Sabathia (really all about the counting stats at this point)
Miguel Cabrera (I'd say last two years have pretty much cemented it)
David Ortiz (no way)
David Wright (can't see it either--just too much distant between him and the average HOF 3B for him to make up)
Adrian Beltre (kinda amazing how much value he's accrued--even if 1/4 of his value is defense he's still putting up very solid offense at 3B)
Joe Mauer (peak is really stellar for a catcher--I'd say he's got a decent chance)
Joey Votto (love him but late start plus 1B makes a tough sell)
Dustin Pedroia (the 2B version of Wright--except younger)
Prince Fielder (no chance)

biggest hurdle for felix will be health

xp lol no way on ortiz? is that "should" or "would"? he'll be jim rice 2.0 except with 500 homers possibly

remember reading something about how the majority of pitchers who make it to 300 get the majority of their wins after 30. it's really more about durability than talent. randy johnson only had 68 before he turned 30!

Either way you go, this potential Hall of Fame list is looking way, way smaller than when we did this kind of talk before.

Health and production is the biggest thing for all of the people on the list really.

Joey Votto - has an MVP, by the percentage new stats looks insane on some categories, won't get there on counting #s.
Joe Mauer - I think if he plays out decent in his 30s at first and stays healthy and most likely staying with one club, it could add up. He's closer than most on the list.
Dustin Pedroia - It all depends on his 30s. Keeps doing what he does, especially playing on a marquee club, it could add up.
Andrew McCutchen - has an MVP and good numbers, check back in 10 years.
Mike Trout - has put up freakish numbers, check back in 10 years.

I think the thing Big Papi has going for him though is that he is one of the bigger stars of his era and those guys seem to eventually get in somehow. Boston wins another championship and Papi has another good season along the ride, those four championships are going to have some sway. He won't have the MVP, but he could end up with #s and a resume not unlike Reggie Jackson. I'd say that guy and Stargell would be the similar players for Ortiz. If he does at 38-40 what he did at 35-37, I think it possible.
Clayton Kershaw - see above, if he stays dominant like he has through age 30 even if his arm falls off the guy will get in like Kofax or eventually Pedro.
Buster Posey - MVP+2 rings is a pretty good way to start, but long way to go.
Prince Fielder - 285 HRs at age and turns 30 in May. If he wasn't built like a squat fireplug perception might be different. The guy hasn't really missed that many games considering his size so far though, but it seems that the big guys run into a total wall between age 30-32 usually. I agree it's a total longshot.

more about durability than talent

Would be interested in putting that to the test by looking at all the 300-game winners who got more than half their wins after age 30. Randy Johnson was one of the most dominant pitchers ever from 35-38--there was a lot more than just durability with him. Even someone like Early Wynn, who was my first guess as to someone who probably just hung around until he got to 300, actually was a better pitcher after his age 30 season (3.36 ERA, 3.7 WAR/162) than before (3.86, 2.2 WAR /162). I'm sure it's true of some pitchers...Glavine?

But if you look at Johnson's last five seasons only, without which he doesn't cross 300, yes, that's true. It depends how you interpret the statement.

it's not hard to go to B-R's list of winningest pitchers and isolate their xx-29 seasons, which i just did and indeed pretty much every pitcher in the past 60 years got the majority after turning 30

It's not that I doubt that--mathematically, it's seems highly probable that a guy with a lot of career wins gets most of them after 30, unless it's someone who's winning regularly out of the gate, like Seaver--it's just that "more about durability than talent" strikes me as tautological at first glance. Putting aside the Fidryches and Priors of the world, guys with a limited amount of talent never get the chance to be durable; they're out of the league before they're 30.

seaver's wins pivoted around his age 30 season

saying "more about durability than talent" doesn't mean "durability matters and talent doesn't"

"xp lol no way on ortiz? is that "should" or "would"? he'll be jim rice 2.0 except with 500 homers possibly"

I mean he's not even 2/3s as good as Edgar. I don't see how he gets more consideration in any kind of rational world.

have you watched espn at any point over the last 10 years

"rational"

i mean a couple years ago he seemed like a no-chancer but he's got a third ring now and a couple more ortiz-like years under his belt, and he could definitely get the "most feared hitter of his era" comment over and over again if it came down to it

meanwhile edgar has "fourth most famous mariner in the 90s", bbwaa doesn't give a shit

I think you're both right, you're just looking at it two different ways. Edgar was the better hitter and more deserving. But, for the reasons zach mentions, Ortiz seems far more likely to be inducted. Although, as I said on another thread, I think Edgar's non-induction will be a lingering obstacle for Ortiz; there will always be a block of voters who won't vote for Ortiz knowing that Edgar hasn't gone in first.

1) he's a dh so there'll always be voters who won't give him the time of day.
2) he's not even the best eligible dh so there'll always be a sabermetric voting block that's down on him.
3) his stats are really not that great.

i dunno about #3. HOF or no, he has some solid career stats. i certainly would not describe it as "not that great".

I think his stats are great, just not all-time great and the HOF is no lock nor necessary deserved at this stage. still he's a really impressive hitter and I think he will get bonus points for the postseason.

Ortiz's election is all but a certainty after last year.

#3 I meant to say he's not a historically great hitter. He's probably one of the best 100 hitters ever, but considering thats the only value he brings to the table I don't think that qualifies as "that great". Certainly there are plenty of even contemporary dudes with similar offensive #s who actually played a position who won't get much consideration.

With less groomed facial hair though...

The other thing you can't discount is the PED association. (I just read up on it again--Ortiz's association is cloudy, but it's there.) If Bagwell and Piazza are having a hard time merely because of suspected use--two guys who would otherwise be first-ballot automatic--will the voters choose a DH to break precedent?

You guys are somehow overlooking that he has three rings and a million big postseason hits.

A lot of voters think that Andy Pettitte is a HOF'er because of the rings and his postseason record. They're more than happy to overlook the PED's if the right narrative is there. And Pettitte wasn't even that good in the regular or postseason.

they're willing to overlook it if the player doesn't strike anyone as a typical bagwellesque roider, eg non-firethrowing SPs

and pettitte was worth 68 fWAR!

You guys say they're willing to overlook, but neither Ortiz nor Pettite has been on the ballot yet. Thus far, they're not overlooking anything if you've been tangibly connected to PEDs; they're not overlooking people who are strongly suspected to have been connected; they even seem to be slow on Biggio, who played with a guy who is suspected. I just don't know what precedent you're basing your optimistic outlook with regards to Ortiz on.

Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, I'm trying to figure out what will happen, not what I think should.

David Ortiz (no way)
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Sunday, March 30, 2014 7:20 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I see ortiz in a jim rice situation where mystique RINGS ECMB/CHBF gets him in ahead of more-betterer DHs like Edgar or DKHGHSDKGHSFLKJHSTEROTIDS??? Bagwell etc.

I've already said what I think should happen and I seriously doubt that Ortiz will make the HOF.

But I'm not watching enough Sports Center apparently.

You are a v smart person

tbh i think a good deal of the "not voting bagwell bc he might've used steroids" people are just saying that as a weird excuse to not vote for him for other reasons that don't hold up as well as they used to (ie slugging 1B with no trad career milestones/not exciting or 'storied or flashy enough), and ortiz won't have any of that. frank thomas didn't.

Frank Thomas about twice as good a player as Ortiz is.

yes but a huge chunk of voters are not going to agree with that, which is the whole point, why do you keep ignoring the point

even if the majority of voters know ortiz was worse, thomas got in first ballot and ortiz (like jim rice, also a much worse player than frank) has 15 years

was just trying to say that not every slugger in the strd era is going to get bagwelled when sluggers worse than bags are still getting in

Rice got in with 76.4% in his 15th year of eligibility, and I have to believe that a decent percentage of his vote came from old-school writers who believed they were making a point about PEDs (McGwire was already on the ballot, many were about to come on). I'm just not sure Rice is a good precedent for anyone, least of all Ortiz. At least not in the immediate future--15 years down the road, if the writers take a more benign view of PEDs, you might be right.

(I don't see that great post-season player + three titles supersedes PED association at the moment. Neither even MVPs nor seven Cy Youngs does.)

"seven MVPs"

(Morbius aghast: "DON'T YOU REALIZE THEY'RE PLAYING BASEBALL TODAY.")

Ortiz has all the intangibles that the voters love (championships, clutch performer, great teammate), Rice and Thomas got in despite not having those intangibles (they never won anything unless you count Thomas with the '05 Sox when he was injured for nearly the whole year, both had reputations for being prima donna a-holes). I think Ortiz is closer than Thomas to being the kind of player that the writers love to elect.

wasn't bringing up rice to make a point about PEDs but about the length of time ortiz has to make it to 75% -- like ok, so the voters know frank was better than ortiz (probably) but frank only needed a year to get in, there's a huge cushion

when i said "worse sluggers than bagwell" i was talking about frank

has ortiz ever actually been linked to PEDs?

