Master Index of Archived Threads


Hall of Fame Voting: This Year, Next Year, and Beyond

Valadius Aug 10 2007 05:58 PM

I wasn't around when we had our most recent Hall of Fame induction, but now that I am back again, I wish to comment on the state of our Hall of Fame voting. Two legends were inducted this year, both on the field and off it. Ripken and Gwynn were both incredible ballplayers, and seriously, who didn't like them? But is the Hall of Fame reserved only for the squeaky-clean? Have we pushed the pedestal too high? I say yes, emphatically yes. Since when did a baseball player have to be well-liked in order to merit induction into the Hall of Fame? When did we stop treating baseball players like human beings, with faults and weaknesses and personal demons, and start looking at them as more than human, and let their human errors that we all have become a reason to banish them from baseball's Valhalla? I refer, of course, to the debate primarily surrounding Barry Bonds at this moment. Does he belong in the Hall of Fame or doesn't he? Of COURSE he does!!! Good lord, look at the bigger picture here! Lifetime average near .300, nearing 3,000 hits. Now up to 757 homers, some of which are tainted, but even without steroids I doubt he would have ended up with less than 600. The best eye of any ballplayer I've ever seen. Over 500 stolen bases. Nearing 2,000 RBI. Has a chance at breaking Rickey Henderson's all-time runs scored mark, when no one thought Ty Cobb's previous mark could be broken. Seven MVPs, eight Gold Gloves, twelve Silver Sluggers. Before he started juicing, when other players had the limelight, he was named the best player of the 90's. For him to be excluded from the Hall of Fame would be a travesty, as much as I don't like the guy. When all three retired in the same year, the media and the country touted the three legends who were sure to be inducted in 2007: Ripken, Gwynn, and McGwire. Then McGwire's non-answer in front of Congress got everybody screaming at him. As a result, he appeared on less than a quarter of ballots this year. I, for one, believe he should be in the Hall of Fame. Certain numbers have a bit of magic to them, and I think we should keep the number 500 as a sacred milestone. Maybe he cheated, who knows? But one writer (I forget who) summed up how I'm going to judge the Steroid Era: "Hundreds of players probably used steroids. But did they all do what Barry Bonds did?" Indeed, even though many players cheated, they didn't all put up the numbers that the select few did. And I am of the opinion that the best players of that era would have been the best players even if no one was doing steroids. Therefore, it's simply insane to exclude somebody from the Hall of Fame just because somebody accused them of doing steroids. Have we excluded everybody that threw spitballs? Or used amphetamines? Or used excessive pine tar? Or used nail files on baseballs? No, we haven't. The only excuse for exclusion from the Hall of Fame has been gambling. Even Jose Canseco, blowhard that he is, is in my mind a borderline Hall of Famer. Next year, the ballot will include only one newcomer who belongs in the Hall of Fame: Tim Raines. One of only four players in history with 800 or more steals (the others being Henderson, Brock, and Cobb), Raines had a .294 lifetime average with 2,605 hits. Here's who I'd like to see elected next year: Tim Raines Goose Gossage Mark McGwire Jim Rice Andre Dawson Bert Blyleven Harold Baines Jack Morris In 2009: Rickey Henderson Mark Grace In 2010: Roberto Alomar Barry Larkin Edgar Martinez In 2011: Jeff Bagwell Juan Gonzalez Rafael Palmeiro Larry Walker In 2012: Craig Biggio

seawolf17 Aug 10 2007 07:08 PM

Hey Val. Long time no post. Eight guys in one year? Zero chance. We're going to be lucky to see two. Baines isn't even getting close, and neither is Raines or McGwire. Blyleven and Rice are closest, I'd think.

DocTee Aug 10 2007 07:11 PM

Harold Baines and Hall of Fame do not belong together.

Valadius Aug 10 2007 07:18 PM

Well those guys are everyone remaining on the ballot that I think merit inclusion. Harold Baines had probably the quietest career of any great player I've ever seen. He has the most base hits (2,866) and RBIs (1,628) of any player currently eligible for the Hall of Fame. He was seriously overlooked for much of his career.

metsmarathon Aug 10 2007 08:53 PM

harold baines belongs in the hall of seriously overlooked, not the hall of fame.

Frayed Knot Aug 10 2007 09:00 PM

2008: Tim Raines - No Goose Gossage - No (but will) Mark McGwire - No (t least for now) Jim Rice - No Andre Dawson - No Bert Blyleven - Yes Harold Baines - No Jack Morris - No In 2009: Rickey Henderson - Yes Mark Grace - No In 2010: Roberto Alomar - Yes Barry Larkin - No Edgar Martinez - No In 2011: Jeff Bagwell - No Juan Gonzalez - No Rafael Palmeiro - No (pending) Larry Walker - No In 2012: Craig Biggio - Yes

metsmarathon Aug 10 2007 09:07 PM

harold baines, from bbref: Black Ink: Batting - 3 (502) (Average HOFer ≈ 27) Gray Ink: Batting - 40 (596) (Average HOFer ≈ 144) HOF Standards: Batting - 43.6 (109) (Average HOFer ≈ 50) HOF Monitor: Batting - 66.5 (271) (Likely HOFer > 100) Overall Rank in parentheses. and according to baseballprospectus, in 22 seasons, only once did he have a WARP3 of 9 or higher, with a 9.0 in '84. his next best year was a 7.8 in '85. his career WARP3 was about 102. and he has a career OPS+ of 120. he had a long career. it wasn't fame-worthy. ... tim raines fares better: Black Ink: Batting - 20 (105) (Average HOFer ≈ 27) Gray Ink: Batting - 114 (176) (Average HOFer ≈ 144) HOF Standards: Batting - 46.8 (91) (Average HOFer ≈ 50) HOF Monitor: Batting - 90.0 (174) (Likely HOFer > 100) Overall Rank in parentheses. in 23 seasons, he topped out with a WARP3 of 11.1 in '85, four more years above 10.0, and two more years above 9.0. his career WARP3 was 132 his career OPS+ was 123 he also had a long career, with i think a bit more dropoff than baines. does he make hte hall? i'd be tempted to vote for him myself, but i'm not sure he gets in.

Nymr83 Aug 11 2007 01:04 AM

i disagree with FK on 4 guys, strangely i've always considered myself a "strict" guy with putting people in the hall but i'd put in these 4 guys that he'd keep out: Tim Raines - No YES - its a joke to leave out a guy with a .385 obp and 808 steals (and an 84% success rate) he would be a legend if his career didn't coincide with rickey henderson's. Jim Rice - No YES Edgar Martinez - No YES Jeff Bagwell - No YES a few more active guys who i think may one day make it (based on current stats with no speculation on their futures): FIRST BALLOT: Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Roger Clemens, Trevor Hoffman, Randy Johnson, Manny Ramirez, Ken Griffey jr., SUBSEQUENT BALLOTS: Curt Schilling, Jim Thome, Jeff Kent, Sammy Sosa, CLOSE, BUT NO: Chipper Jones, Gary Sheffield, Carlos Delgado, Billy Wagner, Jason Giambi, Kenny Lofton, Mike Mussina* *he belongs in but will be the neglected Blyleven of his generation.

Nymr83 Aug 11 2007 01:31 AM

]And I am of the opinion that the best players of that era would have been the best players even if no one was doing steroids certainly, baroid and bigmac would have been great players without steroids, but the best of the era? maybe that would have been someone else like griffey. arod could still be.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 11 2007 06:17 AM

It's not the Hall of Great Statistics, it's the Hall of Fame. Those who bring infamy (the opposite of fame) to the game don't belong. If Bonds, McGwire, Rose, and Sosa never end up in Cooperstown, it's all right with me. And I don't care what their numbers are. American Heritage Dictionary wrote: FAME NOUN: 1a. Great renown: a concert violinist of international fame. b. Public estimation; reputation: a politician of ill fame. INFAMY: NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. in·fa·mies 1. Evil fame or reputation. 2. The condition of being infamous. 3. An evil or criminal act that is publicly known.

Edgy DC Aug 11 2007 06:43 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 11 2007 11:06 AM

On Tim Raines, yes. On Martinez and Baggs, I'm still thinking. On Rice, I'm having trouble getting past the double plays. On valadius, he's getting over-excited and not giving anybody credit for the ability to weigh the nuances of a complex case.

Valadius Aug 11 2007 11:04 AM

I think I brought this up a year or two ago, but seriously, how can you deny Larry Walker a spot in the Hall of Fame? Lifetime average - .313 Home runs - 383 RBI - 1,311 SB - 230 OBP - .400 OPS - .965 7 Gold Gloves 1997 MVP 3 Batting titles His OPS+ number, 140, is better than the likes of Reggie Jackson, George Brett, Dave Winfield, and Al Kaline.

Edgy DC Aug 11 2007 11:14 AM

Walker's a good choice. The argument against him is that he doesn't approach the plate appearances of those guys. But his Gold Gloves, if you believe he earned them, can make up for that difference.

DocTee Aug 11 2007 11:17 AM

]how can you deny Larry Walker a spot in the Hall of Fame? He's Canadian. We don't need no hoser canucks in our hall.

Nymr83 Aug 11 2007 11:22 AM

]He's Canadian. We don't need no hoser canucks in our hall. except Schilling.

OlerudOwned Aug 11 2007 11:45 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: It's not the Hall of Great Statistics, it's the Hall of Fame. Those who bring infamy (the opposite of fame) to the game don't belong. If Bonds, McGwire, Rose, and Sosa never end up in Cooperstown, it's all right with me. And I don't care what their numbers are. ="American Heritage Dictionary"]FAME NOUN: 1a. Great renown: a concert violinist of international fame. b. Public estimation; reputation: a politician of ill fame. INFAMY: NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. in·fa·mies 1. Evil fame or reputation. 2. The condition of being infamous. 3. An evil or criminal act that is publicly known. I don't think the name is meant to be taken literally. It's just that "Hall of Fellows Who Were Really, Really Good At Playing Baseball Professionally" is pretty unwieldy.

Valadius Aug 11 2007 12:50 PM

Following up on Nymr's analysis of active players, here's my take: Will make it: Barry Bonds Roger Clemens Greg Maddux Tom Glavine Randy Johnson Pedro Martinez Ichiro Suzuki (if he plays another 3 seasons in MLB) Mike Piazza Alex Rodriguez Ivan Rodriguez Manny Ramirez Frank Thomas Ken Griffey, Jr. Jeff Kent Sammy Sosa Trevor Hoffman Mariano Rivera (grrrr...) On the cusp: Jim Thome Gary Sheffield Omar Vizquel John Smoltz Curt Schilling Mike Mussina Probably not: Luis Gonzalez Steve Finley Kenny Lofton Jim Edmonds Jason Giambi With a few years more, yes: Carlos Delgado Chipper Jones (grits teeth) Vladimir Guerrero Todd Helton Albert Pujols Billy Wagner

cleonjones11 Aug 11 2007 05:45 PM

The Hall of Fame is for the very very great..not the very very good. On the Fence guys Dawson Yes All elso No.. That means you Gossage and Rice Surprised not to see Fred McGriffs name mentioned at all

Valadius Aug 11 2007 07:12 PM

I just don't see Fred McGriff making it. Had he put up decent numbers his last two seasons instead of dropping off the face of the earth, it would be a different discussion.

Nymr83 Aug 12 2007 12:17 AM

mcgriff didnt do enough offensively for a firstbaseman. he's not that far away but to me he's on the wrong side of the line between hall of famer and good player.

Valadius Aug 13 2007 12:23 AM

Unfortunately, Jim Kaat's fate is now in the hands of the Veteran's Committee, which is need of reform in the worst way. They haven't elected anybody in 6 freaking years. They hold elections only every two years. If they loosened their requirements for induction - say 60% or 65% instead of 75% - then it would be a functional body. But getting 75% of the living Hall of Famers to agree on anything seems impossible to me.

metsguyinmichigan Aug 13 2007 07:15 AM

Valadius wrote: I just don't see Fred McGriff making it. Had he put up decent numbers his last two seasons instead of dropping off the face of the earth, it would be a different discussion. I disagree. A guy's prime is more important than his last two years. McGriff is what, seven homers shy of 500? And he's never been accused of doping so that 500 is looking better every day. Of the guys on the ballot -- or soon to be -- I'd vote for: Raines Blyleven Gossage Rice Dawson McGwire Dale Murphy Of the guys not on the ballot next year, I'd vote for: Henderson Alomar Larkin Palmiero Bagwell McGriff

Edgy DC Aug 13 2007 07:23 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 13 2007 11:50 AM

="Valadius"]Unfortunately, Jim Kaat's fate is now in the hands of the Veteran's Committee, which is need of reform in the worst way. They haven't elected anybody in 6 freaking years. They hold elections only every two years. If they loosened their requirements for induction - say 60% or 65% instead of 75% - then it would be a functional body. But getting 75% of the living Hall of Famers to agree on anything seems impossible to me. Isn't that the result of reform? Wasn't the issue that they had elected too many folks?

metsguyinmichigan Aug 13 2007 11:22 AM

At one of my previous papers, two guys in our sports department were voting members of the BBWAA. One took his vote very seriously and really studied the stats. He came up with his own formula, and while I didn't always agree with his picks -- he kept voting for Ron Guidry, and backed it with his formula -- I appreciated that he took the time to do it right because there are a lot of people like us who care about the Hall. And the other guy spent, oh, two minutes -- maybe -- figuring out who he would vote for. Mostly Tigers. Drove us up a wall. The sports editor let me fondle the ballot each year. You'd be surprised how plain it is. Literally, a list of typed names with a little box next to each one. Old school paper ballot. At least this was what it was like in the late 1990s. Might be different today. Speaking of Tigers -- I should have added Alan Trammell to the list of guys I'd vote for.

Valadius Aug 13 2007 01:49 PM

I never thought the Veterans' Committee elected too many players. Even if they did, now it's gone to the other extreme. It's also ludicrous to have them meet every other year - good lord, at least do this every year like everybody else.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 13 2007 02:09 PM

I don't agree. I think, as far as Hall-of-Fame inductions go, the fewer the better. It ought to be very exclusive. I'd like to remove about ten percent of the players in there.

Frayed Knot Aug 13 2007 02:12 PM

They actually did tweak the voting process in the last few weeks, but I think it mostly had to do with having the existing H-o-F players vote only on players and have a seperate committee choose the writers, execs, etc.

Vic Sage Aug 13 2007 03:42 PM

[u:e235bc07c3]2007 holdovers:[/u:e235bc07c3] Blyleven, Bert - yes Rice, Jim - borderline Dawson, Andre - borderline McGwire, Mark - borderline Smith, Lee - no Morris, Jack - no John, Tommy - no Garvey, Steve - no Concepcion, Dave - no Trammell, Alan - no Parker, Dave - no Mattingly, Don - no Murphy, Dale - no Baines, Harold - no [u:e235bc07c3]2008:[/u:e235bc07c3] Tim Raines - borderline NO: Brady Anderson, Andy Benes, Delino DeShields, Shawon Dunston, Chuck Finley, Travis Fryman, David Justice, Chuck Knoblauch, Mike Morgan, Robb Nen, Greg Swindell, Randy Velarde, Mark Wohlers [u:e235bc07c3]2009: [/u:e235bc07c3] Rickey Henderson - 1st ballot Mark Grace - no NO: Steve Avery, Jay Bell, John Burkett, David Cone, Mike Bordick, Ron Gant, Denny Neagle, Dean Palmer, Dan Plesac, Greg Vaughn, Mo Vaughn, Matt Williams, Mike Williams [u:e235bc07c3]2010: [/u:e235bc07c3] Roberto Alomar - yes Barry Larkin - yes Edgar Martinez - borderline Fred McGriff - no NO: Kevin Appier, Rod Beck, Ellis Burks, Andres Galarraga, Pat Hentgen, Mike Jackson, Eric Karros, , Shane Reynolds, Robin Ventura, Todd Zeile [u:e235bc07c3]2011: [/u:e235bc07c3] Jeff Bagwell - yes Larry Walker - yes Juan Gonzalez - no Rafael Palmeiro - no NO: Wilson Alvarez, Carlos Baerga, Bret Boone, Kevin Brown, John Franco, Marquis Grissom, Mike Hampton, Al Leiter, Tino Martinez, Raul Mondesi, Hideo Nomo, John Olerud, Benito Santiago, Ugueth Urbina [u:e235bc07c3]2012: [/u:e235bc07c3] Craig Biggio - yes NO: Bill Mueller, Tim Salmon, Tim Worrell

Gwreck Aug 13 2007 04:11 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 13 2007 04:12 PM

Larkin seems like a borderline candidate. He played 19 seasons but lost a lot of time due to injury (in only 12 of those seasons did he get 450 PAs). In 6 of the 12 full seasons he hit over .300. The career hits total (2340) avg (.295) and OBP (.371) are impressive. 3 Gold Gloves, 1 WS. 1 MVP in '95 but it was a strange vote (Larkin only got 11 first place votes) and Maddux's 19-2, 1.63 ERA probably should have gotten the MVP that year. Never led the league in anything. Compare to Edgar Martinez, who you listed as "borderline:" 2247 career hits, .312 AVG, .418 career OBP. 309 HRs. 2 batting crowns, 1 2nd place. Led league in runs once, RBI once, doubles twice. Over .300 in 10 of the 12 full seasons he had. Of course he also never played the field. I'd probably vote for Martinez and not for Larkin.

Edgy DC Aug 13 2007 04:57 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 13 2007 06:28 PM

Valadius wrote: I never thought the Veterans' Committee elected too many players. Among people who think about this stuff, you're in the minority. Bill James has pretty well made the case that the veterans' committee, when it was a small group, acted as an old boy's network, and the best case your candidacy could have would be a friendship with one or more members of the committee. ]Even if they did, now it's gone to the other extreme. Who is being screwed? Valadius wrote: It's also ludicrous to have them meet every other year - good lord, at least do this every year like everybody else. Why is this ludicrous?

SteveJRogers Aug 13 2007 04:59 PM

Edgy DC wrote: ]Even if they did, now it's gone to the other extreme. Who is being screwed? My guess is Val is talking about Ron Santo, Gil Hodges and others who haven't gotten in over the last couple of rounds.

Iubitul Aug 13 2007 05:05 PM

I agree with Yancy - the fewer, the better - I don't want this to become Canton... I also agree with Vic, that of the holdovers, Blyleven belongs. But I disagree that McGwire is borderline - I think minus the steroids, he's a glorified Dave Kingman. So that would be a big NO from me. As for the new classes, these are the only ones I believe merit induction: 2009: Rickey Henderson 2010: Roberto Alomar 2011: Jeff Bagwell 2012: Craig Biggio

Valadius Aug 13 2007 06:30 PM

Steve, you're absolutely correct. Gil Hodges, Ron Santo, and Jim Kaat all deserve to be in the Hall, in my opinion. Tony Oliva, maybe - only knock against him is that he didn't play long enough, but that didn't keep out Kirby Puckett. Oliva, from 1964 to 1971, was a great player. He just doesn't have the numbers because his career was on the short side. Same thing with Lefty O'Doul - started his career as a barely-used mop-up pitcher, came back as a hitter and finished with a .349 average and a .9451 OPS - better than Cobb, Mays, and Aaron. Only problem is when he came back as a hitter, he was 31. Dick Allen, again, same thing - not long enough of a career. We focus so much on numbers and milestones that we put players with shorter careers at a severe disadvantage.

Edgy DC Aug 13 2007 07:25 PM

Valadius wrote: Steve, you're absolutely correct. Gil Hodges, Ron Santo, and Jim Kaat all deserve to be in the Hall, in my opinion. Fine, that's your opinion. It may be mine also, in some cases. It's always been a part of this process that people who belong in one man's --- or more --- opinion would be left out. You have your favorite candidacies, and I have mine. But you take a large body of observers --- a body of even the most reasonable men and women --- and grant them their favorite candidates, then the door will swing open so large as to make enshrinement meaningless. So, they create large bodies, and accept only the cases that draw consensus among those bodies, the size of the bodies serving to cancel out individual biases and critical momentum that small groups are more subject to. I encourage you to read The Politics of Glory. I think it was published in paperback as Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?. It'll put some pepper in your soup.

Rockin' Doc Aug 13 2007 07:50 PM

Stealing from Vic's list of future HOF eligible candidates I would cast my vote, if I had one, for the following players: 2007 holdovers: Bert Blyleven - Yes Jim Rice - Yes Andre Dawson - Close call, I'm still thinking on it. 2008: Tim Raines - Yes, on a close call. I always liked him as a player. I feel he probably comes up just short, but that's probably in comparison to his contemporary that will be inducted in 2009. 2009: Rickey Henderson - Yes 2010: Roberto Alomar - Yes Barry Larkin - Yes Larkin’s career numbers very closely mirrors those of Alomar. Edgar Martinez - borderline – Great hitter, but he was a DH because there was nowhere to hide his brutal defense. 2011: Jeff Bagwell - Yes Larry Walker - Yes Walker’s offensive numbers rival or surpass those of Edgar Martinez and he was a very good defensive outfielder with 7 Gold Gloves. Rafael Palmeiro – No His career numbers are worthy of Cooperstown, but he did get using PEDs. 2012: Craig Biggio - Yes

MFS62 Aug 14 2007 06:43 AM

="Gwreck"] Compare to Edgar Martinez, who you listed as "borderline:" 2247 career hits, .312 AVG, .418 career OBP. 309 HRs. 2 batting crowns, 1 2nd place. Led league in runs once, RBI once, doubles twice. Over .300 in 10 of the 12 full seasons he had. Of course he also never played the field. I'd probably vote for Martinez and not for Larkin. Getting up on my soap box here. Nothing against you, wreck, but that comment was as good a place to start as any. The Hall of Fame rules say that voters can vote for "pitchers" and "players". (Other than execs, umps, etc.) It does not say "pitchers" and "hitters". When I think of a "player" wrt the Hall, I think of a complete player. That means that in my mind, a player must exhibit all of the so-called five tools. You all know, they are hit, hit with power, run, field and throw. So, how can a person who never fields or throws even be considered for the Hall? After all, its not the Hall of Numbers. Just because certain major leaguers had the luck to play in a league where they didn't have to expose their defensive deficiences while at the same time accumulate statistics, it doesn't mean they shold be in the same Hall as players who put it all on the line. end of rant against that stupid rule. Later

Edgy DC Aug 14 2007 07:04 AM

Rant against the rule all you want. But Edgar Martinez didn't write it. And, while playing for team that DH'd him detracts from Martinez's legacy, it doesn't negate it. Many players --- Babe Ruth and Ted Williams included --- would likely have spent the second half of their careers, or more, at DH, had the option been available to their managers.

metsguyinmichigan Aug 14 2007 07:19 AM

So based on what MFS62 says, do we take down the plaque of Paul Molitor, wo spent the bulk of his career playing DH? I think there are a number of players who, like Molitor, spent much of their career at DH and will end up in Cooperstown. Frank Thomas is one. Personally, I think Edgar Martinez falls a little short. And I think Palmiero will get in. When the truth finally gets out about PEDs -- and we know it will -- I think we'll see how widespread it was. I would not be shocked to see Bagwell, Alomar and many others -- except Mike Piazza! -- get named and at that point you either have to wipe out an entire generation of players or look at them in a different light. Palmiero has 3,000+ hits and is in the top 10 in home runs. He's going to go in.

seawolf17 Aug 14 2007 07:21 AM

There's no way Palmiero gets in... because he actually was found guilty of PEDs. Unless they change the rules, it still takes writers' votes; and I guarantee there's no way you'll ever get 75% of the writers to agree to let him in... and if you think the Veteran's Committee is going to be any better, you got another think coming. Palmiero might as well buy a season pass, because he's never ever ever ever ever ever ever getting a plaque. Ever.

