hall of fame, next vote...

I remember people pointing fingers on the basis of some drastic offseason weight loss a few years ago ...

I was looking at his B-R player page and was wondering

1) he had a negative dWAR for three straight years from 2002-4. I don't get it ... he was great defensively, then bad for three years, then great again?

2) he had a 67 career WAR, which barely puts him in the top 100 all-time. I don't know, doesn't that seem a bit low for one of the best catchers ever (and probably the best ever defensively). It would suggest that either a) catchers aren't all that valuable (because they usually aren't among the league's best hitters) or b) a catchers' value isn't well represented by current metrics.

catchers have shorter careers and their position takes a bigger toll when it comes to hitting
comparing his WAR against everyone is less meaningful than comparing him to other catchers

BB-Ref ranks his 67 WAR at...67th place, coincidentally. That definitely doesn't seem too low to me.

and #2 among catchers, #11 among catcher WAR/game

10th if you eliminate Jack Clements since he was pre-modern

tbh, I just assume anyone on the mid-90s Rangers was using

One exception:

http://s.ecrater.com/stores/68455/495a38266a0b5_68455n.jpg

Refused to take anything stronger than Flinstones vitamins.

"a catchers' value isn't well represented by current metrics"

From what I understand this is very true on the defensive side of things. All the traditional catcher stats are really hard to isolate as individual achievements (SB, CS, PB/WP) and those are the things that a catcher does that actually appear on a stat sheet.

Or the ability to call a game, which, if you accept that there is such an ability in the first place, exists in some grey area that's hard to isolate. (When Piazza lost those close MVP votes, the Dodgers would always be at or near the league lead in team ERA. But they were good staffs pitching in Dodger Stadium--how do you quantify Piazza's role in that? Seeing as he's catching the bulk of the games, comparing him to second- and third-string Dodger catchers doesn't seem to get you anywhere.)

I don't think Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Lee Smith and Bert Blylevyn were Hall of Famers. Morris, Sandberg, Sutter and Goosage have much better arguments in their favor...Morris was a monster and at his best (which he was for a large part of 80s) he was one of the best pitchers in baseball...

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:50 PM (7 years ago)

Wow--in view of some of the arguments I've had with Alex the last couple of years, the assessments of Blyleven and Morris there are surprising, to put it mildly. Where I was around the same time (far as I can tell, I posted this in the spring of 2002).

catchers have shorter careers and their position takes a bigger toll when it comes to hitting
comparing his WAR against everyone is less meaningful than comparing him to other catchers

This is what I'm getting at -- if you are going by career WAR, then only two out of the top one hundred best players were catchers. That doesn't seem right. Maybe 1000 games at catcher are equivalent to 1500 games at first base? If you could choose between having a star catcher for ten years or a star first baseman for ten years, you'd probably choose the catcher because good players at that position are much harder to come by.

Or the ability to call a game, which, if you accept that there is such an ability in the first place, exists in some grey area that's hard to isolate.

The ability to call a game exists, but I don't think it's all that important today. In 1910 when pitchers grew up on farms and had 7th grade educations, a guy with his head in the game at all times who could micromanage the other players was important. Now, I'm sure that the best pitchers know the hitters every bit as well as heir catchers do.

From what I understand this is very true on the defensive side of things.

Yeah, it's accepted that Pudge shut down the opposing team's running game based on reputation alone. How much was that worth to his teams on average?

I'm sure that the best pitchers know the hitters every bit as well as their catchers do.

With an established starter, I wouldn't doubt that calling a good game basically amounts to being able to guess almost unerringly what the pitcher wants to throw (and is going to throw) anyway; if you're on the same page, and you only get shaken off a handful of times, you've called a good game. With younger pitchers, or guys whose emotions run high on the mound, I'm sure game-calling skill figures much more prominently.

If you could choose between having a star catcher for ten years or a star first baseman for ten years, you'd probably choose the catcher because good players at that position are much harder to come by.

Ok, but what if it's Catcher for 10 years or First Baseman for 15? I mean that's why these guys are lower on a list of career totals, they just don't provide as much career value.

Exactly, then it's a tougher question. But if it's twice as hard to find a star catcher than a star first baseman, then ten great catching years might be worth twenty great 1B years. Career WAR doesn't account for that, even if you only compare players at the same positions, or on a WAR/162G scale.

"Wow--in view of some of the arguments I've had with Alex the last couple of years, the assessments of Blyleven and Morris there are surprising, to put it mildly."

Alex in SF in 2004 had read a lot less about sabermetrics than Alex in SF in 2006 even.