As I mentioned above, I went back and tried to refresh my memory on the details. I searched high and low (i.e., I went to Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ortiz#Alleged_positive_performance-enhancing-drug_test_in_2003

So it's murky. But the voters thus far haven't seemed to be big on nuance when it comes to PEDs.

cliff lee inched that much closer to the hall with his 140th career win today: 5 IP, 8 R, 11 H, 1 BB, 1 K, 14.40 ERA, 13 game score

kinda makes up for his 2012 season

Thomas won two MVP awards (including one unanimously). That's a pretty big intangible. Thomas was also a monster ballplayer. Despite probably being as nearly big a minus (or nothing) defensively as Ortiz he's top ten in career WAR/JAWS (just outside it for seven year peak) for 1B (plus he hit 500 home runs). Ortiz is by contrast outside the top 30 for all three (and he won't likely get to 500 home runs). In 7-10 years time when Ortiz is coming up for election everyone minus a few card super Sox fans is going to bring these facts up IN ADDITION to the fact that the dude was a DH (which will be enough for some folks to dismiss him right off the back even without the steroid whispers). Unless I'm totally misjudging the electorate I don't see Ortiz getting a final ballot reprieve a la Rice or even really getting close that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/AL_MVP_award.JPG

that's totally tangible you can pick it up

Look at im hoisting this shit:

http://blog.sidelinesapp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/David-Ortiz-MVP.jpg

linda cardellini otm

https://twitter.com/davidortiz/status/451032513679749120/photo/1

Nothing to do with Ortiz, just follow-up to Alex's post. I'm just not sure if anyone who only saw Thomas during the second half of his career appreciates how he was viewed for his first eight years (up to and including '97): almost exactly as Pujols was viewed, which is as arguably the greatest pure hitter since Williams/Foxx/Ruth. At the end of '97, his slash line was .330/.452/.600--and while home runs were definitely flying out, the records hadn't yet started to fall.

Some handicapping from David Schoenfield, based on the ASG rosters:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/49826/how-many-all-stars-will-be-hall-of-famers

My own guesses (without checking to see what I posted upthread--I change my mind a lot):

Sure thing: Jeter, Cabrera
Close to a sure thing: Cano, Beltre, Felix, Kershaw
Three good-to-great seasons will do it: Tulowitzki, McCutchen, Utley
Best too-early bets: Puig, Kimbrel, Stanton
Category unto himself: Trout (I want to put him into the close-to-a-sure-thing category already...)

Not as big on Molina's chances as Schoenfield, and I think Darvish and Tanaka will just run out of time in the end.

(Even if they were to keep pitching well, I mean--any discussion of Tanaka's chances is obviously ludicrous at this point.)

love mccutchen, obviously, but it will take more than that

and if cano's power continues to fade, he and utley are about level

don't think yadi will ever get in, even if he ended up with numbers that deserve it. the HOF isn't fair to catchers. and by the time hudson is eligible he'll get quickly shut out by all the current candidates still knocking on the door.

instead of ASG i like to go back to old WAR leaderboards and see how many in the top 30 are HOFers now. there's usually quite a bit. seems to be more of a draught these days but there are always gonna be a few surprises/late bloomers who take a step forward and stay there. i mean if what jose altuve is showing this year is for real then why the hell not? he's only 24!

pitching is probably going to have more of those wild cards tho

cutch has maybe more star power than anyone else in the game rn after jeter, he doesn't even have to be that good from now on to be seen as a sort of 'classic' HOF guy. a CF who hits .300 20/20 every year is immediately on the fast track.

top 30 fWAR hitters who i think have could end up having a shot: trout tulo cutch stanton goldschmidt(?) jones(?) puig kinsler(??) rendon cano abreu b.hamilton(????) mcab utley freeman beltre altuve

daily reminder that billy hamilton currently has more WAR than miguel cabrera

i'd do pitchers but they're harder, a lot of HOF pitching picks have a lot to do with how well and how long they perform after age 30. tim hudson and mark buerhle being in the discussion over johan santana says a lot.

I thought about listing Altuve as a decent longshot bet, seeing as he'll have 600 hits before he turns 25 and took a step forward this year. Even if everything worked out perfectly and he ended up with 3,000 hits, though, that probably won't mean as much in the future without other things to supplement that--defense, walks, etc. I know a lot of people consider Brock one of the more questionable choices in there, and even he had the SB besides the hits. (Hard to know whether he got in more for the 3,000 of the SB.) But if he continues to improve like he has this year, sure.

Pitchers are a real guessing game, yes. I would have called Verlander close to a sure thing a year ago, with Sabathia not far behind.

"3,000 or the SB"

Actually, having just finished Summer of '68, Brock's three World Series figured into the equation too, where he retired with a few WS records.

you know altuve has 116 SBs already right. big difference btwn him and brock is he's a 2B and brock was a LF. if brock put up those numbers as even a bad 2B he'd deserve his spot no doubt

altuve had pretty-looking numbers last year as a 23 year old and then he cut his Ks in half and turned into the best baserunner in the AL. i don't think he and brock are comparable. but this is of course assuming altuve's year isn't a flash in the pan

also he's so tiny and cute

yes! knowing how the HOF is that's actually a good point

He's definitely improved in the SB department this season--his percentages the last two years were just okay--and maybe that'll figure in too. Again, I'm not sure SB will ever be given the same weight they were when Brock was up for induction (they're not helping Raines a lot thus far, and he's got a very strong all-around case), and Brock retired with the two major SB records.

Anyway, I'd love to see Altuve keep moving forward.

I think that after pitchers, middle infielders who pile up a lot of hits at a young age might be the next hardest group to predict. The Gary Templeton/Carlos Baerga/Jose Reyes group...Starlin Castro is only two months older than Altuve; he's going to finish the season with 850+ hits. That's a very fast start towards 3,000, but right now, that's pretty much the only thing he's got going for him, besides his position. Elvis Andrus will have around 950 at the age of 25, along with good defense. Who knows with these guys?

I like Kershaw and Felix a lot but it's hard for me to see characterizing them as close to a sure thing when they're still in their 20s and most of the HOF pitchers pitched well into their 30s.

Beltre OTOH I think has a very very strong case now.

adrian beltre has 74 career WAR which surprised me a bit - he probably won't ever be seriously considered though because a lot of that is in defense and he didn't hit that well in his 20s other than that one fluke year

interesting that aramis Ramirez has #s p similar to Beltre and is he ever talked abt as a legit candidate? nb i didn't read the linked story above

Beltre is pretty high in all-time counting stats for 3Bs, as well as the sabermetric ones.

That Utley isn't a lock at this point is an insult on top of the two MVPs he lost to lesser teammates.

"adrian beltre has 74 career WAR which surprised me a bit - he probably won't ever be seriously considered though because a lot of that is in defense and he didn't hit that well in his 20s other than that one fluke year"

He didn't hit well in his 20s because he played for the most part in pitchers parks. His oWAR is still very impressive and he has decent counting stats and still a couple more years to add both.

"interesting that aramis Ramirez has #s p similar to Beltre and is he ever talked abt as a legit candidate?"

Because he's terrible defender that plays for the Cubs.

aramis has less than half of beltre's career WAR

defense is valuable

Beltre definitely gets in, I hope on his way to the podium for his HOF speech everyone tries to rub his head

remember that dinosaur W-L/RBI writers won't be dominating the BBWAA in 20 years

Even if they were beltre is gonna likely have 3009 hits at has a slim chance at 500 hr. Not that it should count, he should go in if he retired after this season.

I'm calling it, 3009 hits

yea i didn't realize aramises war was so much worse, only glanced @ counting stats

I hedged a bit on Beltre because everybody else does, but honestly, I think he'll go in easily--maybe not first ballot, but first two or three.

There are the reasons cited above--his high (and getting higher) WAR rank, the possibility of 500/3,000 (should get the latter)--and I also get the feeling from what I've been reading the past couple of years, since Santo's induction, that there's a growing awareness of how badly 3B has been treated in the voting. (How badly Santo specifically was treated, going in posthumously, is part of that.) Too late to help Graig Nettles or Buddy Bell or Ron Cey, but I think it will help third basemen going forward. We'll see when Rolen comes around, although his path is tougher--he'll be plunked down in the middle of what will still be a glut, his case is more dependent on sabermetrics than Beltre's will be, and his career is more fragmented than Beltre's.

Rolen will also have the good luck to come onto the ballot the same year as Chipper.

I think C.C Sabathia will be the stick the next generation of pitchers will be compared to. Lesser stats than him is a sure out of the HOF, better is a sure in.

omfg @ you guys mentioning jose altuve and billy hamilton in a HOF thread

we've done this before, but

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_3B.shtml

Which reminds me that I like Longoria's chances.

completely forgot that i made this thread. wright's gone completely unmentioned since, was gonna say "funny what three terrible months can do" but apparently he's been good after the first month

altuve and hamilton were brought up to make a point

how about xander bogaerts, he could totally be a league average player someday

hall-of-fame name as a rookie tbh

Predicting HOF 3Bmen is a bit of a sucker's game. They've been overlooked and undervalued in every era, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

I don't see a big difference between Rolen and Beltre's careers (of course Beltre is still active and improving his chances), and Rolen's chances are almost nil right now, so I'm not sure why some of you think that Beltre is a near lock.

I think I'm closer to 'should be' than 'is'

I'm closer to "is," for the reasons above. What's the makeup of the electorate now? Maybe 2/3 old-school and 1/3 sabermetric? 3/4 vs. 1/4? Just guessing...I'm sure many, like a Verducci, fall somewhere between. Anyway, when Beltre's up 8 or 9 years down the road, I'm sure at worst it'll be 50-50. And he should have lots for both camps.