MFS62 Aug 14 2007 07:22 AM

You're right, Edgy. He didn't write the rule. But in my mind, as you also said, it detracts enough from his career so that I don't feel he should be enshrined. Same thing with Baines. I feel he was able to amass a substantial portion of his numbers due to that rule. His knees would have forced him to retire early if he had to play a defensive position. But by only having to hit, his career was artificially prolonged. Later

Johnny Dickshot Aug 14 2007 07:25 AM

There's nothing artificial about it. The DH has been a genuine rule for 30some years.

Frayed Knot Aug 14 2007 07:33 AM

]... it detracts enough from his career so that I don't feel he should be enshrined. Detracts from his career to the point where it needs to be taken into consideration sure, but not to the point where it excludes him from being considered. Just think of it in the same way that you'd judge a 1st baseman's stats differently than similar offensive numbers from a SS. It's a factor, not a death sentence.

Edgy DC Aug 14 2007 07:44 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Aug 14 2007 02:34 PM

While he did have knee surgery at some point, I don't know that he had chronic problems with his knees that would have gradually debilitated him and kept him from playing first or third. He got a hamstring injury relatively early in his career. They (1) stuck him there while he recovered, (2) kept him there because it was working, and, when he was healthy, they had other solid guys playing first and third, and (3) eventually kept him there because it continued to work and the team, having warehoused him there, had allowed his defensive skills to deteriorate. For the average player, the defensive contribution is about 15% of their game He DH'd most of his career, but if you take away 12% of his legacy he still compares to many hall-of-famers who were average defenders and played defense their whole careers. He's a gen-u-ine candidate. Vote against him if you want, but I don't think arguing "guy that DH'd" ≠ "player" is wrestling with his legacy fairly.

metsmarathon Aug 14 2007 07:52 AM

i wonder how ozzie smith stacks up on the 5-tool checklist... ralph kiner had only 22 career stolen bases, and was a below average fielder, apparently, for his career. should we kick him out? willie stargell had 17 career stolen bases, and was another below average fielder. does he get the boot as well? when we argue whether or not typical players belong in the hall, do we start with their defense, or do we see how they stack up on their offense? and then, if we need a little extra juice to push a player over the top, is it not only then that we measure out their defense, and typically only then if it helps a player? if edgar martinez had played an awful first base instead of excellently riding the pine between at bats, would anybody be clamoring too loudly to hold it against him?

Valadius Aug 15 2007 10:16 PM

Let me throw this one out at you: Is Omar Vizquel Hall-worthy? I think so. Since Ozzie Smith's in, I think you've gotta vote Vizquel, the best-fielding shortstop since Smith, into the Hall of Fame.

Gwreck Aug 15 2007 11:04 PM

I will admit that I hate "Because X is in, Y should be in" arguments. Seems that if the HOF ever makes a mistake the floodgates are opened forever, if you adopt that logic.

Nymr83 Aug 16 2007 11:15 AM

the hall has made mistakes (Phil Rizzuto, Tony Perez, Catfish Hunter, maybe Don Drysdale too). Although it shouldn't lower the standards it kinda has to, because what else can the standard be at this point other than "is this guy as good as the guys who are in"

Edgy DC Aug 16 2007 11:42 AM

You really think the standard should be anybody as good as or better than the least? I don't think so at all.

Valadius Aug 16 2007 12:03 PM

No, I really don't think that should be the standard. But if Ozzie Smith is in the Hall mostly because of his superb defense, then Vizquel should have the opportunity to be considered in the same light. The fact is, Vizquel is certainly the best-fielding shortstop since Ozzie Smith. He may even be better defensively than Ozzie Smith. Vizquel has a career .984 fielding percentage, the best all-time among shortstops. He broke Smith's record for double plays by a shortstop this year. And of course, he has 11 Gold Gloves (to Smith's 13). So if the same grading scale that got Ozzie Smith elected applies, Vizquel is nearly equal defensively, perhaps better. And in comparing offensive statistics, Vizquel is better than Smith in virtually every category, the only big exception being stolen bases - Smith stole 580 bases to Vizquel's 377. So I think Vizquel deserves to make it in, not just because Ozzie Smith is in, but because the Hall does allow room for excellent fielders who were decent with a bat.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 16 2007 12:07 PM

="Valadius"]So I think Vizquel deserves to make it in, not just because Ozzie Smith is in, but because the Hall does allow room for excellent fielders who were decent with a bat. HOF voters didn't seem to apply that rule to Keith Hernandez, who was more than decent with a bat.

seawolf17 Aug 16 2007 12:07 PM

Ozzie also had some postseason success, All-Star Games, MVP votes... tons of stuff that Vizquel doesn't. Vizquel doesn't get in.

Valadius Aug 16 2007 12:21 PM

The problem that HOF voters I guess had/have with Keith is that he didn't put up power numbers like most first basemen are called on to do. I think Keith merits inclusion, but I guess the baseball powers-that-be have decreed that you have to hit lots of home runs if you're to be considered a "great" first baseman. That's just stupid, to try to define greatness by trying to fit you into a box statistically. Now in Vizquel's case, as a shortstop, he fits into the pre-Ripken/A-Rod mold that used to characterize the position. So I think he compares favorably to those already in the Hall.

HahnSolo Aug 16 2007 12:41 PM

seawolf17 wrote: Ozzie also had some postseason success, All-Star Games, MVP votes... tons of stuff that Vizquel doesn't. Vizquel doesn't get in. Vizquel actually was the regular SS on 6 postseason teams; Ozzie only three times. Ozzie was on the 96 Cardinal team, but played sparingly. And yes, Ozzie had many more All Star Game appearances, but there were no NL shortstops at that time who would be on a par with ARod, Jeter, and Garciaparra at least for a few years, who Vizquel had to compete with. Vizquel will also retire with more than 2600 hits. Is he a HOFer? I'm not sure, but I certainly think Valadius has a valid point that if Ozzie Smith is in, then this guy deserves a closer look.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 16 2007 12:58 PM

It's now twice as easy to make the postseason as it was in Ozzie's time. (Eight teams now, four teams then.) So Omar's six can be said to equal Ozzie's three.

seawolf17 Aug 16 2007 01:36 PM

Exactly... Ozzie was the best shortstop of his generation. (Cal Ripken notwithstanding.) Omar can't even come close to claiming that.

Nymr83 Aug 16 2007 02:04 PM

seawolf17 wrote: Exactly... Ozzie was the best shortstop of his generation. (Cal Ripken notwithstanding.) Omar can't even come close to claiming that. Ozzie is not better than Alan Trammell.

HahnSolo Aug 16 2007 02:51 PM

seawolf17 wrote: Exactly... Ozzie was the best shortstop of his generation. (Cal Ripken notwithstanding.) Omar can't even come close to claiming that. I realize he can't come close to saying that, but since when do you have to be the best at your position in a given generation to get in the Hall? Is Duke Snider any less of a HOFer because he wasn't the best centerfielder of his generation? Is Jim Palmer any less of a HOFer because he wasn't the best starting pitcher of his time?

Edgy DC Aug 16 2007 03:00 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 16 2007 04:59 PM

Plenty of time to argue about these guys. Let's enjoy their careers while they're happening and argue about Babe Herman.

metsmarathon Aug 16 2007 04:28 PM

Nymr83 wrote: ="seawolf17"]Exactly... Ozzie was the best shortstop of his generation. (Cal Ripken notwithstanding.) Omar can't even come close to claiming that. Ozzie is not better than Alan Trammell. based on...?

Mendoza Line Aug 16 2007 05:02 PM

Trammell's OPS+ = 110 Ozzie's is 87 Vizquel's is 84 Trammell is one of the best hitting shortstops in the pre-A-Rod era who isn't in the HOF. He won four Gold Gloves, which doesn't make him Ozzie Smith, but it ain't half bad. He only played in one World Series, but he hit .450 and was the MVP. Does 23 points of OPS offset the difference between a very good defensive shortstop and the guy who many people believe was the greatest glove of all time? I'd say "yes", but this may be because I lived in St. Louis for a while, and I used to wince every time Ozzie booted a grounder that was counted as a hit by the Busch Stadium scorer. So I'm not a huge Ozzie fan. I'll admit that Ozzie was the greatest defensive shortstop of his time and that he probably deserves to be in the HOF, but I also would've put Trammell in there first.

Johnny Dickshot Aug 16 2007 06:15 PM

Trammell should have tried more flips. Can I start the whole "They should really induct Sadaharu Oh, or at least change the rules so it's possible" argument here?

Valadius Aug 16 2007 06:18 PM

I think you can, JD. "Beyond" would permit that.

Nymr83 Aug 16 2007 11:30 PM

]Does 23 points of OPS offset the difference between a very good defensive shortstop and the guy who many people believe was the greatest glove of all time? the answer would be "without a doubt"

Edgy DC Aug 17 2007 06:01 AM

We're using the term OPS here when we mean OPS+.

metsmarathon Aug 17 2007 06:51 AM

i was looking at this yesterday, and the best i could find is that, depending on what methodology you use, you'll get either that ozzie was better, or trammel was better. iirc what i found correctly, trammel had better win shares, but ozzie does better in total player rating as well as wins above replacement. the difference, clearly is in how much value you assign to defense....

Edgy DC Aug 17 2007 07:43 AM

And while defense is hard to measure, I think Gold Gloves Grossed is a terrible way to measure it.

metsmarathon Aug 17 2007 07:46 AM

its up there with range factor...

Nymr83 Aug 17 2007 09:21 AM

range factor > gold gloves. Rafeal Palmiero never won the range factor award while playing DH all year.

Mendoza Line Aug 17 2007 10:23 AM

]And while defense is hard to measure, I think Gold Gloves Grossed is a terrible way to measure it. I agree that it's not much of a measure - I wouldn't say that a player with 4 Gold Gloves is necessarily a better fielder than a player with 3. Or even zero. OTOH, I do think that multiple GGs indicate that a fielder is probably better than the average schlub in most cases. I haven't seen many Tigers games in my life, so I'm just depending on the stats, but I'd say that Trammell's great (for his time) hitting plus better-than-average-schlub defense at short is good enough for the HOF.

m.e.t.b.o.t. Aug 17 2007 10:25 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 17 2007 10:31 AM

m.e.t.b.o.t. would like to point out that rafael palmiero did have a higher range factor than any qualified american league first baseman, and had a higher range factor than all but two american league first basemen with more innings of defense played at first base. regardless, m.e.t.b.o.t. agrees that sometimes, range factor can be more meaningful than gold gloves. however, rafael palmiero may just be an extraordinary case of poor voting by subjective and innatentive humans. gold glove voting should be left to the robots.

Edgy DC Aug 17 2007 10:30 AM

Mendoza Line wrote: ]And while defense is hard to measure, I think Gold Gloves Grossed is a terrible way to measure it. I agree that it's not much of a measure - I wouldn't say that a player with 4 Gold Gloves is necessarily a better fielder than a player with 3. Or even zero. OTOH, I do think that multiple GGs indicate that a fielder is probably better than the average schlub in most cases. I haven't seen many Tigers games in my life, so I'm just depending on the stats, but I'd say that Trammell's great (for his time) hitting plus better-than-average-schlub defense at short is good enough for the HOF. Winning a Gold Glove is hard, but winning multiple ones after that is often just a matter of staying healthy, hitting enough to stayin the lineup, and coasting on your reputation. Roberto Alomar was winning Gold Gloves well after his defense fell toward the mean. So was Andruw Jones. Still is. We have to work harder in measuring defenders. Measuirng managers and coaches also, for that matter.

Nymr83 Aug 17 2007 10:45 AM

Trammell in mind is better than 2 if not 3 or 4 currently enshrined shortstops- Ozzie Smith and Phil Rizzuto for sure, probably PeeWee Reese, and i'm probably missing some guys.

Vic Sage Aug 17 2007 11:47 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 10 2007 02:04 PM

in evaluating HOF credentials, Bill James' the HOF Monitor and HOF Standards formulas are useful tools. The Monitor attempts to measure the likelihood of induction based on a wide range of accomplishments. The Standards test tries to measure the actual value of his accomplishments. You can look at these numbers for each player, and measure them against the average HOFer, rather than using the lowest ranked HOFer as a threshhold, which only serves to bring the level ever downwards. avg HOF standards = 50 / avg HOF Monitor = 100 (130 = a lock) [u:afee405e84]2008:[/u:afee405e84] * Blyleven, Bert - 50 / 120.5 (at least avg in both stats = yes) - Rice, Jim - 43 / 146 {Black Ink test=33 (above 27 avg), borderline-yes) - McGwire, Mark - 42 / 169 [BI =36] (never tested positive, borderline-yes) - Smith, Lee - 13 /135 {borderline- stats don't work well for RPs) - Mattingly, Don - 34.1 / 133 (borderline) - Parker, Dave - 41 / 129 (borderline - no) - Morris, Jack - 39 / 122 (borderline - no) - Dawson, Andre - 43 / 118 (borderline - no) - Trammell, Alan - 36 / 118 (borderline - no) - Murphy, Dale - 34 / 115 {(BI = 31) borderline - no} - John, Tommy - 44 / 111 (borderline - no) x- Concepcion, Dave - 25.9 / 106 (no) x- Tim Raines - 46 / 90 (no) x- Baines, Harold - 42 / 66.5 (no) [u:afee405e84]2009: [/u:afee405e84] * Rickey Henderson - 52 / 186 (BI = 50! - 1st ballot) [u:afee405e84]2010: [/u:afee405e84] * Roberto Alomar - 55 / 193 (yes) * Edgar Martinez - 50 / 131 (yes) - Barry Larkin - 42 / 118 (borderline) - Fred McGriff - 47 / 100 (borderline - no) [u:afee405e84]2011: [/u:afee405e84] * Jeff Bagwell - 59 / 149 (yes) * Larry Walker - 57 / 147 (yes) - Juan Gonzalez - 39 / 120 (borderline - no) x- Rafael Palmeiro - 57 / 178 (yes, but tested positive, so no) [u:afee405e84]2012: [/u:afee405e84] * Craig Biggio - 55 / 172 (yes) As for the Smith / Vizquel discussion, they have similar below-average HOF Standard rankings (smith = 30.9, Vizquel = 33.9), but the Wizard had a Monitor ranking of 142, to Vizquel's 119, so one can understand Ozzie's inclusion and Omar's exclusion, despite being similar players.

Edgy DC Aug 17 2007 11:59 AM

Make of it what you will, but I think Mark McGwire failed a test.

Vic Sage Aug 17 2007 12:14 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Make of it what you will, but I think Mark McGwire failed a test. what test would that be? the test of public opinion? yes, i agree. And i think that will keep him out for awhile. But as the steroids era becomes history, and more names are exposed, it may be that he's held less culpable. Especially, since the substances he probably took weren't against the rules at the time. Palmiero, however, failed a test when it had been already been banned, and he lied to congress about it. I'd say he's more likely target for ostracization. I could be wrong, of course. I'm just saying McGwire's numbers indicate a HOF-worthy career and, as far as i know, he never violated the rules of his time. The HOF has noted cheaters like Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton, and an abusive, gambling racist like Cobb. Were I a voter, it would be hard for me to justify a permanent disqualification (even an informal one) for McGwire.

metirish Aug 17 2007 12:27 PM

Vic can you link that James formula ,with my own nonscientific formula from the list above only ,Henderson,Alomar,Biggio,Bagwell,Walker and McGwire are HOF worthy .

Edgy DC Aug 17 2007 12:43 PM

Vic Sage wrote: ="Edgy DC"]Make of it what you will, but I think Mark McGwire failed a test. what test would that be? the test of public opinion? yes, i agree. Please don't pretend I answered your questoin. He was asked a question under oath, and he refused to answer it while speaking glibly around the issue. It's not a test of public opinion, but a test of honesty about his own use of steroids. Vic Sage wrote: And i think that will keep him out for awhile. But as the steroids era becomes history, and more names are exposed, it may be that he's held less culpable. Especially, since the substances he probably took weren't against the rules at the time. Palmiero, however, failed a test when it had been already been banned, and he lied to congress about it. I'd say he's more likely target for ostracization. I could be wrong, of course. I'm just saying McGwire's numbers indicate a HOF-worthy career and, as far as i know, he never violated the rules of his time. The HOF has noted cheaters like Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton, and an abusive, gambling racist like Cobb. Were I a voter, it would be hard for me to justify a permanent disqualification (even an informal one) for McGwire. As I said, make of it what you will.

Nymr83 Aug 17 2007 12:43 PM

I think the andro acts as a red-herring for McGwire, misleading people into thinking "oh, ok, he just took this legal over the counter thing, thats how he got so big" when the reality is he did everything that Bonds, Palmiero, Canseco, Sheffield, etc. did. I wouldnt keep him out of the hall without a failed test (or federal conviction etc) of something that was illegal at the time he did it. ]He was asked a question under oath, and he refused to answer it while speaking glibly around the issue. It's not a test of public opinion, but a test of honesty about his own use of steroids. i don't think thats true. its a test of how strongly his lawyer told him not to answer questions that he didnt have to answer.

Frayed Knot Aug 17 2007 01:22 PM

Absent any steroid controversy, which 1st baseman gets more HOF votes; McGwire or Bagwell? -- I think the answer to that is unquestionably McGwire. Now, if I were to offer you a 1st sacker that would be guaranteed to have the exact same career as those two: same strengths, same weaknesses, same length of career, etc., who do you pick? -- To me, the answer to that one is Bagwell. He ran much better, fielded much better, better BA & OBP, more RBIs, maybe had lower peaks (although did get an MVP and more top-10s) but also a longer prime. Then I wonder how many of the voters would answer that question the same way, but yet not vote that way

Edgy DC Aug 17 2007 01:31 PM

Steroids aside, voting Sosa over McGwire for MVP in 1998 was a bad vote.

Nymr83 Aug 17 2007 02:24 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Steroids aside, voting Sosa over McGwire for MVP in 1998 was a bad vote. there was a .200 OPS difference between them (in Big Mac's favor) and yet McGwire got only 2 votes (i assume the 2 STL writers) to Sosa's 30. as for McGwire vs Bagwell, McGwire has a 13 point OPS+ advantage, while being the inferior defender and baserunner by a wide margin. His 16 year career was only 1874 games while Bagwell played 15 years and 2150 games, It wasn't until his final season that Bagwell missed significant time to an injury. I'd go with Bagwell, but its very close.

Valadius Aug 18 2007 02:00 PM

Without the steroids cloud, McGwire gets more votes. But Bagwell was the better, more complete ballplayer. Basically, you'd rely on McGwire when you absolutely needed a home run, and on Bagwell for all-around play or simply a hit.

Valadius Aug 26 2007 02:59 PM

I just was having a thought - how do we define a Hall-of-Fame closer? There are no true numerical indicators of greatness for a closer - not yet, anyway. I suspect that there will someday be a 500-save club that would be that milestone, but as of now it only has one member - Trevor Hoffman. How are we going to evaluate closers in the future? And how should we evaluate the closers of the past? Where is the dividing line between the modern era of closers and the past, and how should we consider closers from each? I personally think the modern era of the closer began in the early 1990's. How should we judge the closers of the 70's and 80's? Trevor Hoffman is likely going to be the first modern closer inducted into the Hall of Fame. Who else seems likely to join him? Rivera and Wagner stand out in my mind. But who else can we include with them? And who should we consider from the past who have been neglected?

SteveJRogers Aug 26 2007 03:20 PM

="Valadius"] There are no true numerical indicators of greatness for a closer - not yet, anyway. I suspect that there will someday be a 500-save club that would be that milestone, but as of now it only has one member - Trevor Hoffman. But the 400 save club was just as exclusive. Should Lee Smith (who got there first) and John Franco be inducted? Plus there are actually more 300 game winners (Glavine is the 23rd) right now than 300 save closers. (an even 20) Yes I know 23 over the entire history of MLB, as opposed to 20 really since the save rule went to effect in 1969 (interestingly enough, Rollie Fingers played in 1968, the only member of the club to do so, but never recorded what would be considered a "save" ) ]How are we going to evaluate closers in the future? And how should we evaluate the closers of the past? Where is the dividing line between the modern era of closers and the past, and how should we consider closers from each? I personally think the modern era of the closer began in the early 1990's. How should we judge the closers of the 70's and 80's? Trevor Hoffman is likely going to be the first modern closer inducted into the Hall of Fame. Nope, using your criteria that is right in HOFer Dennis Eckersley's prime. -MVP & CY year in 1992 -Switches to full time closer in 1987, yeah not the 1990s, but close enough. -Modern bullpens are greatly inspired by LaRussa's A's pens with Honeycutt, Nelson and a cast of thousands filling in the bridge to Eck in the 9th. Oh sure the setup guy had existed before, but LaRussa really got the ball rolling in terms of how bullpens are set up and used today. For better or worse depending your point of view. ]Who else seems likely to join him? Rivera and Wagner stand out in my mind. But who else can we include with them? And who should we consider from the past who have been neglected? Rivera yes, Wagner? Never really thought of it that way. Tell you the truth I'm lukewarm on Hoffman for the same reasons Lee Smith and Jeff Reardon (both of whom enjoyed time being the All Time Saves leader) aren't getting in. Nothing that says "You are watching a legend" the way you do with Rivera. Like you did with Eck, Rollie Fingers, ect. Rich Gossage pretty much is the last of the pre-90s closers IMO who is not in the HOF but should be.

Valadius Aug 26 2007 03:26 PM

Eckersley is in a class all by himself, though, having done all that time as a starter and winning nearly 200 games during his career. Thus I consider Hoffman the first modern closer on his way to the Hall.

SteveJRogers Aug 26 2007 03:44 PM

Valadius wrote: Eckersley is in a class all by himself, though, having done all that time as a starter and winning nearly 200 games during his career. Thus I consider Hoffman the first modern closer on his way to the Hall. Eck won 145 games as a pure starter though (1975-1986). Thats a lot, plus the no-hitter, couple of ASGs, one 20 game season and yes there was a time where you could have called him the best in the league, but he really wasn't anything you could say "he's a future HOFer" over though. Eckersley became a HOF soley on his work in the pen, his starting career did not augment it at all, the way John Smoltz's time as a closer will augment his HOF chances.

Edgy DC Aug 26 2007 05:01 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: Eckersley became a HOF soley on his work in the pen, his starting career did not augment it at all.... Of course it did. Argue that it wasn't necessary and that he'd make it if his relief career stood alone, but of course his starting career augments the legacy of his relieving career.

Valadius Aug 26 2007 05:53 PM

Of course his starting career affected how he was looked at. If you may recall, a lot of chatter among baseball writers at the time he was voted in was that his starting career allowed him to be pushed over the top in their minds. Remember, Hall consideration for relievers is very much a new phenomenon. The fact that he put up pretty good numbers as a starter as well as being a phenomenal reliever eased the concerns of a lot of old-school folks.

Valadius Sep 04 2007 12:58 PM

One of the many problems I have with Hall of Fame voting is its treatment of non-players when it comes to enshrinement, particularly managers, umpires, executives, and the like. Who do you think deserves enshrinement in this category? What active managers do you think will end up in the Hall of Fame? Tony La Russa, Bobby Cox, and Joe Torre are locks, I think, and Lou Piniella has a shot if he gets a few more good seasons in.

Johnny Dickshot Sep 04 2007 01:09 PM

Piniella? Why?

Edgy DC Sep 04 2007 01:23 PM

Ted Giannoulas.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 04 2007 01:34 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Ted Giannoulas. That's the San Diego Chicken, right? I don't think he deserves an official plaque in the Hall, but I definitely think he deserves some kind of recognition in Cooperstown.

sharpie Sep 04 2007 01:35 PM

When they open the Mascots Wing the Chicken and Mr. Met go in together. Then they close the Wing.