"With younger pitchers, or guys whose emotions run high on the mound, I'm sure game-calling skill figures much more prominently."

To be honest, I think it's probably a lot less important than a pitching coach or even a general organizational pitching philosophy i.e. pitch to contact or whatever (which are other things that are really hard to quantify.)

I-Rod had pretty much a rifle when he was young as a catcher. I remember in an article about I-Rod back in the early 90s and it had a quote with Sparky Anderson pretty much saying he was the best he had seen since Bench.

Mike Piazza is a better all around hitter, but I'd say Rodriquez might be the better all around player (but it's slight either way). Both of them are the two best catchers of their time and probably on the first hand list of top catchers ever.

Pudge definitely has more guilt by associations on the roids issues than Piazza, but for some reason I got a feeling he might will end up being on that gets a hall pass on the issue faster than the others.

Yeah, I bet Piazza gets more of a steroids penalty from Hall voters than Pudge will

I think Rodriguez is going to be treated with more suspicion. The arc of his career seems more in line with PEDs to me--he had this four- or five-year burst of offensive production starting in '99 that didn't quite fit with the rest of his career. (Looked at one way; you could also argue that there was steady improvement over a number of years leading up to 1999.) Piazza was pretty great right off the bat, and his production was fairly consistent for the next decade.

I'm not sure that any hitter who debuted in the 90's will be elected on the first ballot (except Jeter). Rodriguez might have a chance because of his defense and his MVP award. But you're right about his "career arc" looking suspicious (I don't care, but lots of other people do), that will hurt his case for sure.

Yeah, I don't think the writers care about the career arc. They care about Piazza being a big muscular guy who hit tons of homers. While Pudge is a smaller guy who was a defensive whiz. The only guys who ever seem to get any steroid grief are the guys who hit tons of homers (and Roger Clemens).

Well Pudge is going to have the benefit he is going to come up in 2018 after many of the big names have already gone up and gotten turned down. That Rangers clubhouse is probably one of the most suspect ones though tied to the scandal...probably up with SF, Houston, SD and the NY ones (although I don't remember a whole lot Mets per say getting mentioned as Yanks by rumor).

I don't remember anything coming up about Piazza persay. Maybe it did and I just don't remember compared to the big ones.

(xpost) The only problem with that theory is that Piazza hit 35 home runs as a rookie in 1993; his career high only nudged up to 40, and between '93 and 2002, he was in that 35-40 range six times. Rodriguez, by contrast, went 35-27-25 during his peak, and otherwise only barely hit more than 20 twice the whole rest of his career. If the sportswriters are indeed doubling as detectives, I suspect Rodriguez's batting line is the one they're going to look upon with more skepticism.

On the other hand, Rodriguez was playing before Pizza, and, because he retained defensive value, he also outlasted him by four years--I'm sure that will weigh in Pudge's favour. We'll see. I'd never thought about NoTime's theory that no hitter (except Jeter) who debuted in the '90s will make it first ballot, but I think he might be right; I haven't come up with any counter-examples yet.

"Rodriguez was playing before Pizza"--he predates hot dogs and nachos, too. Guy's been around forever.

@Kurkjian_ESPN
Pudge caught Nolan Ryan, who was born in 1947, and Stephen Strasburg, who was born in 1988. Amazing

I've never heard Piazza and roids get talked about. Lots of Pudge talk - but, as noted, his career lasted long enough for a lot of the stink to dissipate.

Assessing I-Rod:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/cliff_corcoran/04/20/ivan-rodriguez-retirement/index.html?sct=mlb_bf3_a5

Just looking over something I wrote a while back, and I realize there are in fact three hitters who debuted in the '90s who I think have a pretty good shot at first-ballot induction: Thomas, Chipper, and Vlad. I'll throw in Piazza, too, for a total of four.

I've never heard Piazza and roids get talked about

scurrilous BACNE anecdotes.

I get lots of back-pimples and I've never touched a steroid outside a couple of months treatment for psoriasis 20 years ago. Irrelevant, yes, but equally and just as valiudly anecdotal.

we're not talking about reality, we're talkin the BBWAA

Thomas is still widely seen as a failure for the second half of his career. I don't expect him to be first-ballot.
Chipper - maybe. He's a baseball writer's wet dream.
I'd bet more money on Vlad not getting in than getting in on the first ballot.

I've never heard Piazza and roids get talked about

scurrilous BACNE anecdotes.