1) Sabermetrically, Beltre's ahead of Rolen in WAR by 4 games at the moment. When he finishes, he should be 10 ahead or more, unless he falls apart next season.

2) More traditionally--in "counting stats," if you prefer (I try to avoid that term...)--he's going to have a minimum of 400 HR, more likely closer to 450, and close to 3,000 hits; Rolen is at 316/2077. Beltre may even win a batting title this year. Whether you want it to or not, that stuff will matter to older voters.

Speculation, but I also think there's a growing awareness that 3B is under-represented, and some lingering embarrassment over the handling of Santo.

James adds one more factor (yes, I sent him a "Hey Bill" the other day): "Some of it is image. Rolen had battles with his managers in at least two cities, which tended to shape his image. Beltre, on the other hand, is an interesting, cheerful, person...oddly combining 'highly competitive' with 'friendly,' which not many people can do...and I think there is more understanding of the fact that he's a tremendous player, although I'm not really sure he is better than Rolen."

His words--no idea if that'll make a difference or not.

I think Rolen's general lack of health also part of his image.

Definitely. But Beltre has some baggage too -- before his season with Boston in '10, he was viewed as a guy who had one fluke year in '04 but was otherwise something of a failure (even though he wasn't) and a poor free agent signing for Seattle.

If he gets 3000 hits and 450 HR he's in, but it shouldn't be that simple. I think he'd have the lowest OBP of anyone with 3000 hits (currently .335, will likely be lower by the end of his career).

although it mainly appears driven by his AVG - his OBP has been improving as he's aged (or played in more hitter friendly parks)... whatever the cause, i would not be shocked if his career OBP on retirement wound up above where it is now.

I took a look at Fangraphs--I always use Baseball Reference out of habit and preference--and they've got Rolen slightly ahead in WAR by a game or two. Another thing that could figure into this would be where Beltre ends up if he gets moved.

i think w/WAR becoming more of an imprimatur of how productive a player has been, i'm pretty confident about beltre's chances. even in seattle he put up 21.3* WAR in 4 2/3 seasons. and as far as where he might be moved, he's done great at home since he arrived in texas but he's been good on the road too. i could see him possibly getting up to 85-90 WAR total before it's all said and done and if he doesn't get in right away i would have to imagine he'd get in one way or another eventually.

*BBR

he was good in seattle, it's just really hard to look good in seattle

feel like his defense rep has risen recently from "great" to "(one of the or maybe the) best alive"? which is the type of thing that can happen with a hitting surge. only won 4 GGs but i think he's now considered more highly than rolen was

ripken called him the best 3b ever which turned a huge amount of O's fans into gigantic babies re: brooks

Dave Fleming argues that it's catchers, even more than third basemen, who get shortchanged in HOF voting:

http://www.billjamesonline.com/where_are_the_great_catchers_/

absolutely true

first off, the writer commits a really common statistical blunder when he says mauer's candidacy is already extremely strong due to the fact that his WAR/162 is the highest of any catcher in baseball history. mauer's numbers look better compared to bench -- a far superior player -- because we're only looking at mauer's twenties and haven't given him time to decline (which he's already doing) and lower that number.

to the point that catchers are historically underappreciated, it may very well be true that WAR fails to account for the difficulty of playing the position, pitch framing, etc; obviously this is a popular view among mainstream sabermetricians. if this is the case, then it's difficult to compare them to other position players using WAR. but leaving that aside, or even assuming that WAR could be tweaked somehow to account for this, there's no way you can adjust WAR for the fact that catchers, on average, play three-quarters of a season. they're not providing value during that time they're resting, and they're not providing value when their careers end sooner than other players. if you want to make this a hall of fame argument, you could argue for lowering the statistical threshold to account for the difficulties of playing catcher, but this has nothing to do with WAR itself

also when the author says "Is it rational, then, that a strong candidate for the title of greatest catcher of all-time has a per-162 game rate that’s so far below the best players at every other position on the diamond? Is it rational to believe that there have been no really great catchers in major league history?" -- i think there might be a failure to account for a sort of selection bias that undoubtedly occurs when clubs decide which position players will play. great-hitting young catchers are routinely moved from behind the plate at a young age because teams want to maximize the value they can contribute. it happened with biggio; it would have happened earlier with mauer, had the twins had their way; it's happened with countless other young catchers: teams want their best young hitters in the lineup every day and to not age in dog years. it's very possible that the talent pool of major league catchers is diluted because of this

i know we've argued this before but anyway the biggest contributing factor to keeping catcher WAR (and other counting stats) low is short careers. we're only judging mauer on his 20s because that's basically his career, and it's still enough to put him 18 all-time in WAR. so either you believe that each position should be treated with some equality in HOF voting and a generally similar amount of each should go in, or you don't. i believe that should be the way and that if mauer retired tomorrow he'd deserve to get in. and probably less 1Bs and corner OFs should get in but that's a different thing.

you're talking about WAR, but the author was talking about WAR/162. the latter theoretically should have nothing to do with longevity; in fact shorter careers would be rewarded. that's precisely why mauer looks so good compared to the other catchers he mentioned, when bench was actually a far superior player. through bench's age 30 season he had 63.8 WAR, and 6.33 WAR/162 to mauer's 5.74

if the selection bias i'm talking about is a real thing then there's no reason to believe catchers should be represented as equally as other position players. if someone ever wondered where the all-time great relief pitchers were, you'd tell them that the best pitchers were made to be starters. it's possible a similar phenomenon occurs with catchers, but maybe to a lesser extent.

do you have to be a member to comment on that site?

if the selection bias i'm talking about is a real thing then there's no reason to believe catchers should be represented as equally as other position players.

there is... if you believe there is? this is literally nothing but a preference. the best catchers should get in, regardless of how they stack up against every other position. that's my preference. i don't know how selection bias or really anything else plays into that at all. the author of the article using shitty arguments doesn't really change that.

relief pitchers are a different monster, they accumulate like several standard deviations less value than hitters and there is much less of a reason to separate them from starters. that is not at all comparable to catchers. i don't understand why you're bringing up biggio to make this point when he collected the majority of his WAR from 2B. he was barely a catcher -- so what? why does that change how we view the guys that move from catcher? how is this any different from all the guys who move from SS to 3B/2B or from CF to LF/RF? (one thing you're forgetting is that a lot of guys get moved from C/SS/CF because they're not good there -- talented hitters always try to occupy these spots in high school and college to increase their value on draft day and even though they suck there, teams still wait too long to move them)

and anyway if you're the type of person who thinks mo should be kept out of the HOF bc he's a reliever you might be taking the baseball hall of fame a bit too seriously and i suggest you maybe step outside and take a breather

why does that change how we view the guys that move from catcher

*the guys that don't move from catcher

(xposts) I don't know--appears you haven't posted anything, so maybe you do. Your counter-arguments are good, Kevin; I'm a subscriber, so if you want, I'd be glad to cut-and-paste them in there for you.

idgi, good hitters move from catcher because catcher is a difficult, dangerous position with a short lifespan because it requires much more physical endurance than every other position, why shouldn't the guys that are best at that get in proportionally to other positions

i played catcher once in little league and my legs still hurt

i played catcher for a year in little league and was once pulled aside by an umpire who had to tell me that i couldn't take my mask off before the pitcher had thrown. everyone stole off of me because i didn't have a strong arm, and the catcher's mask was several sizes too big and rattled around a bunch on my head, so i wanted to take it off so i could make an unencumbered throw to 2B for once.

idgi, good hitters move from catcher because catcher is a difficult, dangerous position with a short lifespan because it requires much more physical endurance than every other position, why shouldn't the guys that are best at that get in proportionally to other positions

― linda cardellini (zachlyon), Tuesday, July 22, 2014 3:59 PM (11 minutes ago)

because they aren't actually the best players, they're the best players compared to other catchers. think of the relief pitcher analogy again

I caught too, up till I was 10 or 11. When we were in Florida one year, I got Johnny Bench's autograph and had him sign my catcher's mitt. That was a bright idea--continued to use the glove, autograph faded away.

thanks, clem, could you post this:

the writer commits a really common statistical blunder when he says mauer's candidacy is already extremely strong due to the fact that his WAR/162 is the highest of any catcher in baseball history. mauer's numbers look better compared to bench -- a far superior player: bench's WAR/162 through his age 30 season was 6.33, and this number is actually "hurt" by the fact that he stayed on the field more and therefore had a bigger denominator -- because we're only looking at mauer's twenties and haven't given him time to decline (which he's already doing) and lower that number. i'm sure this was considered, but it wasn't mentioned.