Edgy DC Sep 04 2007 01:45 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 04 2007 02:05 PM

I think the Chicken's costume has already been displayed. It certainly was part of the touring Baseball as America exhibit. But the guy who made it happen deserves recognition. I don't want to blaspheme, but I think the whole place needs to be reconceptualized. The Hall of Fame itself, apart from the museum --- the hall of plaques --- is anti-climactic to me. Those plaques should be integrated with the exhibits. I'm thinking perhaps of a large locker-room type layout, with each inductee's artifacts exhibited along with his plaque in a locker with his name over it. They need outdoor exhibits and interactive exhibits also. Give me a 3D experience that shows me what it was like to hang in there against Nolan Ryan's fastball, Bert Blyleven's curve, and Phil Niekro's knuckler. It would also be coolio if the Hall of Fame game was an actual official game. Oh, yeah, hire former big-leaguers as docents.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 04 2007 02:03 PM

Four great ideas. I don't mean to blaspheme either, but the last time I was at Cooperstown, the Hall and Museum was a letdown. It was magical when I first went at the age of 12 (I think) and I enjoyed it the second time, when I was 21, but on my third and final visit (in 1991) I was 28 and it all seemed kind of flat. A lot of shoes and gloves and stuff. Now, at age 44, I'm a lot more jaded than I was at 28. I don't expect to ever go back to Cooperstown unless I happen to be in the area for some other reason. (I wouldn't avoid the Hall, I just wouldn't make a special trip.)

Valadius Sep 04 2007 02:22 PM

I've never understood why the Hall of Fame game didn't count for anything. Making it an official game would indeed be pretty cool. I think the Hall ought to possibly double in size - there are plenty of baseball artifacts that can't be seen because the Hall is physically too small. There also should be larger exhibits for each team. An outdoor exhibit where you can play baseball using 1880s rules a la Jim Bouton's league (though in the interest of safety, maybe with modern gloves) would kick ass.

Willets Point Sep 04 2007 04:37 PM

Rather than double in size, make branch hall of fames in big cities like New York, Chicago or Los Angeles.

MFS62 Sep 04 2007 04:54 PM

Willets Point wrote: Rather than double in size, make branch hall of fames in big cities like New York, Chicago or Los Angeles. Good idea. And if you're going to do that, how about St. Louis? And Boston? Or, they could do what they did with the Viet Nam memorial wall - they could build a mini - Hall and have it travel around to each of the major league ballparks and stay there for a full 3 or 4 game series. And if that is successful, have it visit the minor league parks. Also- my idea for resolving the "team hat" problem for players who spent substantial time with multiple franchises - have holographic emblems on their plaque hats, which change teams based on how you view them. Later

Frayed Knot Sep 04 2007 04:57 PM

They did have a traveling exhibit a few years back. With more stuff in their possession than they can display at any one time, they took part of their booty on the road to various cities for week-long stops. My guess is that they don't want to do that too often for fear that it'll lessen the appeal for the real thing.

seawolf17 Sep 04 2007 06:01 PM

It wouldn't lessen the appeal, it would destroy the appeal. Cooperstown's a nice little city, but really, there's not much else there. Yeah, you have your other museums and your opera house and whatever, but really? If you had full-time satellite Halls, nobody'd ever go to C-Town except for inductions.

Willets Point Sep 04 2007 07:24 PM

Cooperstown is a cute town but it's in the butt end of nowhere and the whole HOF story is built on a lie. I don't think that having another HOF in say St. Louis, Chicago, or Los Angeles would make the HOF in Cooperstown any more of a poorly thought out bad idea for Major League Baseball.

Edgy DC Sep 04 2007 07:31 PM

Baseball wasn't invented in Cooperstown, but it should have been. Baseball's urban roots are just as prominent as it's pastoral roots, but, spiritually, it's a pastoral game and I like the idea that a game played most prominently in big towns leads fans to make pilgrimages to small towns like Cooperstown, New York and Dyersville, Iowa.

RealityChuck Sep 05 2007 10:24 AM

Better in Cooperstown than the Hockey Hall of Fame, which is essentially in a shopping mall in downtown Toronto.

Valadius Sep 16 2007 06:31 PM

Jim Thome hit his 500th career home run today - a game-winner, no less. Do you think Jim Thome is a Hall of Famer? In my opinion, he JUST makes it. This pushes him over the line into Cooperstown.

metsmarathon Sep 16 2007 06:57 PM

if he gets in at 500, he should've been in at 499.

Vic Sage Sep 17 2007 08:27 AM

Jim Thome Black Ink - 13 (Average HOFer ≈ 27) Gray Ink - 112 (Average HOFer ≈ 144) HOF Standards - 49.3 (Average HOFer ≈ 50) HOF Monitor - 127.5 (Likely HOFer > 100; VERY likely HOFer >130) He's borderline. He's the type of guy that will be hurt by being a DH much of the time.

HahnSolo Sep 17 2007 08:45 AM

Interesting argument, is Thome. 500 HRs 11 years of 30+ Home Runs 9 years of 100+ RBI 9 years .400+ OBP 8 years of 100+ runs scored And he's only been a full-time DH two years (06-07), so I don't think that will hurt him much. But, He's below 2000 career hits (which he will pass if he plays another year).

seawolf17 Sep 17 2007 09:12 AM

Not enough for Thome, I think. He'll get votes, but won't sniff 75%. He'll be lucky to hit 40%.

Valadius Sep 17 2007 12:11 PM

Let me throw another name out there - Juan Gonzalez. He was one of the best hitters of the 90's - he won two MVP's for God's sake! Yet now people seem to dismiss him in Hall discussion. What gives? For the record, the only people with multiple MVP awards who aren't in the Hall, excluding active players (Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Frank Thomas) are Juan Gonzalez, Dale Murphy (who, after looking at his stats, now gets my vote) and Roger Maris (who doesn't deserve it under any circumstances).

Edgy DC Sep 17 2007 12:15 PM

Shouldn't some of these guys be on an actual ballot before we decry the injustice of them not getting elected?

seawolf17 Sep 17 2007 12:33 PM

Nah, it's more fun to debate it now. No way Juan Gonzalez even comes close to the HoF. Jim Thome will get more votes than he will.

Valadius Sep 17 2007 01:26 PM

The reason Juan Gonzalez doesn't immediately leap out numbers-wise as a shoo-in Hall of Famer is because he was injured a LOT. He only had 12 seasons in which he played 82 games or more. But I think there's a reason that the Hall of Fame specifies that you had to play at least 10 major league seasons before you can be considered eligible. Let's call it the Ralph Kiner Exception. Some players might be so good in a short timespan that they're Hall-worthy, but injuries or the like end their career prematurely or cut huge chunks out of it. Juan Gonzalez's last productive year was in 2003, when he was 33. Consider that. His career was really over when he was just 33 years old. In essentially 13 seasons, some of which he missed a lot of time, he hit over 400 homers and had nearly 1,400 RBI, a plateau he passed by virtue of his playing in bits of 4 other seasons. I'd compare his numbers from his 10 best years against most Hall of Famers and he'd probably end up looking very favorably.

seawolf17 Sep 17 2007 01:40 PM

You know? Now that I look at Gonzo's numbers... dude had some sick seasons. You do forget about it because of the injuries, though. And that's why he won't make it. Thome's still a better bet.

metsguyinmichigan Sep 17 2007 02:07 PM

I think Thome goes in. He'll be in the mid-500s before he actually hangs 'em up. There would have to be a major 'road discovery for him to be detrailed. I'd vote for Dale Murphy in a heartbeat. Juan Gonzalez is an interesting case. He was traded here to the Tigers before the last year of his contract, and the team offered him a $148 million mega-deal. He rejected it, and people here went nuts. But I couldn't blame him. There are really very few points in their careers when they get a big say in where they get to play. The Tigers at the time were a horrible team in a horrible city and and a horrible, brand-new ballpark. More power to him for saying, "I have enough money, and I'd rather take less to play somewhere else." Not saying that will get him a plaque, but I respected it.

metirish Sep 17 2007 02:16 PM

] "I have enough money, and I'd rather take less to play somewhere else." Is that how things went down,did he not think that he would get a comparable contract with a team that had a better hitters ball park,I seem to remember him being pretty stupid for turning down that money.

Willets Point Sep 17 2007 02:18 PM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I think Thome goes in. He'll be in the mid-500s before he actually hangs 'em up. There would have to be a major 'road discovery for him to be detrailed. Perhaps the Road to El Dorado?

Vic Sage Sep 17 2007 02:49 PM

Juan Gonzalez Black Ink - 17 (Average HOFer ≈ 27) Gray Ink - 105 (Average HOFer ≈ 144) HOF Standards - 39.1 (Average HOFer ≈ 50) HOF Monitor - 120.5 (Likely HOFer > 100; VERY likely HOFer >130) I'd say Thome has a better shot, and Thome is borderline. Plus, Juan Gone was largely perceived by the press (ie, the HOF voters) as an a-hole.

Vic Sage Sep 17 2007 02:56 PM

Dale Murphy Black Ink - 31 (Average HOFer ≈ 27) Gray Ink - 147 (Average HOFer ≈ 144) HOF Standards - 34.3 (Average HOFer ≈ 50) HOF Monitor - 115.5 (Likely HOFer > 100; VERY likely HOFer >130) Murphy has a good argument to be in the HOF, with numbers better than the average HOFer in 3 of these 4 categories. From 1980-87, he was one of the best players in baseball. It was just that his career completely collapsed after age 31, playing all or part of 6 more seasons as a strictly sub-par player. He had a high peak, but a precipitous drop. But i do think he should get more attention than he does.

seawolf17 Sep 18 2007 10:10 AM

I think Dale Murphy (and Jim Rice, and Andre Dawson) are no-brainer HOFs to me. (The voters have not agreed.)

Valadius Sep 19 2007 12:35 PM

See, I think you should be able to look at players in two ways - total career stats and a minimum of 10 best consecutive seasons. Again, I call it the Ralph Kiner Exception. So let me compare Juan Gonzalez with a random Hall of Famer. Say Reggie Jackson. Let's take Juan Gone's best years, heck let's do his numbers from when he was 21 to when he was 33, which essentially was his career: Gonzalez 424 HR 1368 RBI 1866 hits 1027 R 374 2B Now let's take Jackson's numbers for the same period in his life: Jackson 369 HR 1120 RBI 1720 hits 1051 R 323 2B You might make a point that Jackson was barely in the bigs at 21, and you'd be right. But let's look at the at-bats between the two for the same time: Gonzalez - 6278 AB Jackson - 6349 AB So Jackson got 71 more at-bats than Gonzalez did during the same time in their lives, and Gonzalez put up better numbers. I don't have time now to go and shift Jackson's seasons we look at here up by one, from 21 to 33 to 22 to 34, but I can tell immediately that Gonzalez still ends up putting up better numbers.

Edgy DC Sep 19 2007 12:48 PM

How about adjusting for ballpark and era?

seawolf17 Sep 19 2007 01:42 PM

Which you have to do in this case. Plus, you can't compare Reggie and Juan Gonzalez on all the other stuff; Reggie was larger than life everywhere he played, and Juan Gonzalez was... well, a Duck.

Edgy DC Sep 19 2007 01:44 PM

I've also never been too keen about isolating peak value. Being above average for long stretches at the beginning and end of your career has value too.

OlerudOwned Sep 19 2007 02:13 PM

Taken from the thread on Dr. James Andrews. Will Carroll makes a good case for him. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3024441

Valadius Sep 19 2007 05:11 PM

I just picked Reggie at random, but let's throw another one out there. This time, I've picked a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer, who's the exact same age, so we're comparing them during the same exact seasons: Ken Griffey, Jr., who was considered by many to be the best player in baseball during the majority of Juan Gone's career. Gonzalez, 1991-2003 424 HR 1368 RBI 1866 hits 1027 R 374 2B Griffey, 1991-2003 443 HR 1243 RBI 1781 hits 1119 R 331 2B Now obviously Juan Gone wasn't as good as Griffey was, all-around. Gonzalez didn't have Griffey's speed or defensive ability. But during the same timeframe, facing for a majority of the time the same pitchers in the same league and the same division, Gonzalez compares very favorably to Griffey.

seawolf17 Sep 19 2007 07:31 PM

Very good comparison; this is where continuing his career and not being surly will push Griffey in, whereas Gonzo is still going to fall short.

metsmarathon Sep 19 2007 08:55 PM

griffey's 89-01 were better years, plus add in about 15 stolen bases per year to gonzo's 2-3, plus 40 walks or so and 30 fewer k's gonzo's best ops+ was 169. griffey bettered that twice. gonzo's second best ops+ was 150. griffey bettered that five times.

Nymr83 Sep 19 2007 10:17 PM

yeah, griffey is a far better player, you cherry-picked your stats a bit too much and ignored very important ones... Griffey has a .374 career OBP to Gonzo's .343 and Griffey maintained that much higher rate while accumulating 2000 (and counting) more at-bats. For what its worth Gonzo is 120th on the career OPS+ list, Griffey jr. is 78th. I don't think Gonzalez is definitely not a hall of famer, but its hard to convince me that he definitely is one... for a guy that was a very good but not great hitter he has too many negatives... inability to stay on the field and easy defensive position being the biggest.

Rockin' Doc Sep 19 2007 10:37 PM

Using Valadius' cherry picked stats and continuiing them from 2004 to the present: Gonzalez (2004-2007) HR 5 HIts 35 Runs 17 RBI 17 2B 4 Griffey, Jr. (2004-2007) HR 112 Hits 478 Runs 274 RBI 317 2B 91 Now, Let's look at some number that truly count when considering HOF induction: Gonzalez (Career Totals) Hits 1936 HR 434 Runs 1061 RBI 1404 TB 3676 SB 26 AVG .295 SLG .561 OPS .904 Griffey, Jr. (Career - still active) Hits 2558 HR 593 Runs 1545 RBI 1701 TB 4884 SB 184 AVG .290 SLG .554 OPS .928 Their peaks may have been similar, but griffey has longevity on his side. Griffey was also a far better defensive player and better all around player.

Nymr83 Sep 19 2007 10:57 PM

]Their peaks may have been similar, but griffey has longevity on his side. Griffey was also a far better defensive player and better all around player. I'd suggest that Griffey's peak was better. his 5 best OPS+ years were 172, 170, 164, 155, 153. Gonzo's were 169, 150, 149, 147, 141. Gonzalez really doesn't measure up to Griffey at all.

metsmarathon Sep 20 2007 07:58 AM

in my spare time, i've been kind of building an uber table of hall of famers and near hall of famers and some of their statistics. for now, i've been focusing on baseball prospectus' wins above replacement player, adjusted for all time - WARP3. my work isn't quite done yet, as i want to go in and separate out the hofers by how they got in - first ballot, subsequent years, and veterans committee - and then use this to compare newly eligible players to judge their merit on precedence. the early results are that there are a number of players in the hall from the dead ball era that drag down the aggregate ("hey, he batted over .300 for his career - he MUST be a hall of famer!"). anyways, what i'm doing is looking at not only the cumulative career wins above replacement, but also for each player's 5-year peak (i'm also considering doing a 3-yr peak and 7-yr peak). 25% of all hall of famers have accrued fewer than 86 WARP3 for their career 25% of all hall of famers have accrued fewer than 38.5 WARP3 for their 5-yr peak juan gone has 80.9 WARP3 total and 34.5 5-yr peak WARP3. juan gone does not compare favorably in this regard. griffey, for the record, has 138 and 52. both are in the top 25% of hall of famers, and rather close to jimmie foxx (131, 53.5) and george brett (138, 49.5) reggie jackson (124, 42.3) is above the median for career (106.5) and below median for his 5-yr peak (49) and since he's been mentioned, jim thome sits at 109, 44.5, comparatively just about an average hall of famer. i'd do this for win shares as well as WARP3, but to date i've yet to find a free source of win shares through baseball history. (any suggestions?) ...edit... oh yeah, i'm treating pitchers and hitters as separate populations, despite babe ruth's terrific attempt at intermingling. for my purposes, he counts as a hitter, and besides, it doesn't really change all that much anyways if i were to split off his pitching years.

Valadius Oct 02 2007 04:05 PM

I am a firm believer in assessing players in two ways for the Hall of Fame: 1. Accumulated statistics (career totals) 2. Peak performance (ideally 10 seasons) I've come across the cases of [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/wilsoha01.shtml]Hack Wilson[/url] and [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hafeych01.shtml]Chick Hafey[/url]. Both are Hall-of-Famers, but they had abbreviated careers. One drank himself out of baseball and the other was derailed by injury. In Hafey's case, he suffered from what Lawrence Ritter and Donald Honig, in their book, The 100 Greatest Baseball Players of All Time, call "Smokey Joe Wood Syndrome". They defined this as, to quote Hafey's Wikipedia article, "where a player of truly exceptional talent but a career curtailed by injury should still, in spite of not having had career statistics that would quantitatively rank him with the all-time greats, be included on their list of the 100 greatest players." I think this argument really ought to get more consideration. The way measurements and formulas are weighted is predominantly in favor of players with longer careers. However, some great players can't help that their bodies might deteriorate faster than others. It happens. Therefore, I would like to make the case that, failing that a player doesn't accumulate large enough numbers to initially satisfy induction, that you apply both the Ralph Kiner Exception and the Smokey Joe Wood Exception, meaning that if a player has 10 exemplary full seasons under his belt, preferably in a row, he should get in. If for 10 years he was considered one of the best in baseball, he should get another look. So, since Juan Gonzalez put up incredible numbers in at least 10 full seasons, and since he ended up suffering from Smokey Joe Wood Syndrome, I think he ought to get in.

metsmarathon Oct 02 2007 05:39 PM

well, i don't think that juan had too many full seasons, let alone 10...

Nymr83 Oct 02 2007 05:50 PM

Juan has, at most, 8 full seasons (ranging from 133 to 155 games played) and i'm pretty hesitant to call the 133 and 134 game years "full seasons" though i'm not sure where i'd place the cutoff. injury might not be entirely your own fault, but its still part of your career and your inability to stay healthy needs to be taken into account just like everything else.

Edgy DC Oct 03 2007 10:25 AM

Enshrine Pete Reiser!

Valadius Oct 03 2007 12:38 PM

Ok, how about this. If Albert Pujols were to suffer some kind of injury that never let him play as well again, and he played three more full seasons and retired, would you vote him in? I would. His first 7 seasons have been absolutely monstrous.

Nymr83 Oct 03 2007 12:43 PM

Pujols 7 years have produce OPS+ numbers ranging from a LOW of 155 to a high of 189. Gonzalez's highest is only 169 and his 7th highest is only 131, and thats with the benefit of knocking out his bad years. Pujols is leaps and bound ahead ofGonzalez and could potentially finish in the same sentence as Ruth, Williams, and Bonds... so yeah 3 more years and i'd put him in the hall...he's the Koufax of hitters...that argument doesnt work for Gonzalez.

Frayed Knot Oct 03 2007 01:46 PM

Valadius wrote: Ok, how about this. If Albert Pujols were to suffer some kind of injury that never let him play as well again, and he played three more full seasons and retired, would you vote him in? I would. His first 7 seasons have been absolutely monstrous. He wouldn't be eligible to even get to a vote.

metsmarathon Oct 03 2007 01:52 PM

gonzo pujols games OPS+ Games OPS+ 155 134 161 158 154 149 161 167 144 141 158 158 142 121 157 155 140 169 157 189 140 147 154 175 134 150 143 180 133 131 115 113 107 104 90 135 82 123 70 94 33 102 25 131 24 34 1 -100 pujols has six "complete" seasons under his belt. gonzo had a total of, what, two?

Nymr83 Oct 03 2007 03:14 PM

i was going to give him the benefit of the doubt at 140...but yeah theres really no comparison between these players and gonzalez really couldn't keep himself on the field

Valadius Oct 03 2007 03:17 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: ="Valadius"]Ok, how about this. If Albert Pujols were to suffer some kind of injury that never let him play as well again, and he played three more full seasons and retired, would you vote him in? I would. His first 7 seasons have been absolutely monstrous. He wouldn't be eligible to even get to a vote. Of course he would. You're eligible after you've played in 10 seasons. And it doesn't have to be 10 complete seasons - a cup of coffee would technically count, but depending on how good you were in other years, it's up to the Screening Committee to deem you worthy.

Frayed Knot Oct 04 2007 07:35 AM

"If Albert Pujols were to suffer some kind of injury that never let him play as well again" I originally read this as "never play ... again" -- and then missed the tack on about him staying on for another 3 years. So yes, in that case he would be eligible. But if that occured would he get voted in? .... Dunno, it might depend on how bad those last 3 years were.

Edgy DC Oct 04 2007 07:45 AM

It would still not be a good comparison to Gonzalez. I don't know why Vlad is trying to open up all of these hypothetical side doors.

Valadius Oct 05 2007 10:57 AM

I just think that the process by which players are judged for the Hall of Fame is weighted too much towards quantity and not enough towards quality is all. There can be multiple ways to define greatness.

Edgy DC Oct 05 2007 11:14 AM

I think they are looking for a high quantity of high quality. It's hard to find a measure of greatness that makes Juan Gonazalez a peer of Albert Pujols.

Valadius Oct 06 2007 10:27 AM

I didn't bring up Albert Pujols as another example for why I think Juan Gone deserves enshrinement, but just as another "what if?" Now I want to make the case for another player who had a shortened career - [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/allendi01.shtml]Dick Allen[/url]. He had a career OPS+ of 156 - tied for 20th all-time with Willie Mays, ahead of Hank Aaron, Joe DiMaggio, Frank Robinson, Honus Wagner, and Mike Schmidt. He led his league in OPS 4 times. It looks like he's the only eligible retired player to have done that and not be in the Hall of Fame. From 1964 to 1974, he was a monster at the plate. During this time, his OPS+ was: 1964 - 162 1965 - 145 1966 - 181 1967 - 174 1968 - 160 1969 - 166 1970 - 146 1971 - 151 1972 - 200 1973 - 177 1974 - 165 I think he satisfies the Ralph Kiner Exception by having at least 10 exemplary seasons.

Edgy DC Oct 06 2007 01:13 PM

Bill James has looked closely at Dick Allen's career. His conclusion is that the guy's case looks OK on numbers alone, but then is knocked below the threshold by the fact that he was a negative and divisive personality --- usually well documented --- on most of the teams he played for.

Rockin' Doc Oct 06 2007 03:48 PM

Dick Allen was a tremendous hitter, but as Edgy points out, he reportedly had a hard time getting along with teammates, opponents, and the press. If a player alienates enough of the press core during their playing days, it will often come back to haunt them when it's time for HOF balloting.

Valadius Oct 14 2007 09:31 AM

I disagree with Bill James. Being an ass ought not exclude you from the Hall of Fame if you were that good of a player.

Valadius Oct 14 2007 10:02 AM

Can someone please explain to me why the hell [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/simmote01.shtml]Ted Simmons[/url] is not in the Hall of Fame? Comparing his stats with the catchers currently in the Hall of Fame, it's absolutely ludicrous that he's not in yet. He hit .285 with 248 HR and 1389 RBI. He had 2472 hits, 1074 runs scored, and 483 doubles. He batted over .300 seven times, and was an All-Star eight times. Put in a group with the 13 catchers currently in the Hall, Simmons is: 5th in runs scored 1st in hits 1st in doubles 5th in home runs 2nd in RBI 6th in batting average 5th in games caught 7th in fielding percentage Seriously, what the hell?