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, April 27, 2012 1:16 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Also a gay, iir my slanders correctly

Just looking over something I wrote a while back, and I realize there are in fact three hitters who debuted in the '90s who I think have a pretty good shot at first-ballot induction: Thomas, Chipper, and Vlad. I'll throw in Piazza, too, for a total of four.

― clemenza

i think that seems about right, at least for the first three. chipper no doubt of course, thomas should be a 95%+ finisher but it'll be more like 85%. a couple of decent high mvp finishes in his post-glory years, epic numbers, the only player who volunteered to speak to the mitchell report folks iirc. i think his decline is gonna play to the writers like griffey's did: almost an example of his trustworthiness or some such bullshit like that.

vlad is gonna be close but i think he does it.

Also a gay, iir my slanders correctly

but a gay Republican, even if he didn't sleep with wasn't pals w/ Rush Limbaugh like George Brett.

Vizquel:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/29182/omar-vizquel-and-the-hall-of-fame

I didn't fuss too much over my "no" vote--he seemed viable for about five minutes after his strong '99 season.

It's sad that the Vets Committee process has obviously been fucked up to the point where they may never elect anyone, as I fear Ron Santo will die before his deserved induction.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 December 2004 14:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

:/

This bit from Verducci seemed far-fetched to me at first, and it still does to an extent, but he does provide some context:

But what if (Bochy) wins another World Series? Indeed, you might say this World Series brings Cooperstown into play for the winner, be it Leyland (1,676 wins and 17 games over .500 in a 21-year managerial career with one World Series championship) or Bochy, who also looks to get his second title. One of them will become the 14th manager to win more than 1,400 games and multiple World Series. All of them are in the Hall or assured of going in except Houk. Bochy is far from wrapping up his career. He's only 57. The point is that he has quietly amassed a resume that is headed toward some serious Hall of Fame consideration.

17 games over .500! Quite an accomplishment!

Not saying that Leyland isn't a good manager but the argument that he's basically won just slightly over half his games is pretty funny.

I basically agree--like I say, seems farfetched. It was just his "Only 14 managers..." bit that caught my eye. (Leyland's got the sagacious, chiseled face of a HOF manager, but then so did Roy Hartsfield.)

He does completely have the look down. Way more than Bochy who basically just looks like a mean drunk. I could get behind a HoF for Leyland based on him being the most manageresque looking manager.

has to be smoking on the plaque

Totally. Also play by Harry Dean Stanton in the movie about Miguel Cabrera's Triple Crown season.

"You have won some salted meats and a bottle of Rebel Yell!"

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/97/97ngrizzled.phtml

I have a dream that baseball managers will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the success of their teams, but by how really wise and wrinkly they look.

http://static.foxsports.com/content/fscom/img/2011/06/26/062611-MLB-Detroit-Tigers-Sparky-Anderson-PI_20110626165052600_335_220.JPG http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/001/621/836/Casey-Stengel_original_crop_exact.jpg?w=340&h=234&q=75

http://nbchardballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/jack-mckeon-marlins.jpg?w=320 http://nbchardballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/jim-leyland1.jpg?w=320

Tim Hudson:

http://mlb.si.com/2013/05/01/tim-hudson-braves-win-200/?eref=sihp

A longshot, though I wouldn't completely count him out yet. Five percent chance, maybe? The best thing in his career box is the lifetime .650+ winning percentage, but the number of voters who care about such things dwindles a little bit more each year. May end with a WAR over 60.0.

i would say he has almost zero chance, especially if someone like curt schilling has trouble getting in. hudson doesn't have anything, for lack of a better adjective, 'legendary' about him like schilling does.

I'd definitely agree that if it's a long slog for Schilling, Hudson's a non-starter. Without thinking about it, I'd probably already subconsciously voted Schilling in. But you're right, he started off at a fairly modest 38% this year. We'll see what happens the next three or four years.

I'd probably file Tim Hudson in the hall of very good. The guy has been very consistently solid, can't argue he would be a good guy to have on your staff for a decade. Hudson's lost a season or two to injury over his career, which takes down his total counting numbers. That said, I think the way the guy pitches on guile and control, if he can avoid more injuries he could still pitch for a few more years and the Braves are setup to be a pretty good club for the short future.

hudson was i think the first of the billy beane-cultivated "ace" pitchers to arrive in the majors and in the wake of the big splashes made by zito, mulder, and harden he ended up lost in the shuffle and pretty underrated. never as flashy as those three, never a big K guy, but still often the best guy on the staff. obv ended up being the best in the long run. since he arrived, what righty SPs have been better? halladay, verlander, king felix, and the peaks of a couple others i guess? he's good.