to the point that catchers are historically underappreciated, it may very well be true that WAR fails to account for the difficulty of playing the position, pitch framing, etc; obviously this is a popular view among mainstream sabermetricians. if this is the case, then it's difficult to compare them to other position players using WAR. but leaving that aside, or even assuming that WAR could be tweaked somehow to account for this, there's no way you can adjust WAR for the fact that catchers, on average, play three-quarters of a season. they're not providing value during that time they're resting, and they're not providing value when their careers end sooner than other players. if you want to make this a hall of fame argument, you could argue for lowering the statistical threshold to account for the difficulties of playing catcher, but this has nothing to do with WAR itself

also when the author says "Is it rational, then, that a strong candidate for the title of greatest catcher of all-time has a per-162 game rate that’s so far below the best players at every other position on the diamond? Is it rational to believe that there have been no really great catchers in major league history?" -- i think there might be a failure to account for a sort of selection bias that undoubtedly occurs when clubs decide which position players will play. great-hitting young catchers are routinely moved from behind the plate at a young age because teams want to maximize the value they can contribute. it happened with biggio; it would have happened earlier with mauer, had the twins had their way; it's happened with countless other young catchers: teams want their best young hitters in the lineup every day and to not age in dog years. it's very possible that the talent pool of major league catchers is diluted because of this. a somewhat analogous situation is relief pitchers: the reason relief pitchers in general are lesser pitchers than starters is that managers and front-office people have their best pitchers start games, because that's how they can pitch the most innings and give them the most value. relievers shouldn't -- note shouldn't -- be compared against other relievers, but against other players. but this gets into a long tangent about how JAWS is dumb and how it de-accounts for position, one of the fundamental strengths of WAR

and i explained why that's a bad analogy! the best relief pitcher of all time still has less WAR than joe mauer, and relief pitchers are required to do much less -- contribute much less per season than catchers, master fewer pitches (sometimes only one) -- rather than much more, like what catchers do (destroy lower body). starters move to relief because it's easier to be good in relief. non-catchers do not move to catcher for any reason.

i don't understand why you're bringing up biggio to make this point when he collected the majority of his WAR from 2B. he was barely a catcher -- so what? why does that change how we view the guys that move from catcher? how is this any different from all the guys who move from SS to 3B/2B or from CF to LF/RF? (one thing you're forgetting is that a lot of guys get moved from C/SS/CF because they're not good there -- talented hitters always try to occupy these spots in high school and college to increase their value on draft day and even though they suck there, teams still wait too long to move them)

"selection bias" just means the sample being studied differs systematically from the population at whole. applied to this case, i'm arguing -- with not a whole lot of evidence, i admit, but biggio is an example and he's not alone -- that catchers as a group are lesser players than baseball players as a group, because managers/team builders may be given to moving the best young catchers out of that position to maximize their longevity and production. biggio is the archetype because he's a guy who came up as a catcher but was moved almost immediately after making the majors. had he remained a catcher, he may have gone down as one of the best catchers ever. if this is part of a trend -- and again i'm not providing evidence that it is, just speculating -- then that would explain why the catchers who do stay being catchers are as a group lesser players, and why their being underrepresented among the elite of the elite might be justified.

i totally believe rivera should be a hall of famer btw

i was only using the relievers analogy to illustrate what i meant by the catcher selection bias, i understand it's a different situation.

so catchers are worse than baseball hitters as a whole because a lot of players move from catcher which creates a much smaller sample of catchers to choose from

this is sort of a slippery slope of an argument here

(and why doesn't it extend to shortstops and center fielders?)

shortstops and center fielders are on average worse hitters than baseball players as a whole. this is part of why they get such a nice positional adjustment in WAR. but i'd argue that shortstops and center fielders are generally the best athletes and have a much better pool to choose from than catchers

i mean to use the little league analogy everyone knows the fat kid was the catcher

i mean to take this to a ridiculous extreme you could say the entire population of MLB players is diluted because if there was much more high school/college scouting, if teenagers in podunk montana towns were getting scouted and drafted and given the best coaching in the world, a huge majority of current hall of famers would not be good enough for the hypothetical hall of fame

if cuban players didn't have to risk their lives to become american major leaguers the pool would be bigger too

if every human being on earth played baseball from little league to adulthood and they all qualified for the rule 4 draft maybe it'd only be babe ruth and ted williams

if every player on strds in the 90s kept their strd usage a secret larry walker wouldn't stand a chance

hypotheticals don't make thurman munson any less awesome

eh those aren't valid counters, they're all external to the sample of current major leaguers. what i'm saying is that baseball talent is unevenly distributed among the positions

shortstops and center fielders are on average worse hitters than baseball players as a whole. this is part of why they get such a nice positional adjustment in WAR. but i'd argue that shortstops and center fielders are generally the best athletes and have a much better pool to choose from than catchers

― k3vin k., Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:44 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i mean to use the little league analogy everyone knows the fat kid was the catcher

― k3vin k., Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:45 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is silly and wrong

i'll never understand why being able to hit a baseball good and/or crouching on your knees for 9 innings 5-6 days a wk is considered less "athletic" than running fast and being thin, especially when a lot of SS/CF perceived "athletic" value comes from actually being smart, quick to respond and able to execute -- skills also required for catching. or why this athleticism, if catchers really lack it, should be valued more than the ability to withstand everything catchers withstand.

a lot of SSs and CFs suck at SS and CF but every catcher has to be able to withstand being a catcher

eh those aren't valid counters, they're all external to the sample of current major leaguers. what i'm saying is that baseball talent is unevenly distributed among the positions

― k3vin k., Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:52 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

idk man people are always dinging old timers for not having to play against non-wites and that's E2TS (external to the sample, new lingo)

it's just really silly to me to hold a potential sample pool against an actual sample pool

yeah i mean this is all splitting hairs at a certain point but when a dude writes a (pretty good actually) article asking why catchers aren't represented among the game's greats, a reasonable response would be to point out that maybe the best players just don't play catcher

It's ok, catchers get to be in HOF as great managers.

I think this paragraph nails it: Does Mauer have to pad his career with numbers tallied at first base for us to appreciate this, or can we appreciate the genius of his career now? If we can appreciate the short-but-brilliant careers of Sandy Koufax or Kirby Puckett, why can’t we do the same for Joe Mauer? If we cut Koufax and Puckett slack for arm injuries and vision problems, why isn’t the same leniency granted to major league catchers?

I realize this is not a paragraph. I'm sorry I called this a paragraph.

anything can be a paragraph if you believe in yourself

mauer's been in the top 10 in WAR once in his career. it's not like he'd be a no-brainer if he retired tomorrow

he's a catcher and plays fewer games, but he's not pujols. there aren't many players who have airtight cases by the time they're 30

Except for billy Hamilton

tru

Sorry, been out all day--I posted your comment, Kevin.

(Took the liberty of capitalizing...old-fashioned that way.)

that must have been exhausting, but thanks!

I definitely believe that WAR isn't very accurate for catchers. The inherent bias where even the best catchers are only capable of playing 120-130 games max per year is only a small part of it.

A big part of Mauer's HOF case is that there was never another catcher like him in the history of baseball -- he won three batting titles, was an OBP machine, and a great defender. He was great *and* possessed a skill set completely different than anyone else who played the position, to me that's a meaningful "intangible" and a big boost to his HOF candidacy.

I'll put this here...Heard Smoltz interviewed last night in conjunction with this weekend. He doesn't think there'll be any more 300-game winners, or anyone hit 3,000 K again. He did throw Kershaw's name out as a possible caveat on the 300 games.

People have been saying this since at least Seaver and Carlton (maybe it goes back even further--did they say it after Spahn and Wynn?), and they're wrong every time. I know Verlander's having a bad season, but he's still in pretty good position, as is Felix (all those screwed-out-of-wins seasons notwithstanding). And Kershaw, yes. And probably someone else who'll step forward in the next few years. One of those guys will win 300.

As far as 3,000 K, that intuitively doesn't make sense. Strikeouts keep going up and up--somebody has to do the striking out. I know the Kimbrels and Chapmans and those guys get their fair share, but if you look at the active K leaderboard, you can easily pick out a few guys who are in good position. (Led by Felix, I'd say: 1,866 at age 28.)

those old players love to think of themselves as being part of the last of a dying breed rather than someone whose accomplishments will invariably be overtaken and overshadowed in the years to come.

strikeouts are up but so are TJs. the medical landscape is just different now. for some reason no one threatens to K 300 a year anymore and the guy who comes closest (yu) always seems a few starts away from a huge injury. i'd peg guys like felix and kershaw as more likely to suffer huge career-screwing injuries than reach 3000, though i'm sure it will happen again for someone.

they just don't build em like they used to

Strikeout thing doesn't make any sense to me. There are plenty of dudes on the active list who are halfway there and could be less than halfway through their careers. Not everyone will fall apart and with medial science some of them might even pitch forever a la Clemens and Johnson.

as with all things pitcher-milestone related, reaching them often has a lot more to do with longevity/health after 30 than greatness before 30

Totally but why would you think ALL of them would break down when not all of previous generation's great did? I mean predicting any single dude gets 3000 is probably foolhardy but ANYONE at all ever when two recent dudes nearly hit 5000 is bizarro.

it's also a lot harder to compile when you're pitching 6+ fewer starts a year with pitch counts

generally that could happen with fewer injuries because weaker arms, which could happen because weaker opposing lineups filled with defensive specialists (also an impt factor)

those things don't exist anymore

RJ was a total freakish outlier and clemens had strds. that's my explanation.

If you studied percentage of starter K's vs. reliever K's, you'd have a clearer picture. I realize reliever K's have gone way up in the past couple of decades, but so have K's themselves. Does the second cancel out the first? Probably not--but is the separation so great that the occasional 3,000-K starter won't slip through? Again, the strikeouts have to go somewhere.

Okay maybe RJ and Clemens are just freaks, but Schmoltz hit 3000, Maddux, Pedro, Schilling. These dudes were not pitching tons of complete games or hitting 40 starts a year. They pitched in the same environment that Kershaw, Hamels, Felix, Lee, et al, are.