MFS62 Oct 14 2007 10:05 AM

Valadius wrote: I disagree with Bill James. Being an ass ought not exclude you from the Hall of Fame if you were that good of a player. That logic will be severely put to the test with Bonds, steroids or no steroids. As for Allen, I still remember that the Mets could have selected him for $12,500 (or maybe less in those years) in one year's equivalent of the Rule V Draft. Oh, and they could have also chosen Luis Tiant that same year. A few years later, after both players had made an impact on theur major league clubs, George Weis was asked why he had not selected either of them. His response was "they were too colorful". Maybe that referred to Allen's off field antics/ personality that have been mentioned above. But I always had the impression that Tiant was a good guy in the clubhouse - well liked by his teammates. Later

Nymr83 Oct 14 2007 11:00 AM

MFS62 wrote: ="Valadius"]I disagree with Bill James. Being an ass ought not exclude you from the Hall of Fame if you were that good of a player. That logic will be severely put to the test with Bonds, steroids or no steroids. i have to agree with Val on that, if lawrence taylor and ty cobb are in their respective sports' halls personality and off-field antics shouldn't be keeping other people out. as for Dick Allen, i'd put him in. Simmons should remain out imo.

Edgy DC Oct 14 2007 11:38 AM

Why shoudn't being a negative and divisive personality count? If a voter is observing that the player's behavior hurt the team, then he should count it. The voters are asked to consider character and it makes no sense to arbitrarily ignore certain election criteria. Dick Allen wasn't that good a player. He has a strong case, but his case isn't so compelling as to put his personality beyond issue. In order for these elections to mean anything, somebody has to fall short.

Nymr83 Oct 14 2007 01:04 PM

there are guys who are in that should have fallen short- Tony Perez and Richie Ashburn amongst others. i'm also against guys that have been advocate for here like juan gonzalez

Valadius Oct 14 2007 01:41 PM

If Ted Simmons hadn't been playing most of his career in the shadow of Johnny Bench in the NL and Carlton Fisk in the AL, I think he would be in Cooperstown by now. It seems as if he never had a chance to be perceived as great because of his contemporaries. While he played, however, Ted Simmons put up some numbers at his position better than anyone else in the major leagues during that time. The two players he can best be compared to in looking at his stats are Bench and Fisk, who were playing at the same time. During Simmons' peak of 1971 to 1983, which was Bench's last season, here's how the three catchers compare: Simmons - 901 runs scored, 2043 hits, 405 2B, 40 3B, 219 HR, 1168 RBI, 3185 TB, 681 BB, 537 K Bench - 747 runs scored, 1309 hits, 241 2B, 14 3B, 269 HR, 933 RBI, 2385 TB, 674 BB, 858 K Fisk - 773 runs scored, 1367 hits, 239 2B, 38 3B, 199 HR, 722 RBI, 2279 TB, 509 BB, 733 K

DocTee Oct 14 2007 02:03 PM

A nine-time all-star who never once finished in the top-five in his league's MVP vote...curious.

Nymr83 Oct 14 2007 02:06 PM

even in a league full of catch-and-throw guys you're going to have 4 catchers named to all-star teams each year at a minimum. in 1981 he hit .207/.275/.404 in the first half and was named an all-star, not sure how that happened.

Valadius Oct 27 2007 09:20 PM

I'd like to discuss closers again. Because changes in Hall of Fame voting often occur at a snail's pace, the closer has for the most part been ignored until recently. In the last few years, we have seen the door begin to open a bit in terms of closers making it into the Hall of Fame. But what about those early closers that were passed over before the baseball writers finally decided to embrace the role of the closer? I think they deserve another look. Furthermore, which closers of the more recent era deserve enshrinement in the Hall of Fame? Let's start by looking at which closers are currently in the Hall of Fame: Dennis Eckersley - 1975-98 (closer from 87-97) Rollie Fingers - 1968-85 Bruce Sutter - 1976-88 Hoyt Wilhelm - 1952-72 There are only four closers currently in the Hall. I think that's a disgrace. There are some worthy closers who missed their chance because of anti-closer bias that existed when their names came up. I submit the following names for your consideration: Dan Quisenberry Sparky Lyle Tom Henke Roy Face Tug McGraw Jeff Reardon John Wetteland Dave Righetti I don't consider them all Hall-worthy, but some of them are, especially Quisenberry. Also, here are some names of people who are currently on the ballot or will be on the ballot that I think really merit a look: Rich Gossage (who should be elected next year) Lee Smith John Franco Trevor Hoffman Mariano Rivera Billy Wagner

Frayed Knot Oct 27 2007 10:34 PM

]Dan Quisenberry Sparky Lyle Tom Henke Roy Face Tug McGraw Jeff Reardon John Wetteland Dave Righetti No, no, no, no, no, no, no, and no. ]Rich Gossage (who should be elected next year) Lee Smith John Franco Trevor Hoffman Mariano Rivera Billy Wagner Maybe, no, no, eventually, Yes, and no. P.S. I wouldn't have put Sutter in either.

seawolf17 Oct 28 2007 09:25 AM

It's more than numbers, and more than being good. It's about being great, being dominant. None of those guys -- with the exception of Goose, who should be there, and Rivera, who will be -- really fits that. You can't put everyone in the Hall; you just can't. Elite needs its own level.

Edgy DC Oct 28 2007 07:05 PM

Valadius wrote: Because changes in Hall of Fame voting often occur at a snail's pace, the closer has for the most part been ignored until recently. The closer has for the most part been ignored until recently largely because the closer has for the most part not existed until relatively recently.

metsguyinmichigan Oct 28 2007 10:50 PM

MFS62 wrote: ="Valadius"]I disagree with Bill James. Being an ass ought not exclude you from the Hall of Fame if you were that good of a player. That logic will be severely put to the test with Bonds, steroids or no steroids. As for Allen, I still remember that the Mets could have selected him for $12,500 (or maybe less in those years) in one year's equivalent of the Rule V Draft. Oh, and they could have also chosen Luis Tiant that same year. A few years later, after both players had made an impact on theur major league clubs, George Weis was asked why he had not selected either of them. His response was "they were too colorful". Maybe that referred to Allen's off field antics/ personality that have been mentioned above. But I always had the impression that Tiant was a good guy in the clubhouse - well liked by his teammates. Later I think you have to take Weis at his word -- and slightly change the word to the one I believe be really meant -- they were "colored." The Yankees were among the last teams to add a black player. And as Yankees president Weis routinely traded black prospects when it became apparent that they were too good to leave on the farm. There were protests about getting Horace Clarke on the team. So you would think that he would keep that same mentality when he came to the Mets -- and we are poorer for it.

Edgy DC Oct 28 2007 11:16 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 29 2007 09:24 AM

How many black players would the Mets have to have had during the Weiss era to discredit that theory?

Edgy DC Oct 28 2007 11:36 PM

I mean, during the 1962 season alone, when Weiss had pretty broad control over which players he wanted, his roster included the following colored men: Charlie Neal Felix Mantilla Elio Chacon Joe Christopher Choo Choo Coleman Sammy Drake Al Jackson Roadblock Jones That's pretty much their top three infielders in there, despite having a Hall of Fame infield coach widely regarded as having been a racist during his playing career. I really don't know how that compares to other teams, but I'm guessing not too many others could field an all-black battery.

Edgy DC Oct 29 2007 09:25 AM

Is this satire? http://jc_baseball_analysis.mlblogs.com/jc_baseball_analysis/2006/12/wally_joyner_a_.html

MFS62 Oct 29 2007 09:53 AM

Edgy DC wrote: Is this satire? http://jc_baseball_analysis.mlblogs.com/jc_baseball_analysis/2006/12/wally_joyner_a_.html I certainly hope it is. If not, I'd suggest the writer re-check the dosage of his medications. Later

Valadius Oct 29 2007 11:50 AM

I certainly hope it is satire. WALLY JOYNER? Come on. Give me a break.

Edgy DC Oct 29 2007 12:16 PM

Yeah, you don't want his like dragging down Tom Henke's legacy.

metsguyinmichigan Oct 29 2007 01:08 PM

Edgy DC wrote: I mean, during the 1962 season alone, when Weiss had pretty broad control over which players he wanted, his roster included the following colored men: Charlie Neal Felix Mantilla Elio Chacon Joe Christopher Choo Choo Coleman Sammy Drake Al Jackson Roadblock Jones That's pretty much their top three infielders in there, despite having a Hall of Fame infield coach widely regarded as having been a racist during his playing career. I really don't know how that compares to other teams, but I'm guessing not too many others could field an all-black battery. Those were fill-ins and stop-gaps when baseball was very much integrated. But when it came to stars -- was Weis the one who passed on Reggie Jackson? Again, that was a guy who was "colorful" in addition to being black. Who was the Mets first black star? Cleon Jones?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 29 2007 01:33 PM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: ="Edgy DC"]I mean, during the 1962 season alone, when Weiss had pretty broad control over which players he wanted, his roster included the following colored men: Charlie Neal Felix Mantilla Elio Chacon Joe Christopher Choo Choo Coleman Sammy Drake Al Jackson Roadblock Jones That's pretty much their top three infielders in there, despite having a Hall of Fame infield coach widely regarded as having been a racist during his playing career. I really don't know how that compares to other teams, but I'm guessing not too many others could field an all-black battery. Those were fill-ins and stop-gaps when baseball was very much integrated. But when it came to stars -- was Weis the one who passed on Reggie Jackson? Again, that was a guy who was "colorful" in addition to being black. Who was the Mets first black star? Cleon Jones? Real compelling argument. The Mets didn't have any stars at all in their first years. Jones was signed in 1963. Paul Blair was signed before they evben had a team in 1961. Weis apparently did express some sentiments that would be considered strongly racsist back when he oversaw the Yankees and they had yet to integrate. But you're talking years down the road. And as discussed here ad nauseum, the Reggie Jackson "slight" was perpetuated by Reggie himself, a decade after after the fact. At the time, GMs were split over Jackson v. Chilcott. Bing Devine, handpicked by Weis as his successor, was one of the most forward thinking and colorblind executives in the game.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 29 2007 01:38 PM

Tommy Davis in 1967 could be called a star. I wouldn't say Cleon had attained stardom by that point.

Nymr83 Oct 29 2007 01:46 PM

]Those were fill-ins and stop-gaps when baseball was very much integrated. if an executive was being racist, and i dont care to form an opinion on this particular case one way or the other, wouldn't you expect him to show his 'racial preference' exactly there- at the level of interchangeable stop-gap guys- as opposed to at the "star" level where there just isn't a white barry bonds or black tom seaver?

Edgy DC Oct 29 2007 02:26 PM

That was the argument against the eighties Celtics (see The Selling of the Green, that it wasn't the whiteness of the stars, but the whiteness of the bench that was incriminating. I don't know what kind of self-destructive maniac Weiss would be if his animus against blacks was focused on talented blacks. Besides, his boss was Mrs. Payson and her ownership was initiated by the heartbreak of losing the Giants and, most specifically, Willie Mays. I don't think it's been categorically established that they weren't lovers. Since we're speculating. The argument is shifting. We go from Weiss using "colorful" as euphemism for "colored" to Weiss (two s's) actually objecting specifically to colorful people, but only colored colorful people. Jimmy Piersall, colored man.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 29 2007 02:37 PM

What would be interesting would be for MFS to provide any documentation whatsoever regarding his "too colorful" quotes to begin with.

metsguyinmichigan Oct 29 2007 03:14 PM

I would say that there were indeed "stars" on those early teams -- Hall of Famers, even. Just well past their prime, ala Ashburn, Snider, Hodges, Spahn. Didn't mean to start a melee. Sorry about that. I was only speculating what Weis was saying based on what I had read about his days with the Yankees. I have no proof whatsoever and really didn't intend to get folks riled up.

MFS62 Oct 29 2007 03:33 PM

="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]What would be interesting would be for MFS to provide any documentation whatsoever regarding his "too colorful" quotes to begin with. You know I can't. But I recall from the Weiss interviews I read at the time (circa 1964/ 65 after both Allen and Tiant had become valuable contributors at the major league level) that he did use the words "too colorful". I used it above to talk about off-the-field antics. Michigan gave it the different meaning. But since my recollection is the only thing available (unless you can find to the contrary) here's something about "best evidence":

There are four traditional types of evidence. They include real, demonstrative, documentary, and testimonial. Documentary evidence is also a kind of real evidence. The laws governing evidence are rather complex, but there are three basic "prerequisites" for admissibility, they include relevance, materiality, and competence (http://library.findlaw.com). The major issue concerning documents is competency.
Best evidence means, "The best and topmost form of evidence which can be produced for verification" (www.legal-explanations.com). The Best Evidence Rule was established centuries ago as a common law.

] Since my memory is the best thing available at this time, if you don't agree, the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong. Later

Valadius Nov 08 2007 01:27 PM

The ballot for the Veterans' Committee voting on managers, umpires, and executives was announced today. On the ballot: Managers Whitey Herzog Davey Johnson Billy Martin Gene Mauch Danny Murtaugh Billy Southworth Dick Williams Umpires Doug Harvey Hank O'Day Cy Rigler Executives Buzzie Bavasi Barney Dreyfuss Bob Howsam Ewing Kauffman Bowie Kuhn John McHale Marvin Miller Walter O'Malley Gabe Paul Your thoughts?

DocTee Nov 08 2007 01:33 PM

Some powerful names there: O'Malley Kauffman Kuehn Miller Herzog all deserve long consideration I think

sharpie Nov 08 2007 01:46 PM

Miller, yes, certainly. Herzog, maybe. No one else. Especially Bowie Kuhn.

Edgy DC Nov 08 2007 01:57 PM

It'd be fuckin' goofy to put Miller and Kuhn in together. The best thing I can say about Bud Selig is Bowie Kuhn.

Valadius Nov 08 2007 02:33 PM

Among managers, I'd vote for Herzog and Williams. I'd also vote Doug Harvey in among umpires (SABR rated him the 2nd-greatest umpire in history, behind Bill Klem). Among executives, Marvin Miller is a shoo-in. I'd also vote for Barney Dreyfuss, Bob Howsam, and Walter O'Malley.

metsguyinmichigan Nov 08 2007 02:44 PM

The Veterans Committee has yet to elect anyone since the new system was developed, so I'm not optimistic. But I believe Doug Harvey and Marvin Miller absolutely deserve it. You'd think O'Malley would get support.

Frayed Knot Nov 08 2007 02:49 PM

They've alos re-re-vamped the system, creating a select committee to look at mgrs & execs and the like while leaving the HoF players to look at only players.

MFS62 Nov 08 2007 05:59 PM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: You'd think O'Malley would get support. Not from fans who remember (or who rooted for) the Brooklyn Dodgers. I'd rather give birth to a flaming porcupine than vote for him for the HOF. Later

Nymr83 Nov 08 2007 06:36 PM

]The Veterans Committee has yet to elect anyone since the new system was developed, so I'm not optimistic that makes me very optimistic actually. there are players who don't really belong in the hall, and i hold the veterans committee responsible for more than their fair share of them.

Edgy DC Nov 08 2007 07:44 PM

A completely different body with the same name.

Nymr83 Nov 08 2007 07:51 PM

i'm glad if its a different body because the old one sucked

Valadius Nov 26 2007 11:55 AM

]Tim Raines, David Justice head new Hall of Fame candidates November 26, 2007 NEW YORK (AP) -- Tim Raines and David Justice head 11 first-time candidates on the baseball writers' 2008 Hall of Fame ballot, joining Mark McGwire, Rich Gossage, Jim Rice and 11 other holdovers. McGwire, his candidacy hurt by suspicions of steroids use, was selected on just 23.5 percent of ballots when he was eligible for the first time in 2007. When Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn were elected in January, Gossage fell 21 votes shy of the necessary 75 percent and Rice was 63 votes short. Rice is on the ballot for the 14th time and Gossage for the ninth. Players can be on the Baseball Writers' Association of America ballot for up to 15 years. Gossage's percentage increased from 64.6 in 2006 to 71.2 in 2007, while Rice's declined from 64.6 to 63.5. The highest percentage for a player who wasn't elected in a later year was 63.4 by Gil Hodges in 1983, his final time on the ballot. Raines was a seven-time All-Star who played 23 seasons and batted .294 with 2,605 hits and 808 steals, fifth on the career list. He was the 1986 NL batting champion. Justice was the 1990 NL Rookie of the Year and a three-time All-Star. He had a .279 average, 305 homers and 1,017 RBIs in 14 seasons. Brady Anderson, Rod Beck, Shawon Dunston, Chuck Finley, Travis Fryman, Chuck Knoblauch, Robb Nen, Jose Rijo and Todd Stottlemyre also are first-time candidates. The five-year waiting rule was waived for Beck, who died June 23. Other holdovers (with their 2007 vote percentages) include Andre Dawson (56.7), Bert Blyleven (47.7), Lee Smith (39.8), Jack Morris 202 (37.1), Tommy John (22.9), Dave Concepcion (13.6), Alan Trammell (13.4), Dave Parker (11.4), Don Mattingly (9.9), Dale Murphy (9.2) and Harold Baines (5.3). Rijo retired after the 1995 season and appeared on the 2001 Hall ballot, when he received one vote. He then returned to the major leagues and pitched for Cincinnati in 2001 and 2002, making him eligible to go back on the ballot. Reporters who have been in the BBWAA for 10 or more consecutive years are eligible to vote, and the totals will be announced Jan. 8. Rickey Henderson tops the players who will be eligible for the first time on the 2009 ballot. Results of balloting for managers, umpires and executives by the newly reconstituted Veterans Committee will be announced Dec. 3 at the winter meetings.

Gwreck Nov 26 2007 11:59 AM

McGwire and Gossage.

Edgy DC Nov 26 2007 12:00 PM

I can't recall a field as unlikely to generate yes votes as this year's.

seawolf17 Nov 26 2007 12:03 PM

My seven "yes" votes: Bert Blyleven Andre Dawson Rich "Goose" Gossage Jack Morris Dale Murphy Tim Raines Jim Rice

A Boy Named Seo Nov 26 2007 12:04 PM

Shawn-O-Meter: 2% and falling...

Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2007 12:13 PM

I think I'd vote for Raines. Maybe. I don't remember what my position was on Lee Smith. I'd have to reexamine that, but I think he might also get my vote. And that would probably be about it.

Valadius Nov 26 2007 12:33 PM

My ballot: Bert Blyleven Andre Dawson Rich Gossage Mark McGwire Jack Morris Dale Murphy Tim Raines Jim Rice Lee Smith Alan Trammell And I think that Dave Parker also deserves it. I really think that there is a serious backlog problem that hasn't been addressed, and I think that the best way to address it is to lower the percentage of votes needed for election to either 65% or 60%. As the article pointed out, the highest vote percentage a player who didn't eventually make it in ever got was Gil Hodges' 63.4%, and he deserves it. I think it saves the voters, the players, and the fans a lot of time.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 26 2007 12:45 PM

Why doncha vote for Biff Pocoroba while you're at it.

Edgy DC Nov 26 2007 12:48 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 26 2007 12:52 PM

I think lowering the percentage is a short-sighted idea that would taint the election of anyone who got in with less than 75%. If there's a backlog, the voters can address it by voting, or the Hall can address it by changing the voting body. They're making their positions clear.

metsguyinmichigan Nov 26 2007 12:49 PM

Valadius wrote: My ballot: Bert Blyleven Andre Dawson Rich Gossage Mark McGwire Jack Morris Dale Murphy Tim Raines Jim Rice Lee Smith Alan Trammell And I think that Dave Parker also deserves it. I really think that there is a serious backlog problem that hasn't been addressed, and I think that the best way to address it is to lower the percentage of votes needed for election to either 65% or 60%. As the article pointed out, the highest vote percentage a player who didn't eventually make it in ever got was Gil Hodges' 63.4%, and he deserves it. I think it saves the voters, the players, and the fans a lot of time. Damn good ballot, Vala. I'd take off Morris, who falls just shy. But overall I like your picks. Raines absolutely deserves it. He was one of the top players of his era.

Nymr83 Nov 26 2007 01:40 PM

I'd vote for Raines alone out of the new candidates. Of the old ones I'd vote for Blyleven, Trammell, and maybe Rice. i don't think there is a "backlog" just a bunch of mediocre (in the HOF-sense, they were obviously all good playrs) guys who dont deserve the ultimate honor. if there is a "backlog" though this would be the year to clear it because there are probably not going to be ANY inductions out of the new players leaving plenty of room for the older guys to get in. it may be illogical but i have the feeling that a good number of voters dont want to name too many guys in one year. lowering the % would be really stupid, this should be an honor for great players and the more you lower it the more you make it a place for the good but not great. gil hodges? please. if he's a hall of famer then you'd better get ready for jack clark, george foster, fred lynn, don mattingly, keith hernandez, cecil cooper, wally joyner, will clark, and my favorite player john olerud.

Frayed Knot Nov 26 2007 01:45 PM

"I really think that there is a serious backlog problem that hasn't been addressed" It's addressed every year! "and I think that the best way to address it is to lower the percentage of votes needed for election to either 65% or 60%." How 'bout 40%? "As the article pointed out, the highest vote percentage a player who didn't eventually make it in ever got was Gil Hodges' 63.4%, and he deserves it." According to some, not to others. "I think it saves the voters, the players, and the fans a lot of time." Yes, saving time is the biggest concern.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2007 01:46 PM

I agree with Namor that there's no backlog. When it comes to the Hall of Fame, less is more. I'd rather see them raise the percentage to 85 than reduce it to 65.

Vic Sage Nov 26 2007 01:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 26 2007 02:36 PM

Yes: Mark McGwire (2nd year on ballot)-HOFM**= 169 / HOFCS**= 42 Jim Rice (14th) - 146 / 43 Rich Gossage (9th) - 126 / 19 Bert Blyleven (11th) - 120 / 50 Borderline: Lee Smith (6th) - 135 / 13 Don Mattingly (8th) - 133 / 34 Dave Parker (12th) - 125 / 41 Jack Morris (9th) - 122 / 39 Andre Dawson (7th) - 118 / 43 Alan Trammell (7th) - 118 / 36 Dale Murphy (10th) - 115 / 34 Tommy John (14th) - 111 / 44 Dave Concepcion (15th*) - 106 / 25.9 Tim Raines (1st) - 90 / 46 No, but deserving of another year on the ballot: Robb Nen (1st) - 92 / 15 Harold Baines (2nd) - 66.5 / 43 Chuck Knoblauch (1st) - 66.5 / 33.8 Chuck Finley (1st) - 53.5 /27 David Justice (1st) - 43.5 / 28.7 1 & Done: Rod Beck - 63 / 13 Brady Anderson - 38 / 26 Travis Fryman - 36 / 26.4 Jose Rijo - 28 / 20 Todd Stottlemyre - 15 / 13 Shawon Dunston - 14 / 16.9 * last year on ballot ** HOF monitor [100+ = HOF credentials] ** HOF Career Standards [50+ = average HOFer

Nymr83 Nov 26 2007 01:58 PM

if Chuck Finley is "1 & done" i don't see how Morris gets in, they had pretty similiar careers with Finley having a 10 point advantage in ERA+ and Morris having 800 more innings. neither really ever had a great peak. Blyleven had 1000 innings more than Morris (1800 on Finley) and 13 pts of ERA+ (3 on Finley) and HE is borderline (but i'd put him in)

Edgy DC Nov 26 2007 02:05 PM

I don't necessarily get the "deserving of votes" tier. If you think they deserve votes, give them your votes.

Valadius Nov 26 2007 02:34 PM

My view is, if it's going to happen anyway, why not let it happen sooner?

Frayed Knot Nov 26 2007 02:57 PM

Valadius wrote: My view is, if it's going to happen anyway, why not let it happen sooner? Who says it "has to happen" at all?

sharpie Nov 26 2007 03:10 PM

McGwire, Gossage, Raines but I wouldn't object if none of them are let in. Less is more.

Nymr83 Nov 26 2007 03:13 PM

rather then drawing the "in/out" line, would anyone like to rank the eligible players (all the holdovers and first-timers) in terms of how deserving you feel they are (even if you feel all or none are deserving)?