And putting aside Clemens and Johnson, the 3,000 list also has Maddux, Pedro, Schilling, and Smoltz, all of whom retired within the past five years. Has the sea-change been that drastic?

(Ha--Alex beat me to the same question.)

i honestly have no idea

smoltz had such a weird career

i do think guys will still hit 3000 but it still has to do with longevity, and that's something that's become really unpredictable.

Sure but saying something is hard to predict is different from saying it's never going to happen again (which is what Smoltz did.)

there isn't much time before the apocalypse/end of human civilization so someone better stay healthy

will it happen before the mainstream realizes that pitcher wins don't mean shit, tho?

mostly talking about Ks here

pitcher wins don't mean shit, tho?

Season to season, sure. Over the course of a career, demonstrably not true. James did a thing a few months ago where he systematically ranked pitcher categories as reliable indicators of quality. He had W-L record somewhere in the middle:

6) Won-Lost Records (60.9%). OK, the most interesting conclusion from these studies is the fact that won-lost record and its brother, winning percentage, perform better as a predictor of true value than ERA and its brothers, runs allowed per 9 innings and WHIP, so let’s deal with that here.

We've had this argument nine million times.

Not sure how durable David Price will be, but he looks good in the strikeout department (through age-28 season):

Smoltz -- 1,252
Price -- 1,059 (and counting)
Schilling -- 618

Schilling, of course, hadn't really gotten started yet--struck out 2,215 through his 30s.

New election rules: the eligibility period was shortened to ten years, and voters must make their names public (but not their ballots) and agree to a code of conduct, i. e. the Le Batard rule.

It's kind of unfair to apply it to player who are already on the ballot, especially with all the HOF worthy players on the ballot and those who will be added in the next few years. Tim Raines can probably kiss his chances goodbye.

So wait, everyone agrees there is traffic jam on the ballots and the way to resolve this is to reduce the number of eligible years?

*quits thinking/caring/reading about Hall of Fame*

players who are already on the ballot will still get the full 15 years

xxp

yeah this is ridiculous

not sure what shortening the period does, do they think the voters will feel pressured to vote for guys sooner?

blaming this on bud don't care if he didn't do it

wait that's real?

ya

literally the only change that solves an actual existent problem is the dan lebatard thing. not even blank ballot bullshit. what is the point! rip raines

changes to the vet committee?

As for the others, players can still maintain their status on the BBWAA by attaining five percent of the vote each year. That part of the rule hasn't changed. But after 10 years, they now will be eligible for consideration by only one of the three Veterans Committees -- the Post-Expansion Era Committee -- which meets every three years.

that's the only mention of the vet's committee here

Wait how was the Dan LeBatard thing an actual problem?

My first thought was "That's terrible" too, but after compiling a list of all the guys who were elected by the writers past their 10th year of eligibility, I'm not so sure (career WAR in brackets):

1952 – Harry Heilmann (72.1)
1954 – Rabbit Maranville (42.8)
1954 – Bill Terry (54.2)
1955 – Dazzy Vance (59.9)
1955 – Gabby Hartnett (53.4)
1975 – Ralph Kiner (49.3)
1976 – Bob Lemon (48.8)
1980 – Duke Snider (66.5)
2006 – Bruce Sutter (24.6)
2009 – Jim Rice (47.4)
2011 – Bert Blyleven (95.3)

Past Blyleven, Snider, and Heilmann, a lot of dubious names on that list. (And don't forget, Morris just missed in his 15th year.) I guess you could look at it as a variation on the capital punishment cliché: it's better to let 10 guys go in who don't deserve it than lose one over-qualified guy like Blyleven. I still think the much bigger concern is at the front-end of eligibility--set some reasonable benchmarks for staying on the ballot regardless of support, and get rid of the stupid 5% rule that has dropped many players before they had a real chance to build support.

I should exempt Kiner from the dubious list: he was pretty dominant in a shortened career.

add raines

Yes--and Trammell.

well he wouldn't have had a shot unless they extended it to 25 years

man Blyleven is so classic just for RBI baseball alone

players who are already on the ballot will still get the full 15 years

No, I think it's just the guys who are in years 11-15 (Trammell, Mattingly, Smith) who stay eligible for 15 years. So McGwire has only two years left, for instance.

McGwire wasn't going to get in by writer vote even if he had seven years.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_48ks5s0AV6M/TSSCk-hthpI/AAAAAAAAEQM/VPwfEriUrkc/s400/blylevenfarting.jpg

McGwire, sure, but others could get completely hosed by this -- Raines and Edgar Martinez especially.

Raines def. the big loser in all this.

Jay Jaffe on the BP podcast, saying this is the HOF's attempt to shorten the Steroid Era candidate discussion.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=24261

Yeah, that makes sense. Does this mean it's their backhanded way of dealing with the cluttered ballot? IOW, people who have voted for McGwire will give up and vote for someone else?

They don't have to give up (or Bonds and Clemens voters either), they will be unable to vote for them 5 years sooner.

I meant there are people voting for McGwire for example who just want to keep him in the discussion and hope that other voters eventually come around, but now they might not bother voting for him again.

all these changes without extending the ballot past 10 is indefensible

I usually just shrug my shoulders at this stuff, but this is truly nuts: Smotz ahead of Pedro.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/how-will-hall-of-fames-class-of-2015-shape-up?ymd=20140728&content_id=86232740&vkey=news_mlb

There was a lot of lobbying for Smoltz from the podium yesterday, no surprise, and I do think he should go in eventually--maybe four or five years down the road. But Pedro deserves almost as high a percentage as next year as Johnson (slightly less, accounting for career value).

Only 40 people were surveyed, I know--small sample. But I'm still surprised that any sample larger than one person would put Smoltz ahead of Martinez.

Pedro deserves 100%, as does any no-brainer HOFer

In an ideal world, yes. Obviously that's just not going to happen, for reasons that become less and less understandable all the time. The only one that makes the least bit of sense today, with the 10-spot limit, is strategic voting, something I'm not a fan of--go for the 10 best picks--but I at least get that. When Mays and Aaron came up, I'm sure there was a lingering racist component to the electorate--you'd like to believe that's long gone. The Babe-Ruth-didn't-get-100%-so-no-one-should theory, I can't believe that's still at work.

BP podcast above includes speculation that Pedro types will lose votes to candidates who 'need them' under the new system, like Raines.

pedro squeaking by on his first ballot is a lot less despicable than schilling and mussina still hanging out in the 20s.

for reference

fWAR
Pedro: 87.1
Schilling: 83.2
Mussina: 82.5

bWAR
Pedro: 86.0
Schilling: 80.7
Mussina: 82.7

ofc pedro has the "best peak ever maybe" thing going but schilling had probably the second greatest peak of the strds era and mussina is right there with them as a steady producer. schilling will possibly get in eventually but i'm not sure about moose now that he doesn't have the full 15 years.

they'll avoid strds hitters like the plague but still not accept that the era was harder to pitch through

Yes but Cy Youngs!

Also I just discovered Eric Gagné got the 2003 CYA. I'm stunned.

I thought you were a Giants fan, VHS! That was the year Jason Schmidt got robbed.

That was such a joke

I have been into baseball for 2 years. Still lots of awful and great things to discover.

Oh god that was over 10 years ago. D:

The second best peak of the steroid era was Randy Johnson from '99-02--really, he's almost even with Pedro. (Smoltz also overlooked Johnson yesterday, saying that Maddux's four year run of Cy Youngs was only equaled by Koufax; Johnson's right in there with them and Martinez.)

I like checking these things, so I tried to identify the best post-war peak for starters.

Depends what you mean by peak, obviously. I'd have to go back to James's HOF book to find out how he defined it--I think he was the first to write about peak value vs. career value, or at least the first to name it as such. For me, peak means a solid block of four or five seasons. For someone else, it might be three or seven seasons, or it might not require that the seasons be consecutive. Not everyone will agree on that.

Anyway, here are all the four-season blocks of 30+ WAR. I don't think I missed anybody, but I don't know.

1. Johnson – 38.2
2. Pedro – 37.6
3. Koufax – 36.5
4. Wilbur Wood – 35.5
5. Robin Roberts – 35.1
6. Gibson – 35.4
7. Marichal – 33.5
8. Maddux – 33.1
9. Niekro – 33.1
10. Clemens – 33.0
11. Seaver – 31.7
12. Schilling – 31.4
13. Jenkins – 30.7
14. Halladay – 30.3
15. Bunning – 30.2

I should have jotted down the years...Wilbur Wood sticks out on that list so much--everyone else is either in the HOF, or is or should be on his way. (Unless you want to create a separate category for Clemens.) Kevin Brown and Dave Stieb just missed; Carlton's best seasons were spread out (ditto Seaver, whose '69 season falls outside his best four-year block, even though he made the list anyway).

I still think that Gagne's Cy Young was defensible. It looks less special now because strikeouts have gone way up relievers who throw 95 and strikes out 12/9IP aren't rare anymore, but at the time he was doing what no other reliever had done before.

On the premise that there's someone out there who never gets talked about as a candidate right now but will emerge as one in his 30s--and that it's more likely to be a pitcher who turns out to be surprisingly durable (non-pitcher possibilities are usually easy to identify by 30, no?)--I wonder if either Cole Hamels or Jered Weaver might qualify. They're pretty close right now:

Hamels (30) -- 105-79, 124 ERA+, 1.140 WHIP, 3.79 K/BB, 37.7 WAR, 3 Cy Young top-10s
Weaver (31) -- 124-66, 125 ERA+, 1.145 WHIP, 3.13 K/BB, 35.3 WAR, 3 Cy Young top-10s

Close enough that I couldn't say which one's better positioned. I think Weaver's been a little more fragile thus far. They've both had two or three mediocre years, but neither has ever had a flat-out bad season. Long way to go, but I could see one of them ending up with 250 wins and 70 WAR. Which maybe wouldn't be enough even if it happened--don't know where the bar will be for pitcher 15 years from now.

JAWs does not like either of those dudes. I'd think that they'd have to pull a Cliff Lee type switch (turn suddenly into a 7-8 win pitcher) to really get much consideration.

i'm not sure they're much more impressive than a guy like buehrle tbqf

you know what i hate more than the HOF? using awards standings -- esp for nonwinners -- as a factor in their standing for the HOF.

Someone on ESPN, not sure who it was, just proposed that the HOF should waive the 5 years rule for Jeter. It was during the Red Sox Yankees game, of course.

xpost

Awards standings do matter somewhat, but especially for nonwinners. Anyone can have a fluky great year and win, but e.g. six top five finishes in the Cy Young voting recognizes consistent excellence (i.e. high peak value)

It's not automatic (Juan Gonzalez had five top 10 MVP finishes and two ugh wins) but I think you can generally identify the best players of the era this way. Of course there will always be the Chase Utley and Scott Rolen types who get overlooked no matter what.

Utley seems like someone who illustrates your exact point: never won, but five years placing and three Top-10s. Too low, but still, some recognition.

I understand Morbius's point--you're giving weight to something that may have been wrong in the first place--but, as always, I was acknowledging (with Hamels and Weaver) that award voting does matter, whether it should or not. James gave a little weight to award voting in the first Historical Abstract, the idea being that he was ranking many players he never actually saw play, and that the opinions of those who did ought to be worth something. When dealing with players like Hamels and Weaver, I'll grant that that becomes a less compelling argument. (I also realize I'm grasping at straws a bit with those two guys. But there's gotta be someone out there right now mid-career who's flying under the radar.)

"But there's gotta be someone out there right now mid-career who's flying under the radar."

Really? Why? Looking at most recent HOFers I'd say that most of them were pretty clearly 6-8 win players by their late 20s or at least very clearly guys who would be at that level barring injuries or control issues. Guys who get there just on accumulation alone are pretty rare.

the only guy i see as possibly under the radar might be someone like zack greinke, who seems like the kind of pitcher who could put up some huge seasons in L.A. over the next few years and he's already got a WAR around 40. of course he is pitching in the shadow of clayton kershaw and i think is regarded as a bit of a disappointment in some ways and looks just like michael shannon, which isn't a strike against him necessarily but you never know with these HOF voters.

veterans committee eventually voted michael shannon in iirc

Alex is probably right, but I'd want to look at it over the years before saying.

Comment From zurzles
any under-the-radar players who might end up with hall of fame careers?
12:47
Dan Szymborski: Does Buehrle count, assuming he keeps putting off his threat to retire?
12:47
Dan Szymborski: Last I checked, ZiPS actually has Buehrle nearing top 50 of all pitchers in career bWAR bys eason’s end.
12:48
Dan Szymborski: He’s likely to get win 200 before the end of the year at 35.
12:49
Dan Szymborski: Every modern pitcher with 200 wins through age 35 is either a Hall of Fame or got significant support
12:50
Dan Szymborski: The worst pitchers in that category were Lolich (who got a little support and Hunter (who got in) and Buehrle’s actually better than both
12:51
Dan Szymborski: (and he has a better ERA+ than all the 190s through age 135 excepct Perry who did get in)

I informally looked at all the post-war starters chosen by the writers, and no, no one really emerged after 30. About the closest analogy is Sutton, who was comparable to both Hamels and Weaver at the same age in some ways, but he'd already accumulated 176 wins when that was still the #1 factor. Sutton through age 31:

176-136, 110 ERA+, 1.115 WHIP, 2.82 K/BB, 36.6 WAR, 5 Cy Young top-10s

And you could find a number of guys who were better than Sutton in rate stats and WAR at that point--but his win total, in the context of when he pitched, negates all that in terms of the HOF.

Buehrle had such a great start this year (albeit precarious when you looked beyond his ERA), but he's been very shaky the last month-and-a-half. I don't know if it's a blip or more ominous.

i guess randy johnson will be the next guy to be elected who really emerged after his age-30 season.

through age 30:

1245.1 IP/81-62/3.70 ERA/113 ERA+/1330 K/5.0 BB per 9 IP

31+

2890 IP/220-104/3.12 ERA/147 ERA+/3545 K/2.5 BB per 9 IP

Johnson's fascinating because he's actually a pretty awful pitcher or at very best league average until he's 29 and then suddenly he's amazing (bar one injured season and one mediocrity) for the next 11 years (followed by some padding).

I thought of Johnson--he definitely acquires his HOF credentials after 30--but didn't bring him up only because he's not very useful as an analogy for Weaver or Hamels or really anybody. He's about as sui generis as it gets. I do remember James making an early call on him, probably after that age-29 season--something like, pay attention, you'll never see anything like him again.

He is, but Schilling's another dude who was kinda okay trying to get healthy, get it together an then he's 30 and suddenly he's one of the best pitchers in the game. Sorta of arguing against myself here. I mean there's nothing that actually says that Hamels or Weavers can't pull a Schilling or a Johnson it's just more that they kinda need to. Their current performance even extended another ten years feels too slight to merit much consideration.

Here's the James quote on Randy Johnson (1995 Player Ratings Book): "You need to appreciate this man, if you're a baseball fan, because you're never going to see another one like him, no matter how long you live." Even James couldn't have guessed what was on the way, though--"I expect him to be an effective pitcher for another 10 years." Effective he was.

Tim Hudson peaked before age-30 and was more consistent (and more durable), but nobody thought of him as a potential HOFer until the last couple of years. Even with all the injuries, he still has more career IP than Halladay or Sabathia.

Hudson (and Pettite) basically had the careers that clemenza is suggesting that Hamels/Weaver might have, but if Mussina is scraping 20% of the vote I doubt any of them is going to get even that.

who knows... i'm wondering how much voting behaviour is going to change with the new rules.

Schilling had a weirder career than randy imo, bc randy once he hit 30 was unstoppable until he went to the Yankees. Schilling had half a dozen great HOF-caliber seasons and never more than two in a row between 1992-2004, mixed in with injury-plagued or merely good years and a couple of outstanding postseason performances.

this is just me - but i would have Schilling in the HOF before Galvine.

If Schilling does go on to the HOF, as he should, he would be the best example, I think, of a guy coming out of nowhere after he turns 30. So much so that he doesn't work as an analogy for Hamels and Weaver, who have had a number of good seasons at this point. Schilling's two best seasons before he turned 30 were mismatched: he was great in '92, but presumably didn't get any run support, and then the '93 Phillies scored a ton of runs for him, but he didn't pitch particularly well himself. By the time he's 29 he's 52-52, has an ERA+ of 113, and is 17.0 WAR. He's not even flying under the radar--he's nowhere near the radar. (Everyone knew he was talented, he just couldn't seem to stay healthy.)

schilling is an obvious pick to me but i'm warmer on glavine than i used to be. i occasionally need to be reminded to not put too much stock in fWAR.

Schilling vs. Glavine would seem to be about as stark an example you could find of peak value vs. career value. You'd obviously rather have Schilling's peak--not too many pitchers since the war can match his 2001-2004 peak, even with an injury in there. But Glavine's career, even though he comes up 6.0 games short of Schilling in career WAR, is so much more equitably distributed--from '90 to '07 even his very worst years contribute value, and he's over 4.0 nine times.

So it just depends which you prefer, or which gives your team a better chance to win. I've seen the second question argued both ways.

lol i wasn't thinking about this before but glavine offensive WAR actually makes up the difference in both fWAR and bWAR

yeah jeez BBR has him at 7.5 WAR

I'd forgotten about that (even though there was a long discussion about it on another HOF thread) but somehow the whole subject of Glavine's hitting got left out of the HOF voting and induction this year. I can't remember seeing a single article where somebody justified their vote in part due to his hitting.

to be fair the national league is such an abomination most people might not realize a .454 OPS is supposed to be good

Jimmy Rollins is an interesting case, if he compiles the next few seasons, he has a decent chance. Per WAR, he is already the 20th best SS of all time, 16th if I ignore the 19th century. Surely he will end up in top 10 for the National League all time, he is already 8th if I ignore the 19th century. He is already ahead of a few Hall of Famer (Aparico), but also behind a few non-inductees (Trammel). He has a few traditional things to get him in: all time leader in hits for the Phillies, an MVP, World Series, gold gloves and whatnot. I don't know, he'll be a lock for me only he gets to 60 WAR, if only for the durability and him being a franchise icon, and since he got 3.1 WAR this year thanks to his great defense, it's entirely possible he passes up Ernie Banks and Pee Wee Reese. Not working in his favor is the probability that he'll being compared to Chase Utley, and being sandwiched between Jeter and Hanley/Tulo.