G-Fafif Nov 26 2007 03:26 PM

I have the sense that Raines is destined for one of those Sutter-type runs where several impassioned columns will be written on his behalf every December but the silent plurality will shut him out for the first half-dozen years at least. That's if he's lucky. He could get the Rice/Gossage treatment, which is the same as Sutter, except for not getting in (to date). Tim Raines was the N.L. version of Rickey Henderson, certainly the most impressive leadoff hitter I've ever seen on a regular basis. He gets my non-existent vote. I'm also still pro-Concepcion after all these years, the unsung cog in the Big Red Machine.

Nymr83 Nov 26 2007 03:44 PM

the "big red machine" already has the undeserving Tony Perez in the hall. lets not add to the stupidity by inducting a no-bat speed guy with a .322 OBP

seawolf17 Nov 26 2007 05:22 PM

="Nymr83"]if Chuck Finley is "1 & done" i don't see how Morris gets in, they had pretty similiar careers with Finley having a 10 point advantage in ERA+ and Morris having 800 more innings. neither really ever had a great peak. Blyleven had 1000 innings more than Morris (1800 on Finley) and 13 pts of ERA+ (3 on Finley) and HE is borderline (but i'd put him in) Finley and Morris are only similar in that they're pitchers who have six letters in their last name. Finley only got Cy Young votes ONCE in his career: one point, in 1990. Finley's not even close. Morris has three WS rings, five AS games (including two starts), seven years appearing on Cy ballots, five years appearing on MVP ballots. I'm with Valadius to a certain point... these guys should be recognized. I'm not saying you need to let Johnny Estrada into the Hall because he hit .300 once, but when the discussion involves guys who were dominant for a long time -- Morris, Raines, Rice, Dawson -- I don't see what the problem is.

Nymr83 Nov 26 2007 05:46 PM

="seawolf17"] ="Nymr83"]if Chuck Finley is "1 & done" i don't see how Morris gets in, they had pretty similiar careers with Finley having a 10 point advantage in ERA+ and Morris having 800 more innings. neither really ever had a great peak. Blyleven had 1000 innings more than Morris (1800 on Finley) and 13 pts of ERA+ (3 on Finley) and HE is borderline (but i'd put him in) Finley and Morris are only similar in that they're pitchers who have six letters in their last name. Finley only got Cy Young votes ONCE in his career: one point, in 1990. Finley's not even close. Morris has three WS rings, five AS games (including two starts), seven years appearing on Cy ballots, five years appearing on MVP ballots. WS rings say zero about the player so i won't bother with that one. Finley has the same 5 all-star appearences. Morris was just never great, he topped a 130 ERA+ just once in his career. Finley did so on 4 occassions. it's not Finley's fault that the idiots who vote for awards look at team stats like Wins more than they look at park-adjusted individual stats.

seawolf17 Nov 26 2007 06:50 PM

I'm not going all Paul O'Neill here. I'm talking about Jack Morris. He won the 1984 and 1991 Serieses practically by himself: 5 starts, 4-0, 3 CGs, including [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MIN/MIN199110270.shtml]this[/url]. Dude was dominant. Finley was never dominant.

Nymr83 Nov 26 2007 07:58 PM

seawolf17 wrote: I'm not going all Paul O'Neill here. I'm talking about Jack Morris. He won the 1984 and 1991 Serieses practically by himself: 5 starts, 4-0, 3 CGs, including [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MIN/MIN199110270.shtml]this[/url]. Dude was dominant. Finley was never dominant. his name is morris not o'neil so he's a hall of famer? got it. 5 postseason starts makes you a hall of famer? i'll get Beckett's plack ready. how bout arguing numbers instead of claiming "he's jack friggin morris" or "he was dominant"

seawolf17 Nov 26 2007 08:22 PM

No, I'm agreeing with you that rings, in and of themselves, do not make a player Hall-worthy. (See O'Neill, Paul.) And Beckett's not a comparison yet, because he obviously doesn't have the career length that Morris had. You want numbers? Morris has numbers. During his prime (1979-1992 -- throw out his 45 IP in 78, and his end-of-career years in 93-94), he won 233 games... 41 MORE than any other pitcher. He completed 169 games... 62 MORE than any other pitcher. Even past his prime, in 1993, he went 21-6 for a championship Blue Jays team. Plus the rings, plus Game 7 in 1991, plus the AS games, plus thirteen straight Opening Day starts, plus the no-hitter, . On the Keltner list, Morris has an easy seven or eight of the items on the list, and probably more than that. He's a poor man's Bob Gibson.

Nymr83 Nov 26 2007 08:35 PM

]You want numbers? Morris has numbers. During his prime (1979-1992 -- throw out his 45 IP in 78, and his end-of-career years in 93-94), he won 233 games... 41 MORE than any other pitcher. first of all wins are a team stat more than an individual one. second you are cherrypicking his prime, which is unlikely to have coincided exactly with other good pitchers primes, i would expect that if you took a list of good (but not great) pitchers and made a list starting and ending with their primes they'd rank pretty well, its like saying someone had the best AVG in the 90's, its an artificial time period. and 3rd he has 162 losses in that timeframe, i doubt many people had more though i'm not about to look since i already said i think the entire frame for the argument is wrong. ] He completed 169 games... 62 MORE than any other pitcher. i admit that 169 complete games are impressive, but again with the artificial time frame. how does this rank all time? how does it compare to other good pitchers? if another guy's career ran 1970-1985 instead of 1979-1994 he shouldnt have what he did between 70 and 79 thrown out while's morris' 85-94 counts ]Even past his prime, in 1993, he went 21-6 for a championship Blue Jays team. Plus the rings, plus Game 7 in 1991, plus the AS games, plus thirteen straight Opening Day starts, plus the no-hitter, . again with wins and losses, they arent that good a measure. neither are the rings. i already said he had the same # of AS games as finley...it tells me that you were good not great. opening day starts make you a hall of famer? at most it tells us the manager's opinion of you.

Fman99 Nov 26 2007 09:23 PM

Rice, Gossage, Blyleven and Morris should all be in the Hall. I'm on the fence regarding Raines and to me Justice is a no-go.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 27 2007 07:55 AM

I like Rice and Blyleven, and my first instinct is to say yes to Raines. I never made up my mind about relievers, though it seems to me Gossage was about as good as they came. I especially don't like McGwire despite his qualififications. I could be tempted to say yes to Dawson and Trammell too.

Frayed Knot Nov 27 2007 08:08 AM

With no overwhelming 1st-timer on the ballot it's probably the best time for those recent near-misses (even though the one really shouldn't affect the other). As a result, I predict Gossage & Blyleven get in.

Edgy DC Nov 27 2007 08:18 AM

I'm going with Blyleven, Gossage, and Raines. I can be talked into Trammell (which also sounds dirty), but I'm really having trouble figuring out how to respond to Lou Whitaker's immediate disappearance from consideration.

Edgy DC Nov 27 2007 08:47 AM

Shawon Dunston is notable as the only Met on the ballot. Rod Beck is, I think, the first guy since Darryl Kile to make the ballot early on the death exception.

metsguyinmichigan Nov 27 2007 01:13 PM

Edgy DC wrote: I'm going with Blyleven, Gossage, and Raines. I can be talked into Trammell (which also sounds dirty), but I'm really having trouble figuring out how to respond to Lou Whitaker's immediate disappearance from consideration. I see where you're coming from, but you shouldn't hold it against Tram because the writers screwed up with Whitaker.

Nymr83 Nov 27 2007 01:21 PM

looking at Whitaker i think i'd have put him in, but i think he's at the very very bottom of what i'd put in. I like Trammell, but i think if you put Trammell in you need to put in Barry Larkin as well, are we ready to do that? I am.

Vic Sage Nov 27 2007 01:39 PM

Edgy DC wrote: I don't necessarily get the "deserving of votes" tier. If you think they deserve votes, give them your votes.. ]I can be talked into Trammell (which also sounds dirty), but I'm really having trouble figuring out how to respond to Lou Whitaker's immediate disappearance from consideration You don't get the "deserving" tier, yet you're perplexed by the immediate disappearance of Lou Whitaker? Pick a confusion and stick with it.

Vic Sage Nov 27 2007 01:41 PM

Nymr83 wrote: rather then drawing the "in/out" line, would anyone like to rank the eligible players (all the holdovers and first-timers) in terms of how deserving you feel they are (even if you feel all or none are deserving)? I think i already did that, using Bill James' 2 HOF metrics, plus some adjustments based on my own observations.

Edgy DC Nov 27 2007 02:02 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 27 2007 08:36 PM

Vic Sage wrote: You don't get the "deserving" tier, yet you're perplexed by the immediate disappearance of Lou Whitaker? Pick a confusion and stick with it. I'm not perplexed by his immediate disappearance. I'm uncertain how a voter* should respond to it. Should one accept that standard of his colleagues and then say, "Then neither shall Trammell get support"? Or should one revolt and vote for Trammell, correcting the standard in a small way. *Theorietical voter that considers their candidacies about equal.

metsguyinmichigan Nov 27 2007 02:48 PM

Nymr83 wrote: looking at Whitaker i think i'd have put him in, but i think he's at the very very bottom of what i'd put in. I like Trammell, but i think if you put Trammell in you need to put in Barry Larkin as well, are we ready to do that? I am. Absolutely. Larkin's going in.

metsguyinmichigan Nov 27 2007 02:53 PM

With the Whitaker thing, one of my buddies who writes about baseball has a "door-blocker" theory, where if a worthy player is not enshrined (for other than Rose-type reasons) then a player who is not as good as that player should not get voter for. For example, he thinks Dwight Evans was screwed over. And there are players he deems not as good as Evans who are eligble, but won't vote for. And he views Whitaker as the door-blocker at second base.

Edgy DC Nov 27 2007 02:57 PM

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. Whitaker obviously didn't block the door for Ryne Sandberg with too many voters, but maybe the doorman is white.

Nymr83 Nov 27 2007 04:01 PM

i'd be inclined to take Whitaker over Sandberg as well.

G-Fafif Nov 27 2007 04:01 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 27 2007 04:03 PM

Nymr83 wrote: the "big red machine" already has the undeserving Tony Perez in the hall. lets not add to the stupidity by inducting a no-bat speed guy with a .322 OBP Concepcion was the top all-around shortstop in the N.L. for most of his lengthy career. He was a key member of one of the best teams in modern baseball history, and there is something to be said for context. He pioneered the artificial turf one-bounce throw to first. It's probably an unpopular statistical argument since it delves into "if he's in, then he should be in," but his candidacy strikes me as in the mold of Reese's and Rizzuto's: mainstays at a crucial position for a powerhouse club who by all accounts played it very well (I saw Concepcion, not the other two). He's going to suffer by comparison to latter-day middle infielders who could hit homers as a matter of course and isn't going to make it anyway, but I don't think it's outlandish to suggest Davey Concepcion had a Hall of Fame-caliber career at his position in his time. I was never hot for Perez in the Hall, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it stupidity that he's in. Phrases like that when applied to a player who drove in 90 or more runs in nine consecutive seasons when hitting wasn't at its peak diminishes the appraisal of actual acts of stupidity.

Nymr83 Nov 27 2007 04:03 PM

i think its stupidity to put a guy when there are literally 50 un-inducted players as good or better than him.

G-Fafif Nov 27 2007 04:05 PM

Fifty, Gracie? Contemporary or all-time?

Nymr83 Nov 27 2007 04:39 PM

G-Fafif wrote: Fifty, Gracie? Contemporary or all-time? there are 50 players not in the hall (and already retired of course) equal to or better than him. that, to me, means he shouldnt be in the hall by any stretch of the imagination.

Valadius Nov 27 2007 06:26 PM

I'd like to know who the 50 are.

Nymr83 Nov 27 2007 07:35 PM

Seeing as how answering your question will help me procrastinate for another half hour so, sure. heres a bunch of guys as good or better than Tony Perez who are not in the hall of fame (but are or were once eligible): Hitters: Dick Allen, Harold Baines, Albert Belle, Bobby Bonds, Brett Butler, Jose Canseco, Norm Cash, Ron Cey, Jack Clark, Will Clark, Rocky Collavito. Cecil Cooper, Andre Dawson, Brian Downing, Dwight Evans,George Foster Kirk Gibson, Pedro Guerrero,Keith Hernandez, Gil Hodges, Frank Howard. David Justice, Dave Kingman, Fred Lynn,Roger Maris, Don Mattingly,Mark McGwire, Kevin Mitchell, Dale Murphy, Graig Nettles, Tony Oliva, Paul O'Neil. Dave Parker, Lance Parrish, Boog Powell, Tim Raines, Jim Rice, Ron Santo, Ted Simmons, Ken Singleton, Reggie Smith, Rusty Staub, Daryl Strawberry. Joe Torre, Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, Jimmy Wynn thats 47 guys right there and i havent even gone into pitchers. I don't expect anyone to agree with the whole list and I'm sure upon careful study there'd be a handful that I'd be willing to get rid of but I think I've made my point.

seawolf17 Nov 27 2007 07:53 PM

And for probably 25-30 of those guys, if you told me -- while they were still active -- that they weren't HOFers, I'd say you were full of crap.

HahnSolo Nov 28 2007 06:51 AM

Sorry to cherrypick one name from your list, but Brett Butler? I'll need some convincing that he's as good as or better than Tony Perez.

Valadius Nov 28 2007 08:29 AM

Jack Clark? Brian Downing? Please. Although I do agree with you that some of those players deserve to get in. Dick Allen Harold Baines Albert Belle Rocky Colavito Andre Dawson Dwight Evans Gil Hodges Mark McGwire Dale Murphy Tony Oliva Dave Parker Lance Parrish Tim Raines Jim Rice Ron Santo Ted Simmons Alan Trammell Lou Whitaker

Edgy DC Nov 28 2007 08:43 AM

The thing about Tony Perez is that, as hard as new statitisticians have worked to dispel the notion of clutchness applying to a single guy throughout his career, it doesn't work on Mr. RBI. He was pretty damn clutch throughout his career.

Vic Sage Nov 28 2007 08:48 AM

Edgy DC wrote: ="Vic Sage"]You don't get the "deserving" tier, yet you're perplexed by the immediate disappearance of Lou Whitaker? Pick a confusion and stick with it. I'm not perplexed by his immediate disappearance. I'm uncertain how a voter* should respond to it. Should one accept that standard of his colleagues and then say, "Then neither shall Trammell get support"? Or should one revolt and vote for Trammell, correcting the standard in a small way. *Theorietical voter that considers their candidacies about equal. In answer to your objections to my designation of a deserving tier: I wasn't saying who i would vote for. I was trying to present a list of who i felt deserved and didnt' deserve votes for enshrinement from those who DO vote, based on their past voting history (i.e., the HOF Monitor metric). It is a quantitative analysis. In the aggregate, i think those in the "deserving" category will get just enough votes to stick on the ballot for a few years, but aren't really (or shouldn't be) even borderline candidates. Those in the borderline category could go either way. Some I'd personally vote for, others not. I think this is the year for Rice, Blyleven and Gossage to finally get the recognition that the stats (and my personal observations) deem appropriate. I like Raines, but his sub 100 HOFM ranking indicates that his cumulative career accomplishments are not of a level generally voted in to the HOF, and certainly not voted in on their 1st ballot. My own view is that he's a borderline HOFer, but i wouldn't be unhappy if he were enshrined eventually. In fact, i might even smile and say "You rock, Roc!"

Edgy DC Nov 28 2007 08:55 AM

His sub-100 number may well be a result of voters not always voting in the right sort, and maybe a new perspective will appreciate what he brought in a .385 OBP and an 84% stolen-base percentage. To his credit, when he couldn't steal efficiently anymore, he stopped trying, while stealing more at a lower efficiency might have helped his candidacy. The eighties were played at such a perfect level of moderate production, I'm afraid we've ended up undervaluing the careers of players who peaked then, relative to players from extreme batting and pitching eras.

Valadius Nov 28 2007 09:02 AM

Edgy DC wrote: The eighties were played at such a perfect level of moderate production, I'm afraid we've ended up undervaluing the careers of players who peaked then, relative to players from extreme batting and pitching eras. Exactly my feeling too.

Vic Sage Nov 28 2007 09:12 AM

And Valadius, by dropping the level of HOF qualifications to the level you suggest, it would soon become a Hall of Good Players, and the ineffable definition of greatness (whatever it is, in any given time and place), would be so watered down as to become relatively meaningless. I'd be curious to know what percentage of the total players ever eligible for HOF enshrinement are actually in. 10%? less? I don't think its that much (though of course i could be wrong), but i think if your expanding that proportion, you've gone too far. There will always be arguments over the borderline cases. Standards are, by their very nature, arbitrary. But if you keep them somewhat consistently applied, and (to the extent possible) based on some form of objective analysis, no one should have too much to be upset about. The problem has been that cronyism, and fluky voting, and down-right stupid botes based on no objective analysis whatsoever, has resulted in some really bad decisions over the years. And, rather than leaving those as anomalies, they become the lowest standard by which prospective members are judged ("well, if Phil Rizzuto is in, then Dave Concepcion should be in"). The HOF Monitor is not a metric that assesses who SHOULD be in; its just about who is likely to get in based on certain accomplishments that voters in the past have taken into consideration. What would be nice is to see a metric that COULD be used to establish a baseline comparison between an eligible player and those in the HOF, as well as a basis to compare him to other elgible players. What happens now is we decide who we think whould go in based on our subjective assessment, and we then go and cherrypick those stats that support our argument. Say what you want about Jack Morris and Chuck Finley (and i dont' think either of them warrant HOF membership), but the HOF monitor indicates that they are really not comparablle in terms of the career accomplishments that voters look at (for better or worse). Morris will continue to be a borderline candidate for the duration of his 15-year eligiblity, and Finley will likely fall off the ballot in short order. I think that the vote should be taken away from reporters (who are the most ignorant bunch of sports fans i know) and current HOFers (who have a vested interest in keeping the Hall as exclusive as possible) and given over to a panel including scholars, sabrmetricians, scouts and former GMs whose jobs it was to evaluate players. Until then, "wins" will be more highly valued than ERA+ in comparing pitchers, and "RBIs" will matter more than OPS+, or WS or VORP or any other more valid criteria. And until that happens, relying on reporters to have a sudden epiphany and recognize the real value of Rock Raines' career is more wishful thinking than a realistic assessment of his likelihood of induction. But i hope i'm wrong about that.

Edgy DC Nov 28 2007 09:20 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 28 2007 10:22 AM

Valadius wrote: ="Edgy DC"]The eighties were played at such a perfect level of moderate production, I'm afraid we've ended up undervaluing the careers of players who peaked then, relative to players from extreme batting and pitching eras. Exactly my feeling too. Yeah, but, in this thread alone, you've supported Juan Gonzalez, Dick Allen, Lou Pinella, Tom Henke, Dave Righetti, Walter O'Malley, and lowering the support threshold to 60%.

duan Nov 28 2007 09:50 AM anyone

who doesn't get Tim Raines in the Hall needs their head examined. It's not his fault that Rickey Henderson happened at the same time.

Nymr83 Nov 28 2007 11:37 AM

guys- i really dont want to debate individual players on my list because i'd never expect everyone to agree with all of them, but if you think that say more than 10 of them are wrong list those ten and i'll give an argument for any names that more than one person raises

metsguyinmichigan Nov 28 2007 12:53 PM

Val's list... Dick Allen Harold Baines Albert Belle Rocky Colavito Andre Dawson Dwight Evans Gil Hodges Mark McGwire Dale Murphy Tony Oliva Dave Parker Lance Parrish Tim Raines Jim Rice Ron Santo Ted Simmons Alan Trammell Lou Whitaker I don't think you lower the standards by enshrining most of these players. There are a number of them, like Simmons, who I suspect if they played in New York would have been household names. Many of them fall into the "robbed by injuries" category, especially Olivia. Kirby Puckett got a pass based on his injuries, but others don't. And then you have the milestone rules. Is there much of a difference between Early Wynn, with 300 wins and a plaque, and Tommy John and Jim Kaat? Who fall just shy of that. Fred McGriff will probably be the person with the highest home run total without getting enshrined. But if he hit one more home run every other year, he'd be a lock. Baines will fall shy, and Craig Biggio gets in because of about a 100-hit swing in their stats.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 28 2007 12:55 PM

Well, saying that Tommy John is almost as good as Early Wynn, so he should also get a plaque leads to a downward spiral. Because then the guy who's almost as good as Tommy John will get in. And then the guy who's almost as good as the guy who's almost as good as Tommy John. Eventually you'll get down to Doc Medich. And then to Kevin Kobel. And then to Brent Hinchcliffe.

Edgy DC Nov 28 2007 12:57 PM

There was a much bigger difference between Craig Biggio and Harold Baines than 100 hits.

Nymr83 Nov 28 2007 01:14 PM

i'm personally not inclined to look at "milestones" at all. i prefer to look at rate stats and then decide if the guy had enough PAs at that level to be worth inducting (given his defense and what position he plays etc)

metsguyinmichigan Nov 28 2007 01:28 PM

="Benjamin Grimm"]Eventually you'll get down to Doc Medich. And then to Kevin Kobel. And then to Brent Hinchcliffe. Tom Verducci: "Doc Medich was a 'true Yankee' and should be get his rightful place in Cooperstown." Well, you know he thinks that!

iramets Nov 29 2007 01:22 PM

I wonder what the lifetime votes for MVP have been. Among position players only, it seems to me that someone who plays for 15 years without a single MVP vote, whatever his lifetime total numbers are, is a non-impact player on the exalted level I reserve for true HOF players. If no writer ever considered you one of the ten best players in the league during your entire playing career, are you really one of the elite players of your day? Conversely, if you got a couple of MVP votes in a few seasons, that's a pretty good testimonial right there. I guess what troubles me is someone accumulating numbers without ever having a season that wows people in the least. The result is a Hall of Steadiness, a Hall of Competitive Players, a Hall of Suttons, and who needs a Hall of Good Players? I would hold up Seaver and Sutton as two ways of reaching the HOF, one legit (because his impact on the game was colossal in several years) and one not (because he was simply doing a damned good job year after year). I think it would be an interesting project (which someone has probably already tried) to elect a whole new HOF, based on our current understanding of the game, for a more elite group of players than those in the current HOF, weeding out the questionable choices and stamping the strong ones with a "True HOFer" label. if we adopted as our goal reducing the HOF by half, I bet we could agree on many players who would go into each category.

Willets Point Nov 29 2007 01:49 PM

What ho, Ira! Returning after a four month absence and giving us an assignment.

iramets Nov 29 2007 02:03 PM

]What ho, Ira! Sorry, didn't catch her name.

Nymr83 Nov 29 2007 02:11 PM

welcome back, i'd be onboard for such a project.

Edgy DC Nov 29 2007 02:15 PM

Why, no, I don't know why ira has a three-point apostrophe as a level identifier.

seawolf17 Nov 29 2007 02:28 PM

According to BBR... we'll look at MVPs first. Name, Rank, MVP Shares, MVP Wins Dave Parker 28 3.19 1978 Jim Rice 29 3.15 1978 Andre Dawson 65 2.36 1987 Dale Murphy 66 2.31 1982, 1983 Don Mattingly 74 2.22 1985 Mark McGwire 91 1.94 Alan Trammell 184 1.22 Tim Raines 236 0.99 Rich Gossage 248 0.95 David Justice 287 0.8 Dave Concepcion 410 0.52 Lee Smith 544 0.34 Harold Baines 592 0.29 Brady Anderson 743 0.18 Jack Morris 743 0.18 Tommy John 854 0.11 Bert Blyleven 909 0.09 Rod Beck 939 0.08 Chuck Knoblauch 1073 0.05 Robb Nen 1205 0.03 Jose Rijo 1205 0.03 Travis Fryman 1314 0.02 Shawon Dunston 0 Chuck Finley 0 Todd Stottlemyre 0 Parker surprised me. The only players who have been shown more love than Parker and Rice who are not HOFers: ARod, Frank Thomas, Pujols, Griffey, and Pete Rose. Piazza is tied with Parker, and Jeff Bagwell is right behind him. Going down, Vlad Guerrero (35th), Manny Ramirez (42nd) are probably likely HOFers if they keep it up; you have to get to David Ortiz and Gary Sheffield (52nd and 54th) before you start to get sketchy on HOF qualifications, although they probably will both have a case down the road. On the Cy: Rank, Cy Shares 51 0.92 Tommy John 66 0.73 Jack Morris 86 0.54 Lee Smith 98 0.45 Bert Blyleven 118 0.35 Rich Gossage 152 0.17 Jose Rijo 159 0.12 Robb Nen 256 0.01 Chuck Finley John surprised me; all his votes came in four years between 1977 and 1980 (2nd, 8th, 2nd, and 4th, respectively). Nice run, but not enough to overcome an otherwise Hall of Steadiness qualifications. Morris seems like a better candidate, getting votes in seven separate seasons between 1981 and 1992.