For me Rollins and Trammell have almost the same HOF case. They have good offensive numbers for a shortstop, but with a lot of subpar seasons (OPS+ < 100) that I have trouble ignoring. There were hardly any decent hitting shortstops during their primes, which perhaps makes them look better than they really were. They each had one outlier, MVP-level season (Rollins won the award, Trammell should have won). Defense counts for a not insignificant portion of their HOF-level value, but is the most difficult part of their record to evaluate.

I'm iffy on Trammell, and so I'm iffy on Rollins too.

I think Rollins will get some support--maybe 25% to start?--but I count Trammell as the stronger candidate. By WAR, he's much stronger--70 to 45 (Rollins should break 50, though it's not certain)--but I'll try to expand.

Rollins played half his career in the offensive boom years, Trammell most of his in an offensive downtime. Trammell outhit him by 20 points, got on base more often (.350-.325), and almost matched him in SLF (Rollins by 10 points); his OPS+ is 13 points higher. Trammell's career defensive WAR is better, 22-14, but I agree with NoTime that that's the most difficult thing to weigh. (Lorenzo Cain is helping me to trust defensive WAR more: the eye test matches what his numbers say.) I think Trammell's non-MVP '87 was a better year than Rollins' MVP season. Trammell had a very good case in '84, too, the year Willie Hernandez won.

Unless he has a late-career surge, I'd be very surprised if Rollins got close.

SLF = some forgotten '70s terrorist organization. Should be SLG.

I with clemenza Alan Trammel so much better than Rollins. Even if you call the defense a wash by oWAR he has 20 wins+.

"Schilling vs. Glavine would seem to be about as stark an example you could find of peak value vs. career value. You'd obviously rather have Schilling's peak--not too many pitchers since the war can match his 2001-2004 peak, even with an injury in there. But Glavine's career, even though he comes up 6.0 games short of Schilling in career WAR, is so much more equitably distributed--from '90 to '07 even his very worst years contribute value, and he's over 4.0 nine times."

I think Schilling vs. Glavine is also a pretty stark example of difference of pitching styles and their effectiveness. How do strikeout numbers fit into overall pitching WAR?

I agree with most of that, but Rollins is only 35 and a model of consistency. His skills (speed, defense) tend to age well, so he may have 3-4 productive years left. He'll pile up counting stats that will really help his case (250 HR, 500 SB, 1500 R, an outside shot at 3K hits).

Rollins played half his career in the offensive boom years, Trammell most of his in an offensive downtime.

WAR already accounts for this. But I'm skeptical of how Trammell's oWAR is calculated in his down years (and he had a lot of down years, which people always seem to ignore) because AL shortstops were so SO bad at that time except for Ripken. In '89 he hit .243/.314/.334, "good" for 2.3 oWAR. His '81 was similar. These were bad seasons, but the replacement level happened to be so horrendous that I think his production via oWAR appears misleading.

For their careers, Trammell had more v. good bordering on great offensive seasons, but Rollins was more consistent. If Rollins plays another 3-4 years and puts up 12 WAR I'd probably call it a wash.

how often to shortstops have late-career surges?

he belongs in the phillies hall of fame, sure

His skills (speed, defense) tend to age well,

o_0 this is 100% untrue

speed and defense begin to decline the moment players (assuming they aren't literally teenagers) enter the majors, with some exceptions if old dogs can learn new tricks to make up for their declining legs, but that isn't common

not that i think rollins is a candidate to drop off completely, i guess. apparently his career defensive value mostly has to do with his fielding percentage rather than range (negative UZR since 02) or DP ability (negative UZR since 02). but his offense is going to fall off enough that that won't really matter when he's trying to pad his resume.

His defense and base-running have been pretty decent this year, his BB% numbers are up.

i'm not 100% sure whether rollins would deserve much more than hanging around the ballot for a few years before dropping off, but i suspect that if he falls shy of 3k hits he won't last long.

xp it's still totally overzealous to not predict decline for a 36 year old shortstop. and his mediocre range can still decline to just plain terrible.

xxxxxxp strikeouts matter more to fWAR than bWAR, and indeed glavine's fWAR is much lower. i'd put more weight in his bWAR, unless his braves/mets defenses were really so good to justify that big a discrepancy in his FIP and ERA.

I can't remember the exact reasoning, but I thought that outfield defense declines sharply with age (e.g. guys become too slow to play CF and have to switch positions or become an embarrassment like Bernie Williams was). Even so, weren't players like Rickey and Kenny Lofton the prototypes for staying productive at OF into their forties thanks to hitting and speed?

OTOH, slow power hitters can become liabilities overnight because they aren't athletic enough to compensate for a decline in speed and mobility in the field, and a wrist injury or slight slowing of bat speed can completely sap their power.

It's a moot point anyway with Rollins, he's still stealing bases at age 35 so he's still fast. BBRef rates him 1.0 dWAR for '14 (although he's not the defender he was in his 20's). His power has declined, but otherwise his consistency during his 30's suggests he can hang on for a few more years and be productive.

he's kind of entering his old man biggio years imo

here's a list of WAR compiled by players 36 and over dating back to 1950. mostly negative DEF scores, mostly negative BsR, and even the best baserunners only added a bit over 2 wins from it. the defensive positives are among the best defenders in history -- ozzie, omar, morgan, fisk (who's up there primarily bc he played such a freakish amount of games at catcher), wtf was with bob boone? lofton's trajectory does seem like the best case for rollins, but lofton provided much better offense. the majority of the value on that list comes from offense.

WAR already accounts for this.

Already factored in, I know--was just trying to give some context to stats that weren't as close as they sometimes superficially seemed. (Not sure how Trammell's and Rollins' parks compare; I have some vague memory of old Tiger Stadium being a hitter's park.)

In '89 he hit .243/.314/.334, "good" for 2.3 oWAR.

That does seem rather generous. The one thing I remember about '89, though, is that it was a solid pitcher's year, especially in the AL. (Kevin Mitchell had a huge season in the NL.) The three guys perceived to be the main MVP candidates that year--I remember this well, because one was from Toronto--were Yount, Sierra, and George Bell. Their slash stats were very ordinary for MVP candidates:

Yount -- .318/.384/.511
Sierra -- .306/.347/.543
Bell -- .297/.330/.458

I'd think it would take Jimmy Rollins to play and start at least another five full seasons to age 40 to get to 3000 hits. Omar Vizquel was a starter through age 40. I think Rollins to get 3000 hits is unlikely but possible. Even if he is still productive enough to continue to finish out with the Phillies, I think it would depend on if they develop a shortstop in the minors and if Rollins could be open to playing some 2b or something like that. Vizquel also played some 2b in his last years and was a bit of a utility infielder. I don't know enough about him as a player to know Rollins might accept such a role to keep playing. Barry Larkin still could hit and play shortstop ok in his late 30s, but he lost a lot of games in that time to injuries. Cincy even gave him a pretty big contract late in his career, I don't know if the Phils would do the same for Rollins and whether salary issues might fit into such a situation.

The Favorite Toy gives him a 22% chance at 3,000, and truthfully, that seems overly generous to me. His averages the past four years: .268 (2011), .250 (2012), .252 (2013), .243 (2014). He's almost 700 hits away, hasn't had more than 168 since his MVP season, and has only one guaranteed year with the Phillies left.

Did any of you guys happen to look at what the "average shortstop" was doing in 1989? Trammel's 85 OPS+ was like 9th in the entire league. It's easy to be like oh well that WAR #s inflated until you look and realize that those numbers were still probably miles and miles better than what a replacement would put up. Trammel also had six years where he was OPS+ 130+. Rollins has exactly zero.

Rollins is POS not HOF

Trammell's peak years were better than Rollins', no question. It's his value in his subpar seasons (which was half of his career) that I'm not sure about.

He might have been better than a replacement level shortstop in 1989, which is important if I'm building a team in 1989. But how does it support his HOF case? He had a bad season, but the quality of shortstop talent in the AL just happened to bottom out, so suddenly it's a season worthy of an all-time great player?

"But how does it support his HOF case?"

Because he played and accumulated value (would point out that in most of these down years Trammel's def was still pretty strong according to the stats.) Anyway even setting aside career WAR, Trammel's 7YR peak and JAWS case are very good.

i like rollins, but no way is he going into the HOF. his peak wasn't nearly peaky enough, and it was too short.

i'm having fun looking for players who might have a shot at 3000 in the future (besides the obv ALTUVE!!!!) and BR makes it easy by listing current age, tho they only go to 100

2. Alex Rodriguez (20, 38) 2939
3. Ichiro Suzuki (14, 40) 2844
4. Adrian Beltre (17, 35) 2604
5. Manny Ramirez (19, 42) 2574
6. Albert Pujols (14, 34) 2519

manny probably won't make it! a-rod and pujols are virtual locks and i'm guessing ichiro really wants it and some team is going to keep humoring him until he crawls in there. i'd love to see beltre make it which seems totally possible right now.

12. Jimmy Rollins (15, 35) 2306
13. Miguel Cabrera (12, 31) 2186

barring disaster cabrera should make it. he looks v young next to everyone around him. rollins is also younger than everyone else down to #18 but i still don't think he gets in.

19. Carl Crawford (13, 32) 1868
22. Robinson Cano (10, 31) 1836
24. Jose Reyes (12, 31) 1772
25. David Wright (11, 31) 1702

crawford is the second youngest in the top 20 but will not make it. cano has to be the most likely under 2000 to make it, and his hit totals haven't declined at all. totally possible reyes can get there if he somehow becomes very healthy. that won't happen to wright! ha! mets!