Edgy DC Nov 29 2007 02:41 PM

Wolf, can you give your figures column headings?

metsmarathon Nov 29 2007 03:43 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Nov 29 2007 09:22 PM

i haven't looked at the pitchers yet but here's my ranking of this year's class, with some numbers: career WARP3, 5yr max WARP3, the product thereof, HOF percentile, and nearest analog name career max5 c x 5 %-ile analog raines 132.5 52.5 6956.25 80% foxx trammell 123.2 51.1 6295.52 74% bench mcgwire 110.3 47.2 5206.16 60% doerr concepcion 106.3 46.9 4985.47 54% ashburn dawson 110.8 42.2 4675.76 50% hartnett mattingly 90.2 50.3 4537.06 47% puckett baines 102.5 36.7 3761.75 30% maranville murphy 85.5 42.5 3633.75 29% cepeda parker 85.6 41.4 3543.84 28% lazzeri rice 88.2 37.3 3289.86 24% killebrew knoblauch 74.1 44.2 3275.22 23% campanella fryman 74.4 42.6 3169.44 21% doby anderson 77.2 40.5 3126.6 20% averill justice 73.6 35.5 2612.8 14% roush dunston 48.4 21.8 1055.12 1% -- below 25% should have no chance. below 50% i need some talking-into. only ron santo is above 75% and not in (7217, 82%). more on this all when i get some time. i posted a graph way back in a ranking thread that somebody should dig up for me. ...gah, i had to edit... used warp1 instead of warp3... knobby, fryman & anderson get quite the boost! but still should get no consideration, imo. i need to look into it, but i'm pretty sure the bottom 25% of the hall is populated mostly by those who got in via either the veterans committee and/or the presumption that finishing one's career with a .300 batting average must make you worthy of enshrinement no matter the quality of the peripheral stats.

seawolf17 Nov 29 2007 05:10 PM

I don't know how to do html tables. Drives me kooky.

metsmarathon Nov 29 2007 09:26 PM

seawolf17 wrote: I don't know how to do html tables. Drives me kooky. 1. make table in excel. 2. insert extra columns 3. insert needed code in extra rows 4. copy 5. paste into thread 6. delete unneeded line breaks and tabs 7. enjoy!

Nymr83 Nov 29 2007 11:03 PM

you lost me at "excel"

iramets Nov 30 2007 02:34 AM

seawolf17 wrote: The only players who have been shown more love than Parker and Rice who are not HOFers: ARod, Frank Thomas, Pujols, Griffey, and Pete Rose. Piazza is tied with Parker, and Jeff Bagwell is right behind him. Of those named, of course, only Rose is eligible to be a HOFer right now, and we all know Rose's story. Rice is unarguably qualified, I'd say, so the question is: Do we want to endorse a methodology that makes Dave Parker a no-brainer HOFer? That argument implicitly elevates the dim memory of those voting in 2007 above the observations of those watching Dave Parker play twenty or thirty years ago. Can you win 3.15 MVP awards and still be a less than stellar player? I don't think so. Is it possible that your MVP votes should be reduced in view of your off-the-field actions, whether they be gambling, steroids, cocaine, spousal abuse, or self-abuse in the bullpen? Sure, why not? It's not as though I'm arguing that we do this by feeding numbers into a program and when the computer spits out the top numbergrubbers that settles the election right there. But it seems to me that we're not giving dominating players (like Parker, and yes Mattingly and Garvey) their due. When these guys played, we thought they were among the best of the best. Now, not so much, sometimes for good and just reasons (as with Rose) but other times, not so much. We've already accounted for longevity and such with the ten-year cutoff for eligibility. Having a long career is what makes you eligible. That's big. A player cannot just break in with a few good years or even a few great years and then retire and expect to get into the Hall. But I don't want to credit simply having a long career twice, by making it the standard for eligibility in the first place and then rewarding it by putting an emphasis on career numbers too. The crucial quality to me is just that: crucial quality. How many seasons did someone have a big impact on the game? Do you want a pitcher who got 300 wins by averaging 12 wins over a 25-year career, or one who got 200 wins by winning 20 for ten years? To me, that's a silly question, but to others, maybe not so much. By the MVP standard, btw, Raines is borderline, which seems about right to me. Winning enough MVP votes over a career to account one unanimous MVP award seems pretty fair. It certainly shows us who were dominating players, and who were not.

Rockin' Doc Nov 30 2007 05:14 AM

Nice to see you back, Doc.

iramets Nov 30 2007 07:19 AM

metsmarathon wrote: 1. make table OK, I've got a shitload of sanded wood stuck together in my kitchen--it's kinda wobbley (I've stuck an old New Yorker fashion issue under one of the legs), but it will serve as a table. Now what? I've got problems with the whole system of ten-year elligibility, anyway. Say a guy comes along and has a Sandy Koufax style career but it lasts only 9 years--you can't wedge a playing card between him and Koufax, but somehow Koufax is a no-brainer HOFer and this hypothetical guy is simply unqualified? Dudn't make sense to me. Matter of fact, take K. himself: if not for the bonus baby rule, he probably wouldn't have gotten his Dodger career started until he was 22 or so. In his first three years (ages 19-21) of his twelve year career, he went 9-10, which doesn't really make you go "HOF!", does it? So if his career had gone exactly as it did, only he would have spent those first three seasons in the minors (and probably pitched better in MLB for the added experience, but let's just skip that for now), he would have been unqualified for election to the Hall? Alternatively, if a guy like A-Rod comes along and puts in 8 or 9 Ruth's peak-style years and then retires (for reasons less tragic, heroic or noble than Gehrig's or Clemente's--say he suffers a career-ending injury in a DUI or something like that, so we're not falling alll over ourselves to make him an exception to the 10-year rule). This guy, with 550 HRs and 7 Gold Gloves at shortstop and a lifetime .350 average is not going into the Hall because he didn't play enough? That's what the rules say.

iramets Nov 30 2007 07:59 AM

I just looked up Schoenweis (for my 'dodo' thread) and learned that he is now a 9-yearveteran lefty. If you add twenty wins per year to his annual record, his career W-L would be 243-49, with a thirty win season tucked in there. But poor hypothetical Scotty wouldn't be eligible for the HOF if he retired off that. WTF?

soupcan Nov 30 2007 08:09 AM

iramets wrote: I've got problems with the whole system of ten-year elligibility, anyway That's all well and good and you make a nice case but there has to be some kind of standard doesn't there? Would you be happy with 7 years? 5? Then what do you do with the guy who has 4 great years and then dies in a car wreck? Besides exceptions can always be made in special cases. Wasn't the 5 year waiting time rule suspended for Clemente?

iramets Nov 30 2007 08:17 AM

That waiver was in keeping with the rule's intent, which is to prevent someone from election to the HOF before you're sure he's actually retired. I think people understood that the rule wouldn't be needed to prevent a comeback from Clemente. The actual ten-year rule for playing career has been skirted (see Addie Joss) but not actually violated. Ten years, "You're good," nine years, "Sorry, Bub."

Nymr83 Nov 30 2007 08:24 AM

skirted? where is Joss' tenth year?

soupcan Nov 30 2007 08:29 AM

iramets wrote: That waiver was in keeping with the rule's intent, which is to prevent someone from election to the HOF before you're sure he's actually retired. I think people understood that the rule wouldn't be needed to prevent a comeback from Clemente. My point is that the HOF rules aren't necessarily hard and fast and if a guy comes along and has 9 A-Rodriguian years and dies or something there would probably be a movement to make an exception.

Edgy DC Nov 30 2007 08:34 AM

The death exception is actually now an ongoing rule. It's just that nobody's got in under it since Clemente. It was waived for Thurman Munson, it was waived for Darryl Kile, and it was waived this year for Rod Beck. It may actually backfire in some cases. While it may allow a player to get a potential sentimental boost from the voters, it can also deny the voters critical perspective. I'm certain that a nine-year veteran who hit like Babe Ruth would get a chance.

Valadius Nov 30 2007 08:38 AM

Ira, I refer you to a post I made nearly two months ago: Valadius wrote: I am a firm believer in assessing players in two ways for the Hall of Fame: 1. Accumulated statistics (career totals) 2. Peak performance (ideally 10 seasons) I've come across the cases of [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/wilsoha01.shtml]Hack Wilson[/url] and [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hafeych01.shtml]Chick Hafey[/url]. Both are Hall-of-Famers, but they had abbreviated careers. One drank himself out of baseball and the other was derailed by injury. In Hafey's case, he suffered from what Lawrence Ritter and Donald Honig, in their book, The 100 Greatest Baseball Players of All Time, call "Smokey Joe Wood Syndrome". They defined this as, to quote Hafey's Wikipedia article, "where a player of truly exceptional talent but a career curtailed by injury should still, in spite of not having had career statistics that would quantitatively rank him with the all-time greats, be included on their list of the 100 greatest players." I think this argument really ought to get more consideration. The way measurements and formulas are weighted is predominantly in favor of players with longer careers. However, some great players can't help that their bodies might deteriorate faster than others. It happens. Therefore, I would like to make the case that, failing that a player doesn't accumulate large enough numbers to initially satisfy induction, that you apply both the Ralph Kiner Exception and the Smokey Joe Wood Exception, meaning that if a player has 10 exemplary full seasons under his belt, preferably in a row, he should get in. If for 10 years he was considered one of the best in baseball, he should get another look. So let me update that somewhat and agree with you. If someone was unbelievably good for less than 10 seasons but had their career derailed in some fashion that they could not control, I agree that they should at the very least get looked at. Let's take the case of Ichiro Suzuki. He's a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer in my book. He hasn't played 10 years in America yet, only 7. If he were to retire tomorrow, is it fair to penalize him because he played in Japan during the other 3 years he would have needed at a minimum? Or what if Albert Pujols were to get injured somehow and never be able to play again? Would we penalize him for something completely out of his control? However, I do think there should be a limit to how few seasons are needed for consideration, and that this should be the exception, not the rule.

iramets Nov 30 2007 08:38 AM

Nymr83 wrote: skirted? where is Joss' tenth year? Well, the thinking is that Joss died in April of 1912, a couple of decades before the HOF began, and nowadays his team would have made sure that a dying nine-year veteran would be on the roster, on the DL, or some technicality to allow him to be eligible, so they retroactively conceded that, since now the Indians would have him on the roster in some form during the first game of 1912 season, that should count. At least I think that's what was argued.

Nymr83 Nov 30 2007 08:45 AM

if [ujols got hurt tommorow he's been that good that i'd want to see him in the hall. ichiro aint even close on his 7 years

iramets Nov 30 2007 08:53 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 30 2007 08:54 AM

A rule that most sensible people think should be waived if circumstances dictate really isn't much of a rule, is it? Look at all the players who've had HOF careers, but who barely qualified (and in Joss's case, really didn't): Koufax, and Jackie Robinson and Roy Campanella and Ralph Kiner and a number of others who barely scraped by the rule's requirements. I suspect in almost all of these cases the rule either would have or should have been waived, which doesnt say much about the rule. It's there, I think, more as a book-keeping thing, to make the eligibility lists more manageable, and less prone to controversy ("Why isn't the 10-year rule being waived for Player X, who had six nice years with twelve different teams and deserves the minimal honor of being rejected by the HOF, when it WAS waived for player Y, who had only seven crappy years with sixteen different teams" yyybbb). But as a rule, it kinda sucks. Maybe we should call it the "Ten-Year Eligibility Guideline" or "suggestion" or "useful starting point for the beginning of a notion" or something.

Edgy DC Nov 30 2007 08:54 AM

Let's kill them and find out!

iramets Nov 30 2007 09:01 AM

Also, if some with even stronger stats and a shorter career than Addie Joss came along now, I'm sure there could be all sorts of bogus ways to get him on the roster and even in to a game, or however many games were needed. If someone had seven off-the-charts years and then had to retire, and his team wanted him eligible, I think they might find a way to get his name in an official lineup (announce him as pinchhitter and then have him pinch-hit for, in an expanded roster game, perhaps for two or three years in a row).

Nymr83 Nov 30 2007 10:05 AM

i don't think they'd even have to go that far, the "problem" with baseball reference is that we only see years in which a player did something. but i'm sure that for pension purposes and whatever else all you need to do is be on the roster not appear in a game. Our hypothetocal player X could easily spend a day in september on the expanded roster, broken leg and all.

Nymr83 Nov 30 2007 10:18 AM

Another hall question- has Craig Biggio hurt his legacy by sticking around and sucking the last 2 years? or does getting to the arbitrary number of 3000 hits make up for the suckiness? This is why I think counting stats should never be a barometer for the HOF, Biggio has (i'd guess) upped his chances of induction by getting to 3,000 hits when in reality the last 2 years should have lowered his chances. Put another way, if you had 2 players (Biggio 1988-2005 and Biggio 1988-2007) which one would be more deserving of induction? you'd be nuts not to say the first one (although both shouldget in) but the people who actually have votes seem to give credit for sticking around to reach "milestones" instead of subtracting credit for bad years.

Edgy DC Nov 30 2007 10:21 AM

No, I don't think anyone would be nuts.

iramets Nov 30 2007 10:37 AM

You neither help nor hurt yourself for getting into my HOF by having undistinguished seasons. To my mind, it's purely a question of how many distinguished seasons you have, and how distinguished they are. Bidge would be exactly as HOF-worthy if he'd retired soon after his greatness went away as if he'd lingered for years and years afterwards. I've really come to hate stats that exist for their own sake, the guy who plays crappily (and unhappily) just so's he gets to that 3000-hit mark or 500-HR level or 300-win club, and the guy who tells the manager "I don't wanna pitch in a non-save situation, or for longer than the minimum it takes to get my save' and the guy who doesn;t want to switch positions because it will make him known as a utility player rather than being identified with one position only. All this misuse of stats for personal glory makes me puke up great gobs of rancid, semi-digested curdles of unidentifiable matter with little bits and pieces of recognizable remnants of gristly meat and the odd kernal of corn here or there...but maybe that's TMI.?

metsmarathon Nov 30 2007 01:26 PM

only problem that i have with the mvp vote is that, as we've seen, those votes can get distributed for wacky and unjust reasons.

iramets Nov 30 2007 01:31 PM

metsmarathon wrote: only problem that i have with the mvp vote is that, as we've seen, those votes can get distributed for wacky and unjust reasons. Agreed. But maybe this would compel the voters to think about the long-term effects of their decisions? OTOneH, MVP might not get the right result, but OTOH rarely omit altogether someone who should have contended.

metsmarathon Nov 30 2007 01:40 PM

can't think of good examples, other than, of course, pitchers. though any metric that shows dwright's 07 to be worth half of rollins', or hanley ramirez & pujols' 2007 to be worth a mere 7th of rollins can't be too good... i am curious of course as to how it does historically for current hall of famers.

Valadius Nov 30 2007 02:08 PM

Baseball Prospectus' Jay Jaffe says that Tim Raines absolutely deserves to be elected: [url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/11/29/bp.raineshalloffame/index.html[/url] Jaffe ranks Raines as the 9th-best left fielder of all time, behind Barry Bonds, Stan Musial, Rickey Henderson, Ted Williams, Pete Rose, Jim O'Rourke, Ed Delahanty and Carl Yastrzemski. He points out that Bill James ranked Raines 8th in his 2001 Abstract, and the 2nd-best leadoff hitter in history, behind Henderson. Jaffe puts his own spin on WARP to take into account a player's peak, and finds that Raines was more valuable than the average HOF left fielder career-wise and peak-wise. He is also WAY more valuable than Lou Brock or Jim Rice.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2007 10:41 AM

Kuhn in, Miller out. I give up.

Edgy DC Dec 03 2007 10:47 AM

That's as shocking as Milledge for Church, and I think it's somehow (I haven't really thought it through yet), related to the same skewed values. Or maybe it's just a case of what happens when good men do nothing. A smart guy like Tom Seaver knows what Miller's legacy has been (for owners as well as players), but would rather grow grapes than help mount the campaign that Miller deserves. Heavens to Betsy.

sharpie Dec 03 2007 10:57 AM

Hard to pinpoint a single achievement of Bowie Kuhn's.

MFS62 Dec 03 2007 11:00 AM

O'Malley in. A shonda (tragic shame) A dark pall has been cast over Cooperstown. Later

Edgy DC Dec 03 2007 11:05 AM

="sharpie"]Hard to pinpoint a single achievement of Bowie Kuhn's. Sticking around for a long time, long enough that a vote for him represents a vote for "Yay, baseball" in some mindsets. Lazy mindsets, but that's my opinion. Who will linger at that plaque?

Vic Sage Dec 03 2007 11:16 AM

the Kuhn family.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2007 11:28 AM

What will the placque read? BOWIE KUHN COMMISSIONER, 1969-83 UNDERQUALIFIED, VISIONLESS LEADER AND PROMOTER OF ANTIQUATED LABOR PRACTICES ALLOWED FIVE WORK STOPPAGES ON HIS WATCH FOUGHT PROGRESS UNSUCCESSFULLY DISGUSTEDLY LET GO BY EMPLOYERS

Vic Sage Dec 03 2007 11:31 AM

...BUT HE HAD A GOOD BASEBALL NAME

Edgy DC Dec 03 2007 12:00 PM

BOWIE KUHN MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL COMMISSIONER 1969-83 HE BATTLED

Valadius Dec 03 2007 01:47 PM

Moving past the disgrace that is Kuhn getting in and Miller being left out, let's look at those inducted (and those that came close): HALL-OF-FAMERS Walter O'Malley - I know, I know, he ripped out the hearts of New Yorkers. But if he hadn't moved the Dodgers, the Mets never would have existed. Barney Dreyfuss - THANK GOD this man is in the Hall. The man that created the World Series and thus created the modern major league structure deserved this. Dick Williams - A great manager. Taking three different teams to the World Series and winning two straight has to count for something. Billy Southworth - Deserves it. Underrated as hell. Fifth-highest winning percentage in history. Four pennants, two championships, three straight 100-win seasons. Bowie Kuhn - Fuck him. Doesn't deserve it. BARELY MISSED THE CUT Whitey Herzog - I hope he gets in next time. Doug Harvey - The 2nd-best umpire of all time didn't make it?!?!? This REALLY surprised me. AND... Marvin Miller - He deserves it, and I don't understand what the damn problem is.

Edgy DC Dec 03 2007 01:55 PM

Valadius wrote: Dick Williams - A great manager. Taking three different teams to the World Series and winning two straight has to count for something. Yes, it has to count for something, Why it has to count for the Hall of Fame is what is at issue.

Nymr83 Dec 03 2007 02:03 PM

Miller doesn't belong in any HOF unless its the organized labor hall of fame. Kuhn doesnt belong anywhere near the place either. what makes Doug Harvey "the 2nd best umpire of all-time" Val?

MFS62 Dec 03 2007 02:06 PM

Seems to me the eligible voters who avoided Miller got hung up on a technicality. They'll claim the category was owners, managers and executives. They will alibi that Miller didn't fit with any of those labels. I wonder what they'll do with the "player and pitcher" category when it comes to voting for a DH (who is "technically" not a player IMO because they didn't play defense). Later

Edgy DC Dec 03 2007 02:13 PM

Don't be stubborn --- the two of you. Open your hearts and minds. It's a techinicolor world and you're looking through black-and-white glasses. There hasn't one guy on a Hall of Fame players ballot who hasn't played defense, so you're just being stubborn for the sake of it.

Valadius Dec 03 2007 02:14 PM

SABR ranked him as such in 1999, behind only Bill Klem.

MFS62 Dec 03 2007 02:34 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Don't be stubborn --- the two of you. Open your hearts and minds. It's a techinicolor world and you're looking through black-and-white glasses. There hasn't one guy on a Hall of Fame players ballot who hasn't played defense, so you're just being stubborn for the sake of it. No, I'm being anti-DH. Just because I am. Later

Edgy DC Dec 03 2007 02:42 PM

You're not being rational. You realize that Babe Ruth would likely have spent more than half of his career at DH had it meen available to his managers. Williams also. These are undoubtably two of the top five players ever to lace up their cleats --- arguably one and two. I'm against trades. I'm not going to propose any player traded, or any GM who executed a trade, be kept from the Hall of Fame.

Nymr83 Dec 03 2007 02:47 PM

being a DH should count against you- because you provided no defensive benefits and you received the benefit of being able to pile up numbers while not having the wear and tear of playing the field every day. DHs should NOT be excluded from the HOF but their offensive standard need to be higher than a 1B/LF type just as a 1B/LF type should be held to a higher offensive standard than a C/SS. edit-spelling. I'm Tom Glavine and i blew this post.

Edgy DC Dec 03 2007 02:50 PM

That's a fair and rational view.

MFS62 Dec 03 2007 03:07 PM

And that's what I meant. My "never playing defense" comment was just some hyperbole. I've posted against the DH rule often(with many of those same rational points), so this was just another chance to mention my feelings. Later

Edgy DC Dec 03 2007 03:10 PM

If its hyperbole, you state it over and over and over, without taking the time to clarify your meaning.

metirish Dec 03 2007 08:28 PM

Chass not happy with this at all. [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/sports/baseball/04chass.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin]Omitting Miller Not Surprising, but Still Embarrassing[/url]

Edgy DC Dec 03 2007 08:51 PM

Chass gets to the heart of it. In deference to the frustration that, because the Vets Committee was somehow failing because they weren't electing anybody the last two years --- the Valadius position --- they re-jiggered the process and appointed a small board more subject to whims, prejudices, and fraternal behavior (exactly the historical problem with the Veterans Committee), and elected the wrong guy(s) (typical historical result of the Veterans Committee).

Edgy DC Dec 04 2007 12:57 PM

Pete Hamill's expected O'Malley Column.

MFS62 Dec 04 2007 05:22 PM

Edgy DC wrote: If its hyperbole, you state it over and over and over, without taking the time to clarify your meaning. Sorry. I did explain my feelings about that rule quite clearly the first time it came up after I started posting on the CPF. Unfortunately, many of the posts from those days were lost during the move of the board to the new home; only some of the old posts were apparently kept. Later

Valadius Dec 04 2007 07:21 PM

Dick Williams going in with an A's cap: [url]http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-halloffame-williams&prov=ap&type=lgns[/url]

Valadius Dec 05 2007 11:48 AM

The late Larry Whiteside of the Boston Globe gets the Spink Award: [url]http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-spinkaward&prov=ap&type=lgns[/url]

Valadius Dec 07 2007 09:58 AM

For those who are curious, the following ex-Mets were eligible this year to appear on the ballot for the first time but didn't make the cut: Dennis Cook Bobby J. Jones Dave Mlicki Armando Reynoso John Valentin

sharpie Dec 18 2007 07:17 AM

Shrink the HOF sez Salon: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/12/17/hall_of_fame/

Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2007 07:28 AM

I wouldn't be opposed to shrinkage. I wasn't thrilled to see Gary Carter's name as the first proposed evictee, but, whatever. He listed a lot of old-timers who, he feels, got in as a result of cronyism. (There probably are more than a few Harriet Miers in the Hall.) Other recent players, though, in addition to Carter, are Don Sutton and Gaylord Perry. Less is more. If Gary Carter has to be sacrificed as part of a purge, then so be it. Of course, this will never happen. A better possibility would be for some competing organization to create a Baseball Hall of Exclusivity. It would take many years for it to gain the prestige of the place in Cooperstown, if it ever did, but I'd like to see someone try it.