29. Adrian Gonzalez (11, 32) 1635
32. Nick Markakis (9, 30) 1547

markakis is a very dark horse but he's the youngest out of anyone with over 1500 hits, and many of his BR comps have aged well. he's extremely healthy with the exception of one freak injury and his hit totals have been consistent. there was also a point where it looked like johnny damon would sneak in.

43. Hanley Ramirez (10, 30) 1403
44. Prince Fielder (10, 30) 1389
46. Dustin Pedroia (9, 30) 1371
54. Ryan Zimmerman (10, 29) 1326
59. Ryan Braun (8, 30) 1297
63. Billy Butler (8, 28) 1273
64. Melky Cabrera (10, 29) 1262

it is possible that one person here ends up with 3,000 hits and it won't be billy butler

79. Delmon Young (9, 28) 1115

i had no idea about this

90. Justin Upton (8, 26) 1039

who knew jupton was only 26? he's averaged 150 hits his last 3 years so i don't think it'll happen

looking beyond that on FG so i'm probably missing someone:
McCutchen 28/986
Andrus 26/959
Starlin 25/846
Freeman 25/656
Heyward 25/644
ALTUVE! 25/630
Stanton 25/619
Trout 23/572

some contenders for sure, but the only one we can really feel certain about is altuve

ofc in 20 years the BBWAA will be filled with sabermetric robots who won't care about a figure as glorious as 3000 hits but let's keep dreaming while we're still young and beautiful

i don't think ichiro's gonna make it (which of course shouldn't matter in the long run)

kinda love nick markakis, but yeah i don't see it

You know I love to talk about this stuff...A-Rod's a lock if he has a job, but that's a big if. Pujols should cruise along at this new, mortal-like level for a few more years, so yes. Beltre, Cabrera, and Cano, yes. Crawford had a good jump up till the age of 25, but he just doesn't play enough anymore--no chance. The Favorite Toy doesn't count David Wright out--12% chance. Obviously he'd have to bounce back to his 2009-10 levels, with a few All-Star years mixed in. McCutchen calculates to 17%. It's almost like his talents are too broad-based to make a run at 3,000--he's too good a player, in an odd sort of way. I think the Trout fellow will make it, even though he's only 24% by the Favorite Toy (Crawford was 28% after his age-25 season). Which, by the way, estimates career length very conservatively. It gives Trout 10 more years. Does anyone expect Mike Trout to retire at the age of 34?

2) Projected seasons remaining for the player. This is calculated by the formula (24 - .6(age)). Any player still playing regularly has a minimum of 1.5 seasons remaining, regardless of age.

seems like this part could use a bit of work

lincecum still has a 22% chance of 3000 strikeouts!!

(xpost) I'd be interested in reading James's thoughts on that now (the formula was developed in the late '70s). I think he'd probably say "No, you still have to use a conservative calculation," and would then proceed to explain why in a way that made sense. (E.g., that anything less conservative would produce an expected number of 3,000 hit guys way out of line with reality.) Intuitively, though, with all the money that's thrown at players these days, I would think some adjustment for extending expected career length would be in order.

Checking the odds for 3000 strike outs, CC Sabathia still has 32% chance per James' projection tool. Which is better than Peavy's 20%.

Hernandez would have an insane 15% chance of 4000. Kershaw, 24%.

had no idea peaves had so many strikeouts

I checked in other pitchers for 3000 K.

Strasburg: 27%
Bumgarner: 37%
Sale: 29%
Lester: 26%
Darvish: 16%
Scherzer: 37%

Price: 33%
Cueto: 13%
Greinke: 35%
Hamels: 44% =o
Wainwright: 4% :(
Burnett: 27%
Gio: 15%
Verlander: 40%

i feel like Hamels is a far better pitcher than people give him credit for.

really surprised FG never gave him a 5.0 + WAR season. His best season came in 2011 with 4.6.

BR is much nicer to him, two 6.6 seasons (2014, 2011) an one 5.4 (2010).

and then two 4.6 seasons – which is the max FG gives him.

A real longshot: Adrian Gonzalez. Only one mention on this thread (in a list). He's 32, coming off a good year where he'll get some MVP support.

--will probably end up with 350-400 HR
--currently at .292/.364/.499
--a couple of league titles: hits in 2011, RBI last year
--6 MVP finishes so far (highest: 4th in 2010)
--38.2 WAR right now; may end up around 60, but would have to keep playing well
--considered one of the best defensive first baseman, no?

The thing that hurts him is that 7 of his 9 full-time years have been in San Diego and L.A. His one year in Boston was excellent. For his career, he's .283/.360/.462 at home, .301/.368/.535 on the road. Even the second set of numbers would leave him on the fence for a first baseman, but there'd be a reasonable case. If you were to add those to some hitter-friendly home numbers, I think you'd be hearing a lot about his HOF chances.

If nothing else, he should linger on the ballot for a few years.

From his comp list, Hrbek and Will Clark work well; Palmeiro's on there too, and though I don't doubt that makes sense in terms of adjusted rate stats, Palmeiro piled up numbers in a way the other three didn't.

A better comp would be Fred McGriff. They have nearly the same slash stats and OPS+, a few top ten MVP finishes, similar reputations as v. good but not spectacular HR/RBI men for winning clubs. McGriff is a fringe candidate though. AGon would have to average about 25 HR/90 RBI until age 40 just to pull even with McGriff on counting stats.

In terms of raw numbers, he's good too. They're not on each other's BR comp list because of era-adjustment, presumably--McGriff's comps are better. But yeah, if McGriff's at 12% and dropping, Gonzalez doesn't have a chance.

If Adrian Gonzalez gets to around 63 WAR (which is possible) then yeah I'd back him to go in.

idk adrian's a good player (and was great for a brief spell) but i don't think he gets in and if he did he probably wouldn't deserve it based on how he'll likely perform moving forward.

For some reason I thought he was at 43 WAR, but nope, he is at 34 WAR and has less than 10 years to go (most probably). I doubt he reaches the necessary production indeed, unless he finds a surge.

If Adrian Gonzalez gets to around 63 WAR (which is possible) then yeah I'd back him to go in.

― Van Horn Street, Sunday, November 2, 2014 4:20 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

for any reason other than "63 WAR"?

63 is a beautiful number.

Actually it's that 63 WAR would put in the top 20 all time for 1st baseman. It's not the end all of his value, but it's a strong enough indication for me that he would deserve a hall of fame, no matter how he gets there (defense, power, average, a combination of all). GG and MVP are not something a trust enough at the moment.

it just seems like a p low dividing line to me, and i'm just growing more and more suspicious of using WAR as a dividing line anyway

MVP voting trends are meaningful. In a single year there might be Shannon Stewart-style anomalies in the MVP voting, but if someone consistently finished in the top 10 during their prime, it's almost certain they were a great player. (yeah, there are rare exceptions like Ryan Howard)

Kershaw is now ninth on the career list of Cy Young shares at 3.34; another full share (which could theoretically happen next year) would move him into fourth place, behind Clemens, Johnson, and Maddux (and just ahead of Pedro). He should end up there within two or three seasons, but catching Clemens (7.66) and Johnson (6.50) will be tough. He's also up to 92 on James's HOF monitor, just shy of the 100 that would make him a "likely HOFer." (I'm not sure if that was ever adjusted during the PED era--if not, it's predictive value is less than it would have been when it was devised in the mid-'80s; pitchers, I think, are short-changed.)

Trout, meanwhile, at the age of 22, is 67th on the MVP-share list at 2.39; he's already passed Ripken, Koufax, Yaz, Winfield, and many other HOFers. And he's up to 65 on the HOF monitor.

i wanna say kershaw is already a probable but i would've said that about johan (12th in CY shares) before 2009 too

he was older when he started to be good but pitchers can drop off or get injured for life at any moment

Sure--or Gooden after the '88 season, maybe even '90; the red flags were there, but I think the general feeling was that he'd continue to pitch well enough to eventually end up in the HOF. Verlander, Sabathia, you never know.

One other thing about Trout. The HOF Monitor originally had a 70-100 score as the gray area; most people in that range didn't make it, but some did. (As standards go up and inclusion gets tougher, I'm not sure you'll see any players in that range get inducted anytime soon, if ever again.) So, as originally devised, Trout is 5 points shy of the gray area. At age 22.

Chase Utley is above a good bunch of 2B HOF in JAWS: Alomar, Biggio, Doerr, Gordon, Lazzeri. Still slighty under the HOF average.

I think he was on track for a protracted Blyleven/Raines debate before this year, but unless he comes back, I'd say no chance now (i.e., in terms of how the vote will actually go).

he's actively diminishing his case with every game played

he still has those two deserved MVPs he didn't win.

He had the peak part of his resume taken care of by 2009; except for Hornsby, Morgan, and Robinson, I doubt there's a second baseman who can match his 2005-09 run. (I guess the two ancient guys too, Lajoie and Collins.) The problem is, there's not much else. If he were to not play past this year, he'd finish with 1,600 hits, and that's a non-starter.

he still has those two deserved MVPs he didn't win.

let no one say a morbs is not magnanimous

not when ppl suggest Jimmy fucking Rollins is worthier

aw