MFS62 Dec 18 2007 07:34 AM

I like this part about Kuhn/ Miller: ]The shock was that former commissioner of baseball Bowie Kuhn was voted in. During Kuhn's tenure from 1969 to 1984, he lost every significant battle he fought. Under Miller's leadership, the players' union finally ended the grip of the century-old reserve system that had made a player the property of one team indefinitely unless he was traded, sold or released. That's like glorifying the loser, General George Armstrong Custer and not the winner, Chief Sitting Bull. Oh wait. We do that. Never mind. As for his premise, I agree. There are a lot of "pretty good players" in there for whom I would not have voted. Later

metsguyinmichigan Dec 18 2007 07:56 AM

MFS62 wrote: I like this part about Kuhn/ Miller: ]The shock was that former commissioner of baseball Bowie Kuhn was voted in. During Kuhn's tenure from 1969 to 1984, he lost every significant battle he fought. Under Miller's leadership, the players' union finally ended the grip of the century-old reserve system that had made a player the property of one team indefinitely unless he was traded, sold or released. That's like glorifying the loser, General George Armstrong Custer and not the winner, Chief Sitting Bull. Oh wait. We do that. Never mind. As for his premise, I agree. There are a lot of "pretty good players" in there for whom I would not have voted. Later I tend to be more inclusive than most. There are certainly players in there who don't belong -- most of them named Rizzutto -- and there are some who are not in and do belong, like Jim Rice, who didn't kiss the asses of tbe baseball writers, a group that can be pretty petty. Plus, there are stupid people with ballots, like the 23 idiots who DIDN'T vote for Willie Mays and the two dumb-asses who DIDN'T vote for Tom Seaver because they don't vote for anyone on the first ballot. I'd be in favor of stripping the voting from the BBWAA as a unit, but allowing some of them to be part of a voting group that also would include historians, folks like Bill James, former player and others. I think you'd see better picks.

Frayed Knot Dec 18 2007 08:01 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: A better possibility would be for some competing organization to create a Baseball Hall of Exclusivity. Or maybe a [url=http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/the_hall_of_merit_plaque_room/]Hall of Merit[/url] Projects like this go on all the time - but, like you said, they're not going to out-prestige the one in Cooperstown anytime in the near (or distant) future. This particular one was done just recently via the 'Baseball Think Factory' website which generally has some intelligent conversations about baseball issues. They took it era by era and essentially discussed and then re-voted on each (via a process not unlke our Rankings Project) with a goal of actually not reducing the overall number inducted but rather to get the "right" players in and the "wrong" players out while maintaining the same amount as the real HoF. And y'know what ... there are still going to be disagreements. I'm not real big on rehashing each past vote for the purpose of culling old members. On this issue I'm pretty much in the same place as I'm am with steroids: the past is the past and, whatever mistakes were made back then, it's more important that we get it right from this point forward.

Edgy DC Dec 18 2007 09:04 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 18 2007 10:32 AM

My imaginary alterna-Hall --- the Royal Court of Baseball --- would have three tiers: The Knights of Baseball, the Lords, or Baseball, and the Princes of Baseball. You'd be eligible 25 years after signing your first contract, so some guys would be admitted while they're still active. You'd have to be a Knight for five years before you could become a Lord, and you'd have to be a Lord for five years before you could become a Prince. Presumably, we'd have a few Dames, Ladies, and Princesses also. There'd be a quota too. Only a fixed small percentage of figures in a category could achieve the title of Knight, a small percentage of those Lords, and so on. And I'd be a real jerk about putting a bunch of jerky standards of conduct in there. The world has enough assholes. Not in my court, Baby.

G-Fafif Dec 18 2007 10:30 AM

Edgy DC wrote: the Princes of Baseball. I nominate my non-cousin Tom who once inscribed a ball for me "great last name!" http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/princto01.shtml

Vic Sage Dec 18 2007 11:39 AM

i've often advocated for the dis-enfranchisement of the BBSWA as the voting authority on the HOF and the institution of a blue ribbon panel (which could include some BBSWA members) to do the annual voting, for both current eligible nominees and expired veterans, as well as for executives, umps, etc. i like the idea of tiers, too. The HOF actually could do that in an informal way tomorrow. All they'd have to do is decide to display the HOF plaques in a different way, implying "tiers" of importance without stating it as such. You could have the "inner circle" of all-time greats, with a surrounding circle of valid HOFers, and a third outer ring of the borderline cases. I'm against any kind of expulsion mechanism, but reconsideration of a player's career further down the line, and then reclassifying what tier they might have more appropriately been assigned to seems like a reasonable course. But first lets get the voting away from the hacks. Nothing else good can happen until the HOF takes that first step.

soupcan Dec 18 2007 11:46 AM

="Vic Sage"]But first lets get the voting away from the hacks. Nothing else good can happen until the HOF takes that first step. I thought Vic wrote..."But first lets get the voting away from the blacks..." and spit out my coffee.

Valadius Dec 18 2007 11:47 AM

I must admit that at first glance I saw the same thing too, soupcan.

Frayed Knot Dec 18 2007 12:03 PM

Vic Sage: Exposed as closet racist - film at eleven!! My problem with a "tiered" HoF system is the fear that it will inevitably lead to the lowest tier being populated by players not really deserving based on the attitude that it's OK to put them in because by doing so you're not staining the "real" hall.

Vic Sage Dec 18 2007 12:10 PM

as i said, if you take the vote away from the "hacks" (regardless of race), you get a more sophisticated level of voter who will see that as a stupid reason to vote in less qualified candidates. the tiering is more a way to deal with mistakes of the past, rather than an excuse to continue making mistakes. But such a system is still rife with abuse, as you've noted, unless and until the vote is taken away from sportswriters of every color.

Nymr83 Dec 18 2007 12:30 PM

i don't want tiers, just elimination of the peoplwe who don't belong. the vote needs to be divided up better: 20% Newspaper sportswriters 20% paid internet sports writers (not joe shmoe with a blog) 10% prominent statiticians like Bill James 10% Sports radio and television people as well as other historians of the game (prominent auithors about the sport and stuff) 10% living broadcasters with X years experience 10% current hall of famers (to represent who the players feel should get in) 10% all living managers who managed 5 years in the big leagues 10% fans (an official internet poll of the HOF website for each eligible player, if he gets 80% of the fan vote then thats like getting 8 of the 10 votes allocated to fans, etc)

metsguyinmichigan Dec 18 2007 01:00 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 18 2007 01:07 PM

="soupcan"] ="Vic Sage"]But first lets get the voting away from the hacks. Nothing else good can happen until the HOF takes that first step. I thought Vic wrote..."But first lets get the voting away from the blacks..." and spit out my coffee. Jim Rome tells a funny story about interviewing a former quarterback -- I think Joe Theisman -- after a football player's encounter with the law, and asking him if he thought the league has had enough "black eyes." Except Theisman thought he said "black guys" and said no, he thinks the diversity within the NFL is a good thing...

metsguyinmichigan Dec 18 2007 01:05 PM

Vic Sage wrote: as i said, if you take the vote away from the "hacks" (regardless of race), you get a more sophisticated level of voter who will see that as a stupid reason to vote in less qualified candidates. the tiering is more a way to deal with mistakes of the past, rather than an excuse to continue making mistakes. But such a system is still rife with abuse, as you've noted, unless and until the vote is taken away from sportswriters of every color. I don't like the tiers because then you start getting the same arugments we have now, only whether the player belongs in this teir or that. And then some goofball puts Catfish Hunter, or worse, Derek Jeter, in a top tier. Then you'll have people advocating for a tier above the top tier for the Ruths and Seavers -- until someone puts Mariano Rivera in that group..... I like that you are either a Hall of Famer or not. Most people who are not Yankee fans aren't stupid. They know there's a difference between Tom Seaver and Gaylord Perry without having it spoonfed to them.

Vic Sage Dec 18 2007 01:11 PM

Since "those who do not belong" is a matter of opinion, it seems a rather arbitrary standard to impose after the fact, with the rather draconian result of metaphorically stripping a player of his epaulets. Tiers are a gentler way of imposing objectivity on the HOF, thus making it a more useful tool for future generations to assess the history of the game. As to your proposed voting breakdown, I don't think allocating 60% of the vote to sportswriters, radio heads and broadcasters is going to solve very much. I would suggest something more like: 20% - prominent statiticians, academics, historians (published within last 5 years, or holding a related position for 5+years) 20% - Newspaper/Internet professional sportswriters (5+years experience) 20% - Radio / tv commentators & broadcasters (5+ years) 20% - former managers, umps and executives (5+ years in the majors) 20% - current hall of famers 0% fans - are you kidding?

Nymr83 Dec 18 2007 01:18 PM

i think the general fan population should get some SMALL say in things.

Valadius Dec 18 2007 01:19 PM

I think what's done is done. I think that baseball fans have sense enough to know the Babe Ruths from the Tony Perezes. I think that each individual enshrined in the Hall of Fame is in there for some reason or another, and that we should respect those reasons. There are many different ways to define a Hall-of-Famer. It should not always be based on the accumulation of offensive statistics. Defense and intangibles ought to play a role as well. If not, you can kick Ozzie Smith out, as that's why he's in there. And I personally believe Mazeroski deserved it - he was possibly the greatest-fielding second baseman of all time. I think it's a worthless exercise to debate removing players from the Hall of Fame. It will always remain an exclusive club, but I think it ought to be more inclusive than some have suggested.

Nymr83 Dec 18 2007 01:20 PM

defense is fine, but "intangibles" isn't a reason to induct a guy. either quantify what he did for his team or keep him out of the hall.

Valadius Dec 18 2007 01:23 PM

Intangibles alone shouldn't be, but it ought to be a component that might push one's candidacy over the threshold. For example, if David Ortiz ends up with career statistics that get him serious consideration for the Hall, his record of coming up big in clutch situations should be factored in.

Nymr83 Dec 18 2007 01:25 PM

its not "intangibles" if a guy had dozens of huge hits WHICH YOU CAN DOCUMENT, but just calling him "clutch" is an intangible and should not factor one iota in his candidacy

Vic Sage Dec 18 2007 01:27 PM

]his record of coming up big in clutch situations should be factored in. if its true, its quantifiable. If its not, its just a misperception built on a limited sample and shouldn't be considered

Vic Sage Dec 18 2007 01:28 PM

Nymr83 wrote: i think the general fan population should get some SMALL say in things. because they do so well with All-star balloting? we get a "say" by arguing about the selections. That should be sufficient.

Nymr83 Dec 18 2007 01:30 PM

]because they do so well with All-star balloting? but the writers who gave Palmiero a gold glove for playing 15 games at 1B that year do an excellent job. the fans would collectively do just as good a job as the guys who do it now.

Vic Sage Dec 18 2007 01:33 PM

Nymr83 wrote: ]because they do so well with All-star balloting? but the writers who gave Palmiero a gold glove for playing 15 games at 1B that year do an excellent job. the fans would collectively do just as good a job as the guys who do it now. oh, i agree. which is why i want to minimize the vote of sportswriters, not EXPAND it, or throw it open to other know-nothings.

Nymr83 Dec 18 2007 01:35 PM

but who is not a "know-nothing"? ideally you'd leave it up to Bill James, Rob Neyer, and their ilk to use statistics to decide who the top X% of players are and put them in the hall, but i doubt that will ever happen

Edgy DC Dec 18 2007 01:46 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 18 2007 07:18 PM

I have less problem with the BBWAA. They, like a large democratic body, vote because of all sorts of stupid reasons, but the stupid reasons rarely have any power and are eliminated in the volume of votes. (In the long run, what does it matter if Seaver wasn't unanimous?) Blue ribbon panels are small and are more subject to wave of ill-considered consensus. (*Cough* Bowie Kuhn. *Cough.) They get appointed by even smaller bodies, and are easy to stack. I think of a blue ribbon panel appointed by Dale Petroskey, and I go running to sweet embrace of the BBWAA.

Valadius Dec 18 2007 01:54 PM

If statistics told the whole story, we'd have come up with a formula by now to pick Hall-of-Famers. We haven't because we can't leave it up to statistics. Statistics only present a single point of view. It is in interpreting these statistics and incorporating other elements of a player not on paper that we have to use in making our choices. It is in the diversity of viewpoints that a Hall-of-Famer becomes legitimized.

Vic Sage Dec 18 2007 02:07 PM

there are any number of statistics voters could use in determining their HOF votes. Its just that many members of the BBWAA are too stupid to understand or use them, and prefer to rely on their subjective ancedotal views. And while stats would not be the sole basis for a determination, because deciding which stats are of must relevance and how best to interpet them are all matters of debate, they should sure as shit establish a rebuttable presumption of either inclusion or exclusion that those who want to assert "intangibles" would have an opportunity to challenge. If we can at least shift the debate to figuring out which accomplishments (objectively measured) should get a player into the HOF, instead of dealing with "I know a HOFer when I see one!" arguments, then that would be cause for some meaure of satisfaction.

Frayed Knot Dec 18 2007 02:11 PM

Nymr83 wrote: ... but the writers who gave Palmiero a gold glove for playing 15 games at 1B that year do an excellent job. -- the fans would collectively do just as good a job as the guys who do it now. Actually, Gold Gloves are voted upon by managers & coaches not writers -- a fact which somewhat negates the argument against taking the vote away from the BBWA and the assumption that some other body is automatically going to do a better job.

Nymr83 Dec 18 2007 02:21 PM

Vic Sage wrote: there are any number of statistics voters could use in determining their HOF votes. Its just that many members of the BBWAA are too stupid to understand or use them, and prefer to rely on their subjective ancedotal views. And while stats would not be the sole basis for a determination, because deciding which stats are of must relevance and how best to interpet them are all matters of debate, they should sure as shit establish a rebuttable presumption of either inclusion or exclusion that those who want to assert "intangibles" would have an opportunity to challenge. If we can at least shift the debate to figuring out which accomplishments (objectively measured) should get a player into the HOF, instead of dealing with "I know a HOFer when I see one!" arguments, then that would be cause for some meaure of satisfaction. exactly. but the writers will never get there without a change in the process because right now its the dinosuars club. i'd bet half of them couldn't tell you what OPS+ was and 90% have never heard of VORP.

Vic Sage Dec 18 2007 03:13 PM

current managers and coaches were nowhere on the list of proposed voters that either I or 83 put forth.

metsmarathon Dec 18 2007 03:19 PM

we should play "if you could, who would you remove from the hall of fame?" wouldn't that be fun?

Nymr83 Dec 18 2007 04:11 PM

Tony Perez and Phil Rizzuto. Kirby Puckett, i'm sorry that you got sick but you are NOT a hall of famer.

Valadius Dec 18 2007 04:30 PM

You would kick out Kirby Puckett? Seriously? He had 3,000 hits written all over him before he lost his sight.

Nymr83 Dec 18 2007 04:34 PM

X has Y statistic written all over him before he suffered injury Z. sorry, that argument shouldn't cut it.

Valadius Dec 18 2007 04:40 PM

Well if you've played like a Hall of Famer for at least 10 seasons and you suffer a career-ending injury beyond your control, I think you should be evaluated based on your average performance when compared to other Hall-of-Famers, especially if there's no drop-off period at the end of your career.

Nymr83 Dec 18 2007 05:00 PM

whats an injury "beyond your control"? isn't that pretty much any injury with the possible exception of injuries incurred while participating in dangerous non-baseball activities like washing your car (jeff kent.) you should be evaluated based solely on the time you did play, not speculation as to what would have happened if you'd played more.

metsmarathon Dec 18 2007 06:56 PM

to address your desired expulsion of kirby puckett, i would ask how you would evaluate the candidacy of one ralph kiner.

Nymr83 Dec 18 2007 07:08 PM

Kiner's 10 years were hall-worthy. He is 26th on the career OPS list (36 on OPS+.) Puckett doesn't come close to Kiner's production and doesn't have the longevity to get around that.

Valadius Dec 18 2007 07:14 PM

I'd say that going blind would qualify. Also ALS, cancer, or paralysis, for starters.

Nymr83 Dec 18 2007 07:22 PM

Valadius wrote: I'd say that going blind would qualify. Also ALS, cancer, or paralysis, for starters. vladius: creator of weird mets nicknames and the decider of which injuries/diseases qualify you for cooperstown. my point is that you can't arbitrarily say "well cancer is ok, but losing a leg? no way" a guy's career must stand on it's own merits.

seawolf17 Dec 18 2007 07:39 PM

How do you put Puckett in and not, say, Rice or Dawson? Both those guys kick the hell out of Puckett's career. Yeah, it sucks that his career ended early, but that's tough titties. That said, I don't necessarily have a problem with Puckett specifically; he's just borderline for me.

metsmarathon Dec 18 2007 09:02 PM

="Nymr83"]Kiner's 10 years were hall-worthy. He is 26th on the career OPS list (36 on OPS+.) Puckett doesn't come close to Kiner's production and doesn't have the longevity to get around that. so then you place no value on defense as a means whereby a player could augment his merit?

Nymr83 Dec 18 2007 09:25 PM

sure a player could augment his merit with defense, but he doesn't need to when he's got a 149 OPS+ (kiner)

metsmarathon Dec 19 2007 08:15 AM

if a player played shoddy defense, would it be fair to say that that should detract from his legacy?

Vic Sage Dec 19 2007 09:13 AM

yes, but how much should it detract? And does it detract the same whether a guy is a 1bman or a SS? First, one would have to agree as to the relative value of "fielding" (not "defense") to a player's total contribution. There are a number of studies and stats on this issue,none of which are definitive or flawless by any means. But in the aggregate, the quantitative analysis suggests that: if BASEBALL = 50% OFFENSE + 50% DEFENSE (because every run scored is a run surrendered), and DEFENSE = 75% PITCHING and 25% FIELDING (because the pitcher can dominate a game irrespective of fielding, but even a great defense can't defend against HRs, BBs and line drives to the gaps), and therefore FIELDING is 25% OF 50% = 12.5%, and the 12.5% of BASEBALL that is Fielding is distributed amongst 9 fielders at a time, with the greatest share of that 12.5% going to the catcher, ss and cf, then the fielding of corner players would have to have been so horrific to outweigh their offensive contributions to detract from their major leage legacy that they couldn't actually hold a job on the ML level. And while the fielding of up-the-middle players weighs more heavily, it still would take a pretty bad fielder at important defensive position to outweigh HOF offensive production. In such a case, that up-the-middle player is generally moved to a corner slot or dh, so it becomes a moot point. Contrarily, an up-the-middle defender of such a great magnitude as to be considered HOF worthy would still have to produce a significant amount of offense to be a legit candidate. So, no. Frank thomas is a HOFer and Keith Hernandez is not. And Ozzie Smith became a good offensive player in St.L. Concepcion never really did. So Ozzie is in and Davey is out.

Nymr83 Dec 19 2007 09:26 AM

agree 100% with vic sage. good defense can push you over the top, particularly at a tough defensive spot. i'd be hard pressed to think of a player who i'd keep out because his defense was "bad" but would put in if he had managed to be "below-average to average" with the same offensive production. i'm not saying this player could not hypothetically exist just that i cant identify him.

metsmarathon Dec 19 2007 10:59 AM

the only thing i would add to vic's analysis is to continue out the math as such: offense (50%) + defense (50%) = everything (100%) offense (50%) = defense (50%) offense (50%) = pitching (37.5%) + fielding (12.5%) offense = 4 x fielding (because its all still being divided up amongst 9 guys) so offense is 4x the value of fielding, lets say. but the runs count the same, right? if my defense is so bad that it costs the team a run, that's made up for by my offense being so good that is gains my team a run. there's no 4:1 ratio of defensive runs to offense runs, only that, ostensibly, the opportunity to contribute offensively is greater than the opportunity to contribute defensively. and if i give up that run as a poor fielding shortstop or a poor fielding pitcher, its still the same run that my poor fielding has given up. so if we were to presume that we could measure defense well enough, and quantify it in terms of runs, then this would provide a measure by which we could compare a player's offense to his defense, and measure his entire contribution, and compare that whole-game contribution to the whole game contribution of another player. and then it doesn't matter what position, necessarily, a player played - if his position is more important, he's had greater opportunities to save or cost runs, and the number of runs saved or cost would be determined by the quality of his play at that position. and so a player who cost his team 10 runs in left field would have had the same defensive contribution as a player who cost his team 10 runs in shortstop. and a player who created 90 runs with his bat, but cost his team 10 runs with his glove will have contributed similarly to a player who created only 70 runs with his bat, but saved 10 runs with his glove. now, the latter player might not be as noteworthy, but his contribution to his team was no less.

metsmarathon Dec 19 2007 11:00 AM

Nymr83 wrote: agree 100% with vic sage. good defense can push you over the top, particularly at a tough defensive spot. i'd be hard pressed to think of a player who i'd keep out because his defense was "bad" but would put in if he had managed to be "below-average to average" with the same offensive production. i'm not saying this player could not hypothetically exist just that i cant identify him. what's your stance on DH's?

Vic Sage Dec 19 2007 01:24 PM

]if i give up that run as a poor fielding shortstop or a poor fielding pitcher, its still the same run that my poor fielding has given up. agreed. But in the absence of reliable stats to determine defensive runs, i simply weight the positions by their defensive "importance" (i.e., the positions where most defensive opportunities exist -- up the middle) a run is a run. but until you can measure those runs, the only thing to do is measure the opportunities. As for DHs, if they put up HOF worthy numbers, then they should get votes accordingly. Their defense cannot help them, obviously, but neither should their lack of defensive opportunities be held against them.

Frayed Knot Dec 19 2007 01:41 PM

="Vic Sage"]As for DHs, if they put up HOF worthy numbers, then they should get votes accordingly. Their defense cannot help them, obviously, but neither should their lack of defensive opportunities be held against them. I think it should - not to the point of making them ineligible but at least to a certain extent. The reason they're DHs is because they're not good enough/nimble enough to play anywhere else, even at the less impotant corner spots. To me that it means they'll need to make an even bigger offensive contribution than even a non-descript fielder to get over the bar. The offense is still going to be the main make-or-break factor. But I see being a full-time DH as a bigger strike against borderline candidates than I would almost anyone who played somewhere with a hunk of leather on one hand.

Vic Sage Dec 19 2007 01:53 PM

="Frayed Knot"] ="Vic Sage"]As for DHs, if they put up HOF worthy numbers, then they should get votes accordingly. Their defense cannot help them, obviously, but neither should their lack of defensive opportunities be held against them. I think it should - not to the point of making them ineligible but at least to a certain extent. The reason they're DHs is because they're not good enough/nimble enough to play anywhere else, even at the less impotant corner spots. To me that it means they'll need to make an even bigger offensive contribution than even a non-descript fielder to get over the bar. The offense is still going to be the main make-or-break factor. But I see being a full-time DH as a bigger strike against borderline candidates than I would almost anyone who played somewhere with a hunk of leather on one hand. Yes, some guys are DHs because of defensive insufficiencies, but others are DHs despite being decent fielders, because they are not as good as somebody else at their position on their team; some are good fielders but DH because of persistent injury problems. It's up to the manager to decide what position a player gets to play. And DH is a position. It has certain demands unique to the position. Some would argue that its harder to hit when you're uninvolved in the game. Its like pinch-hitting 4 times a game. Now, certainly, a borderline HOF candidate who was primarily a DH doesn't have the advantage that another borderline player may have who was a good defensive player. And that's an appropriate disadvantage. But i think anybody who counts Molitor's years as a DH against him, or those of Edgar Martinez or Frank Thomas, is just flat out wrong. They played their position and excelled at it.

metirish Dec 20 2007 01:39 PM

Ken Davidoff. [url=http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/baseball/blog/2007/12/my_hall_of_fame_ballot.html]Who I Voted For And Why[/url]

Edgy DC Dec 20 2007 01:45 PM

A problem with Molitor is that he kept getting hurt before he was a DH, and it was arguably the protection that the DH offered him that put his offense onto a Hall of Fame track. That's worth thinking about.

HahnSolo Dec 20 2007 02:05 PM

]Jack Morris: His numbers might not stand out among the all-time greats, and this is a vote on which I could change in the future. ]Dave Parker: He was a Yes for me last year, but I just wasn't feeling him this year. His 339 homers fell short of Dawson and Jim Rice, for instance, as did his .471 slugging percentage. Maybe I'll flip back the other way on him next year, but he's a No for now. ]Lee Smith: I voted Yes last year, but the more intelligent analysis you read about closers, the less you tend to appreciate them. Smith didn't even average 1 1/3 innings per appearance. No. ]Alan Trammell: I went the other way on him: No last year, Yes this year. While I appreciate Davidoff explaining his votes, this drives me crazy. A guy should be a Hall of Famer or he should not be a Hall of Famer. If you vote for him once, you should keep voting for him. Likewise if you vote against a guy.

Edgy DC Dec 20 2007 02:21 PM

Greater context changes perspective. People come 180 degrees in their opinions all the time, and 91 degrees is all you need. That said, "I just wasn't feeling him this year" should get your card revoked. Pretend to take this seriously, folks.

metsmarathon Dec 20 2007 02:42 PM

i'm cool with a quick and dirty yes/no on the clear cut choices. the borderline guys deserve more thoughtful analysis than "i wasn't feeling him" what have you looked at that has changed your perspective? what exactly does bp say about closers? if you're voting rice and dawson in, what does that have to do with parker? shouldn't the comparison be with someone else you keep out? or did we run out of slots on the ballot?

MFS62 Dec 20 2007 04:57 PM

="Edgy DC"]A problem with Molitor is that he kept getting hurt before he was a DH, and it was arguably the protection that the DH offered him that put his offense onto a Hall of Fame track. That's worth thinking about. Molly was the case I was thinking about when I described why I'm against the DH in that long ago post. I feel it artificially prolongs the careers of players who would otherwise have lost games to retirement or injury (or both). And therefore they are able to put up career numbers that challenge those of pre- DH players. The Hall of Fame seems to be a Hall of Numbers lately (where in the bylaws is a "magic number" such as 500 dingers or 3,000 hits or 300 wins?) And that's where the DH helps the candidacy of those players who have amassed their numbers without having to have played a defensive position at the end of their careers. Later

MFS62 Dec 22 2007 08:35 AM

I just recalled something ESPN radio's Max Kellerman said when discussing the HOF. He noted that to be enshrined, a player had to be great, and great over a long period of time. He then said that the way he does this is by writing down a list of the top (pick your own number, he suggested five) players in the game. Then do it again every 2-3 years. If a player shows up on those lists after 10-15 years then they deserve serious consideration for the Hall. My addition -unless their careers were prematurely shortened by injury (Puckett, Koufax) or death (was it Addie Joss, or some other 1920's era pitcher who barely pitched 10 years?). It seems to make sense, and takes the "magic numbers "out of it. Also, a few years ago, I read a piece by Hardball Times writer John Brittain, who used to occasionally visit this forum. In it, he tried to justify the HOF inclusion of "Indian Bob" Johnson. He used some select sabermetrics to prove his point. I've corresponded with him a lot over the years, and I never could get him to admit whether he did it tongue-in-cheek to demonstrate how unimportant some of those numbers really are, or whether he was serious. Later

Valadius Dec 22 2007 01:50 PM

I'd add that if they were considered one of the three best players at their position consistently.

MFS62 Dec 23 2007 08:14 AM

Valadius wrote: I'd add that if they were considered one of the three best players at their position consistently. Which is why I don't think Al Kaline belongs. Yes, he got the "magic" 3,000 hits, but he wasn't even one of the top three right fielders during much of his career (Aaron, F. Robinson, Clemente. Later

Nymr83 Dec 23 2007 10:19 AM

MFS62 wrote: ="Valadius"]I'd add that if they were considered one of the three best players at their position consistently. Which is why I don't think Al Kaline belongs. Yes, he got the "magic" 3,000 hits, but he wasn't even one of the top three right fielders during much of his career (Aaron, F. Robinson, Clemente. Later which is why i think the whole "best at position" thing is arbitrary and bullshit. theres no reason there couldn't have been alot of great players at one position and very few at another position at any given time. judge a guy by what he did.

MFS62 Dec 23 2007 10:46 AM

And, other than being the youngest or second youngest player to win a batting title, Kaline only led his league in one offensive category (doubles?) one year for the rest of his career. I find it difficult to see what he did, other than achieving a "magic number" to deserve enshrinement. Later

Edgy DC Dec 23 2007 11:33 AM

What he did was clobber American League pitching for two decades while winning ten Gold Gloves. You can keep putting "magic" in quotes but if they discluded everyone who only led his league in one thing, they'd be discluding a ton of top players. Numbers he led his league in: Batting Average 1955 Hits 1955 Total Bases 1955 Slugging Percentage 1959 OPS 1959 Intentional Walks 1959 Doubles 1961 Intentional Walks 1963 He regularly ranked among the league leaders in outfield assists, including smashing the competition in 1958 with 23. Year # Rank 1954 16 4 1955 14 T3 1956 18 1 1957 13 3 1958 23 1 with a bullet I'm going to guess they got the memo, because he drops out of double digits for much of the next decade. I have to go pick up my rent-a-car. I'll quickly add that he was exactly what you want a ballplayer to be. As a combination of speed, power, and grace, only Mantle exceeded him, and it showed up in the numbers. His arm was as strong as it was accurate, and he was a class baseball citizen, winning the first Roberto Clemente Award before Clemente's body was cold. Heck, I'd take him over Clemente in a heartbeat, and that's no knock on Roberto. For a topping, he slugged .655 in his only World Series. And he certainly didn't linger long on the BBWAA list before being elected to the Hall of Fame.

MFS62 Dec 24 2007 07:26 AM

Yes, Kaline was a very good ballplayer. Buy to me he was just a notch below enshrinement level. There are others who I feel don't belong from the same era. (Tony Perez, Billy Williams) and some who I feel do (e.g.- Alan Trammell) I think its been posted here, something like if you have to argue about why a player belongs, then he may not. Later

Edgy DC Dec 24 2007 08:00 AM

That argument doesn't hold up logically. If there were five guys in the Hall of Fame, there'd be borderline cases. And as long as somebody's making an argument against a guy --- even one based on non-facts and dubious principles about not leading the league in categories --- it begs somebody to make an argument for him. Sort of like the logic that allows you to call somebody a drunk, and when they deny it, their denial gets noted as a symptom of their drunkeness.

Nymr83 Dec 24 2007 08:40 AM

]Sort of like the logic that allows you to call somebody a drunk, and when they deny it, their denial gets noted as a symptom LOL and if Kaline doesn't belong in the hall how do you explain Eddie Murray? or do you "believe in magic (numbers)" to go along with your other bogus criteria? Dave Winfield? i won't even mention Puckett because you'd have to be a blind and deaf Twins fan to say his career at all matches up to Kaline's.

Edgy DC Dec 24 2007 09:03 AM

A cool thing about Kaline is that he hung them up while he was on the cusp of two big fat round numbers, with 498 doubles and 399 homers at the point of his retirement.

MFS62 Dec 24 2007 10:55 AM

What's gotten lost in this was what Max Kellerman said about greatness over time and his every few years lists. Maybe I gave bad examples. But I felt it deserved mentioning. As for Puckett, reread my comment about careers prematurely shortened due to illness or injury. Later

Edgy DC Dec 24 2007 12:29 PM

What's gotten lost is me.

MFS62 Dec 24 2007 01:19 PM

Edgy DC wrote: What's gotten lost is me. Don't worry about it. My wife tell me that I have that effect on people. :) Later

Vic Sage Jan 04 2008 01:46 PM

one writer's HOF ballot: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=insidedishwhosgettingthe&prov=tsn&type=lgns By Gerry Fraley - SportingNews ]Bert Blyleven -- His career record (287-250) was more a function of his teams than his performance. From 1971-89, he ranked among the league top 10 in ERA 10 times, in innings pitched 11 times and in strikeouts 15 times. He had the gold standard for curveballs. Agreed. ]Andre Dawson -- The National League's best all-round player in the 1980s, Dawson won the MVP in 1987, went to seven all-star games during the decade and also won eight Gold Gloves. Andre is a borderline case, but i've got no beef with anybody who votes for him. ]Goose Gossage -- The proliferation of one-inning saves has diminished Gossage's accomplishments. As a reliever, he pitched more than 100 innings four times, regularly working multiple innings for saves and entering tie games. His presence affected every game. Agreed. ]Jack Morris -- One game does not make a Hall of Famer, but Morris' Game 7 masterpiece in the 1991 World Series might be the exception to the rule. The relentless big-game pitcher also led the '80s in wins (162) and complete games (133) and made 515 consecutive starts during his career. The fact that Black Jack was the winningest pitcher in the 1980s is just an arbitrary numerical fact, where his best years happened to occur during a particular decade. If he was dominant from the mid 1970s through the mid 80s, but didn't lead either decade in wins, would he have been any less of a pitcher? It's a ridiculous comment. Also, saying 1 game doesn't make a HOFer, and then saying he's a HOFer based on 1 game, is similarly stupid. Black Jack was definitely a horse, threw a lot of innings, pitched alot of games, but (as usual) his "big game" rep was formed early and isn't entirely accurate. He pitched in 13 post-season games, and he pitched well in 7 of them, and not well in the other 6. He was a really good pitcher for 15 seasons, but his peak wasn't that high, and even as an "accumulator", he didn't reach any magic numbers. ]Dale Murphy -- No one represented the game better. Murphy won two MVPs, was awarded five consecutive Gold Gloves and had a dozen 20-homer seasons. Murphy was just the opposite. He had a VERY high peak, but didn't last long enough. Still, i understand this vote more than the one for Morris. ]Dave Parker -- The National League's dominant outfielder from 1975-80, Parker won the 1978 MVP and was a two-time batting champion and three-time Gold Glove selection. He would be easy pick if not for off-the-field problems that included his involvement in the Pittsburgh drug trials. I think his borderline candidacy is hurt more by his relative lack of productivity from 1980-84, right in the middle of his prime, before coming back with the Reds with strong 1985-86 seasons, then fading again before finishing strong as a DH for oakland in 1990. ]Alan Trammell -- His feats compare favorably with those of American League contemporary Cal Ripken Jr., in terms of Gold Gloves (four to two) and .300 seasons (seven to five). Trammell also had an important role on strong Detroit teams of the 1980s. Comparing Trammell to Ripken, but only in terms of GGs and .300 seasons, is silly, since Ripken's HOF credentials are based on his power and run production, not to mention his durability, over a long career... none of which can Trammell even come close to. But if Trammell had merely maintained his own level of play after he turned 30, he'd have accumulated the type of numbers which would've made him a HOF lock. But he didn't. And as far as his peak goes, though 1987 was a terrific season, he didn't have 5 other similar seasons at any point in his career. Like Parker, Murphy and Dawson, I don't fault anybody for voting for Trammell, though i'd probably not vote for any of them. ]Tim Raines and Jim Rice received thorough consideration but no vote. Raines' case was hurt by his reluctance to run in all situations, as Rickey Henderson did. Raines seemed at times too concerned about preserving his stolen-base percentage. Rice was a superlative offensive player but lost out because of his sub-par defensive work in left. Raines stole over 800 bases, so his "reluctance to run" is a perception based on idiocy. He was certainly a more descriminating runner than those who just wanted to accumulate SBs. But to say he didn't run just because he wanted to preserve his SB% stats is nuts; Rock understood that unless you're stealing at a very high rate of success, you're actually hurting not helping the offense. That understanding, along with his great OB%, make him one of the players who would've been more appreciated in the modern "moneyball" era of sabrmetrics. And comparing anybody to Ricky is unfair. By that measure no other leadoff hitter would ever get into the HOF. And if you want to damn Rice for creating too many outs in the course of putting up his impressive offensive stats, thats one thing. But to deny him your vote because of subpar defense at the least important defensive position on the field is a bit much for my taste.

AG/DC Jan 04 2008 02:35 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 04 2008 05:48 PM

Welcome to the minority who thinks left field may be less important than first base. That comment about Raines almost discredits the rest of his positions entirely.

Willets Point Jan 04 2008 02:36 PM

Hail AG/DC!

themetfairy Jan 04 2008 02:37 PM

Hail!

Nymr83 Jan 04 2008 02:46 PM

]Raines stole over 800 bases, so his "reluctance to run" is a perception based on idiocy. He was certainly a more descriminating runner than those who just wanted to accumulate SBs. But to say he didn't run just because he wanted to preserve his SB% stats is nuts; Rock understood that unless you're stealing at a very high rate of success, you're actually hurting not helping the offense. exactly. players SHOULD be concerned with their percentage. Raines belongs in the HOF.

HahnSolo Jan 04 2008 03:03 PM

Wow. Yes to Dawson, Murphy, Parker, and Trammell, but no to Jim Rice?

Valadius Jan 08 2008 11:20 AM

40 minutes remain until the results.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 08 2008 11:28 AM

Who's the "Good News Guy" now that Jack Lang is dead at the present time?

AG/DC Jan 08 2008 11:29 AM

OK, I'll go for Rich Gossage Tim Raines Bert Blyleven Alan Trammell

seawolf17 Jan 08 2008 11:44 AM

I couldn't find my votes in this thread. I always use all ten of my votes: Tim Raines Bert Blyleven Andre Dawson Rich Gossage Mark McGwire Jack Morris Dale Murphy Dave Parker Jim Rice Alan Trammell

Benjamin Grimm Jan 08 2008 11:51 AM

The only thing I'm rooting for this time around is a low vote total for McGwire. I hope that his rejection last year wasn't just a result of voters not wanting him to be a first-ballot guy.

sharpie Jan 08 2008 11:53 AM

Gossage and no one else for me. I could be talked into Raines and maybe McGwire.

seawolf17 Jan 08 2008 12:07 PM

Looks like it's just Goose, which is crap. Rice got skrooed.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 08 2008 12:09 PM

I still don;t know what to think of releivers but to say that Gossage appears qualified based on what other RPs in already have accomplished -- he's comparable and in some ways better. I also have been convinced of Blyleven. My instinct is to vote yea on Raines.

seawolf17 Jan 08 2008 12:11 PM

Rich "Goose" Gossage 466 (85.8%) Jim Rice 392 (72.2%) Andre Dawson 358 (65.9%) Bert Blyleven 336 (61.9%) Lee Smith 235 (43.3%) Jack Morris 233 (42.9%) Tommy John 158 (29.1%) Tim Raines 132 (24.3%) Mark McGwire 128 (23.6%) Alan Trammell 99 (18.2%) Dave Concepcion 88 (16.2%) Don Mattingly 86 (15.8%) Dave Parker 82 (15.1%) Dale Murphy 75 (13.8%) Harold Baines 28 (5.2%) You Gotta Be Kidding Me: Rod Beck 2 (0.4%), Travis Fryman 2 (0.4%), Robb Nen 2 (0.4%), Shawon Dunston 1 (0.2%), Chuck Finley 1 (0.2%), David Justice 1 (0.2%), Chuck Knoblauch 1 (0.2%), Todd Stottlemyre 1 (0.2%) Brady Anderson 0 Jose Rijo 0

Benjamin Grimm Jan 08 2008 12:12 PM

MLB.com wrote: In the wake of last month's Mitchell Report, Mark McGwire, the first star player tainted by the steroids era to face the electorate, finished at 23.6 percent, almost exactly the same place as last year, when he also received 128 votes despite hitting 70 homers in 1998 to win his famous record home run race against Sammy Sosa and finishing with 583 in his career. In 2007, McGwire also received an underwhelming 23.5 percent. I'm pleased. Jim Rice, meanwhile, missed by just 16 votes.

seawolf17 Jan 08 2008 12:12 PM

I don't think McGwire will ever get in; Rice should finally be in next year.

Vic Sage Jan 08 2008 12:13 PM

Rich Gossage Tim Raines Bert Blyleven And i wouldn't be upset if Dawson, Parker, Rice, Trammell and/or Murphy got alot of votes, too. I'm on the fence about McGwire. no to Morris, Lee smith

sharpie Jan 08 2008 12:17 PM

I'm pleased. Gossage was the only one that really screamed "Hall of Fame player" at me.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 08 2008 12:19 PM

Spend some time with Roger Clemens. He'll probably scream it at you too.

sharpie Jan 08 2008 12:20 PM

He'd throw a bat shard at me too.

Frayed Knot Jan 08 2008 01:44 PM

Next year is Rice's last shot via the regular process and he'll probably get in then. Of course why someone would vote for him simply because it's the last time around when they didn't during ballots #1-14 is beyond me ... but I suspect that's what'll happen. The vote total for Raines is shockingly low IMO. The 'no one on the first ballot' theory is another one I find perplexing but, even for a 1st try, the pct is so low that it doesn't bode well for 'The Rock' joining the fraternity anytime soon.

Valadius Jan 08 2008 01:52 PM

I knew I'd be angry with the voting today. Jim Rice barely misses. Ridiculous. Tim Raines scores disappointingly low for a clearly worthy player. The one promising thing is that Dawson looks like he will definitely get in soon, and Blyleven may yet get in. I'm hoping Rickey can help carry Rock into the Hall.

Frayed Knot Jan 08 2008 02:03 PM

I suspect Rickey's presence on the ballot (next year) will hurt Rock as there may be a certain portion of voters who don't want to want the lesser of the two similar players to go in first or together. It's an idiotic way to think but I bet it's the case for at least some. Rock's pct might start to go up the year after Rickey's in.

AG/DC Jan 08 2008 02:19 PM

Check out Harold Baines and his 5.2% of the vote, staying alive by a single ballot, more or less.

Valadius Jan 08 2008 03:56 PM

What cap will Goose be wearing? Likely MFYs, I guess.

Vic Sage Jan 08 2008 03:58 PM 2009 BALLOT -- its never too soon to start arguing!

[u:f7d0988f67] Name (year on ballot) - HOFM** / HOFCS** (2008 vote%)[/u:f7d0988f67] Jim Rice (15th) - 146 / 43 (72.2%) * Andre Dawson (8th) - 118 / 43 (65.9%) Bert Blyleven (12th) - 120 / 50 (61.9%) Lee Smith (7th) - 135 / 13 (43.3%) Jack Morris (10th) - 122 / 39 (42.9%) Tommy John (15th) - 111 / 44 (29.1%) * Tim Raines (2nd) - 90 / 46 (24.3%) Mark McGwire (3rd) - 169 / 42 (23.6%) Alan Trammell (9th) - 118 / 36 (18.2%) Don Mattingly (9th) - 133 / 34 (15.8%) Dave Parker (13th) - 125 / 41 (15.1%) Dale Murphy (11th) - 115 / 34 (13.8%) Harold Baines (3rd) - 66.5 / 43 (5.2%) [u:f7d0988f67]1st year[/u:f7d0988f67] Ricky Henderson, and Steve Avery, Jay Bell, Mike Bordick, John Burkett, David Cone, Ron Gant, Mark Grace, Charles Nagy, Denny Neagle, Jesse Orosco, Dean Palmer, Dan Plesac, Rick Reed, Greg Vaughn, Mo Vaughn, Matt Williams, Mike Williams [u:f7d0988f67]off ballot[/u:f7d0988f67] Dave Concepcion (15+) - 106 / 25.9 Robb Nen (1st) - 92 / 15 Chuck Knoblauch (1st) - 66.5 / 33.8 Chuck Finley (1st) - 53.5 /27 David Justice (1st) - 43.5 / 28.7 Rod Beck (1st) - 63 / 13 Brady Anderson (1st) - 38 / 26 Travis Fryman (1st) - 36 / 26.4 Jose Rijo (1st) - 28 / 20 Todd Stottlemyre (1st) - 15 / 13 Shawon Dunston (1st) - 14 / 16.9 * last year on ballot ** HOF monitor [100+ = HOF credentials] ** HOF Career Standards [50+ = average HOFer]

SteveJRogers Jan 08 2008 05:41 PM

Valadius wrote: What cap will Goose be wearing? Likely MFYs, I guess. Should there be any doubt? Most years played, only ring, most of his big save years, including both of his 30+ years. His 4 Padre years are like Carter's Met years, great for the first couple, but downward spiral to player good enough to hang around a few extra years. Other than that it's the White Sox with the first 5 years of his career where he didn't get the closer job until his 4th year, and the next year, 1976, they made him a starter!

SteveJRogers Jan 08 2008 05:47 PM

Inneresting Gossage tidbit, only player to be an active MLB player in every labor related work stoppage. Starting with his first year in 1972, all the way up to his final big league appearance in 1994.

Nymr83 Jan 08 2008 10:59 PM

24% for Raines is a disgrace. strip the other 76% of the writers of their ballots.

AG/DC Jan 08 2008 11:06 PM

I can't think of a National League offensive player I would have rather had for the duration of 1981-1990 (best era in baseball history). Gwynn, maybe. But Gwynn didn't play a full season until 1984.

Gwreck Jan 08 2008 11:16 PM

Dale Murphy and Andre Dawson come to mind as the two closest contenders.

AG/DC Jan 08 2008 11:43 PM

And they're perfectly cromulent contenders. Neither knocks out my guy, though. For my money, it's Raines. The eighties are funny. The game was played with such balance --- particularly in the National League --- that voters are being stingey about pitchers and hitters.

seawolf17 Jan 09 2008 08:00 AM

And at the time, would you have even thought that none of those guys -- Dawson, Raines, Rice, Murphy, Jack Morris -- were HoFers? They ripped up the league, played on All-Star teams every year... they were dominant players who are just not getting any love. I don't get it.

AG/DC Jan 09 2008 08:08 AM

Maybe I just don't care about the American League, but Jack Morris is no big deal to me. Maybe all that astroturf (or a paucity of steroids) just kept players from putting a long fattish tail on the ends of their careers. Of course, some folks thought there were seven Hall-of-Famers in the Reds lineup in the seventies. It turned out there were three, and one of them people are whining about.

sharpie Jan 09 2008 08:12 AM

While they were playing I prolly thought that Dawson and Raines were HOF-worthy. Maybe Rice too. Certainly not Murphy or Morris.

Frayed Knot Jan 09 2008 08:13 AM

I got a kick out of the different POVs that I heard/read in just a few hour span yesterday. - Listened to 'Mike & Mad Dog' on the radio extol the likes of Morris and Rice while declaring Raines to be a close miss and describing Blyleven a total non-candidate - And then checking in [url=http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=402]on this Q & A[/url] with the more stats-oriented Jay Jaffe at Baseball Prospectus who treats Raines & Blyleven as no-brainers but is more wishy-washy on Rice & Morris

AG/DC Jan 09 2008 08:22 AM

M&MD seem to be American League fans. And not deep thinkers.

Frayed Knot Jan 09 2008 08:33 AM

AG/DC wrote: M&MD seem to be American League fans. Mike yes, Mad Dog no. ]And not deep thinkers. Both guilty.